Dr. Jana Wiske
Professor of resort journalism and public relations at the Ansbach University of Applied Sciences, Germany. Prior to this she worked as a sports journalist for kicker-sportmagazin for 15 years, covering a range of events including the Olympics. She continues to work as freelance writer and advises in crisis communication and personal branding in sports.
Twitter: @janchen_wi
Email: j.wiske@hs-ansbach.de
“We only want to play football”—this statement has become increasingly common among elite athletes competing on the world’s biggest sporting stages. Yet global events such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup no longer allow players to remain only athletes. Hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the tournament unfolded in a highly politicized environment shaped by debates on migration, international conflicts, national identity, and global power relations. Press conferences frequently extended beyond tactics or performance, with players expected to comment on issues they neither initiated nor controlled.
Athletes have developed from performers into public communicators whose words—and increasingly their silence—influence public discourse, organizational reputation, and media narratives. Communication has become an integral component of professional sport rather than merely an accompanying activity.
Three cases from the World Cup illustrate different dimensions of political communication in elite sport. The Iranian national team became entangled in geopolitical conflict, U.S. striker Folarin Balogun found himself at the center of allegations of political interference in sporting governance, while Argentina’s players used their global visibility to communicate a political message after reaching the World Cup final.
Few teams experienced more difficult circumstances than Iran. The escalation of military conflict between the United States and Iran shortly before the tournament transformed the team’s participation into far more than a sporting challenge. Security concerns affected travel arrangements throughout the competition. The Iranian delegation was not permitted to stay overnight in the United States between matches and instead had to relocate repeatedly to neighboring host countries before travelling back for fixtures. Sporting preparation was therefore shaped by extraordinary logistical and political constraints.
The political situation also dominated media coverage. Questions about the conflict between the United States and Iran frequently overshadowed football itself, placing players in an impossible position. Any political statement carried risks—both internationally and at home. Criticism of the Iranian government could have consequences for relatives in Iran, while expressions of patriotism risked criticism from Western audiences.
This case illustrates an important principle of crisis communication. Silence should not automatically be interpreted as indifference. Instead, it may represent a deliberate communication strategy under conditions of considerable political pressure. Iranian footballers became political communicators not because they actively sought this role but because geopolitical conflict transformed every public appearance into a political event.
A different communication challenge emerged around U.S. striker Folarin Balogun. After receiving a red card during the tournament, Balogun initially appeared set to miss the knockout match against Belgium. However, the suspension was subsequently lifted, allowing him to play. Several international media outlets reported that the decision of FIFA may have been influenced by political pressure from the U.S. Regardless of whether these reports reflected the actual decision-making process, media attention quickly shifted from football to questions concerning the independence of sporting governance and the potential influence of politics on international sport.
Balogun suddenly found himself at the center of an international controversy that he had not created. Rather than commenting on the political debate, he deliberately limited his public statements to football, emphasizing his focus on the team while avoiding speculation about the disciplinary decision. His response showed a delicate touch in handling the situation. Instead of shaping the political narrative, Balogun sought to protect both his credibility and his team’s preparation.
Political communication at the World Cup was not limited to situations imposed on athletes. In some cases, players actively used the tournament as a political platform. After defeating England in the semi-final, members of the Argentine national team celebrated with a banner declaring that “The Falkland Islands belong to Argentina.” The message referred to the long-standing territorial dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and immediately attracted worldwide media attention.
Although intended as an expression of national identity, the action blurred the boundaries between sporting success and political communication. International media debated whether football should serve as a stage for geopolitical messages or remain politically neutral. Once again the sporting achievement itself quickly became secondary to the political symbolism surrounding it.
Although the situations of Iran, Balogun, and Argentina differ fundamentally, they reveal the same underlying phenomenon: elite athletes increasingly compete in two arenas—on the pitch and in the public sphere. Political actors, journalists, and social media shape communication environments that extend far beyond sport itself. Athletes are expected not only to perform but also to respond appropriately to complex societal issues.
Traditional media training especially prepares athletes for interviews about tactics, preparation, or performance. Contemporary mega-events, however, require broader competencies. Players must increasingly understand crisis communication, stakeholder expectations, intercultural communication, and the political implications of public statements. They represent not only themselves but also clubs, sponsors, federations, and their countries.
The cases of Iran, Folarin Balogun, and Argentina demonstrate three distinct forms of political communication in elite sport: communication imposed by geopolitical conflict, communication triggered by political controversy, and communication initiated by athletes themselves. Preparing athletes for future mega-events should therefore no longer focus exclusively on physical, tactical, or psychological performance. Communication competence, particularly in politically sensitive environments, must become an essential element of athlete education. Only then will elite athletes be adequately prepared for the demands of modern international sport.
