The 2024 Summer Olympic Games kick off in Paris this week as the world’s most elite athletes representing more than 200 countries gather in the French capital to compete for gold. Over the next two weeks, we’ll see triumphant wins, heartbreaking losses, superhuman feats of strength, and touching displays of international sportsmanship. But politics loom large at the Olympics, threatening to overshadow the City of Light’s big celebration. Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World Podcast to discuss the biggest stories heading into the 2024 Olympics, including the ban on Russia’s Olympic Committee, calls for Israeli athletes to compete under a neutral flag, and security concerns at what Jenkins calls “the most sprawling and urban Olympics in history.”
The 2024 Summer Olympic Games kick off in Paris this week as the world’s most elite athletes representing more than 200 countries gather in the French capital to compete for gold. Over the next two weeks, we’ll see triumphant wins, heartbreaking losses, superhuman feats of strength, and touching displays of international sportsmanship. But politics loom large at the Olympics, threatening to overshadow the City of Light’s big celebration. Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World Podcast to discuss the biggest stories heading into the 2024 Olympics, including the ban on Russia’s Olympic Committee, calls for Israeli athletes to compete under a neutral flag, and security concerns at what Jenkins calls “the most sprawling and urban Olympics in history.” They also dig into the problem with Saudi sportswashing, the NBA’s financial interest in China, and a transformative WNBA season that’s bringing more eyeballs to games than ever before.
Ian Bremmer:
Hello and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. This is where you'll find extended versions of my interviews on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and with President Biden's stunning withdrawal from the 2024 race, Democrats have acted with remarkable speed and solidarity pass the torch Vice President Kamala Harris. And at the same time, the world's most elite athletes are gathering along the Seine in Paris to light a more literal torch of the Olympic variety. You see what I did there? Look, the US presidential campaign has already had more twists and turns than Olympic surfing competition. A new sport this year, by the way, in the former French colony of Tahiti, of all places. Wish I was going. But the world will keep spinning regardless what political bombshell drops next in Washington. So today I offer you that precious of all gifts, an episode about something other than the political horse race here at home.
But don't think this is going to be some kind of kumbaya, “we are the world” Olympics show because geopolitics loom large at this year's Games. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, threats of terrorism, disinformation, and the outcry over the removal of migrant encampments in Paris all threaten to overshadow the City of Light's big celebration. And then there's the IOC itself, which has drawn criticism in recent years for its troubling closeness with authoritarian regimes. They awarded the Games to Russia in 2014, China in 2008 and again in 2022 despite ongoing human rights abuses in both countries. Calls are growing for more transparency in the IOC, which has faced accusations of corruption, of bribery and of bid rigging. Now, the IOC insists the Olympics aren't at all political, but has that ever really been the case? I'm talking about sports, politics, and how they overlap at the Olympics and beyond with my guest, Sally Jenkins. She's a bestselling author and Washington Post sports columnist who, despite the controversies, calls the Games, "One of the great competitive miracles we all get to watch." Let's get to it.
Sally Jenkins, thanks for joining us.
Sally Jenkins:
My pleasure.
Ian Bremmer:
This is our first show on sports. So, who knows where it's going to go. But it's about time. We've got the Paris Olympics coming up and what are you excited about, worried about?
Sally Jenkins:
Well, the French are trying to do something that's so elaborate. I think the first cause of concern is the opening ceremonies themselves on the Seine where they're planning to have over 300,000 spectators, boats, people lined up on the balconies of these ancient old homes along the Seine. The logistics of the opening ceremonies will be the first real test because there's so much that could go wrong, and yet they're trying to do this really massive undertaking. Normally an opening ceremonies is in a stadium with maybe 80,000 people. You're talking about something that's three times more complicated than anything any country has attempted to do before with an opening ceremonies.
Ian Bremmer:
At a time of not only great disinformation, but with a major war going on in Europe and the Russians causing a lot of trouble. I just saw this headline, which is quite crazy about them trying to assassinate the CEO of the most important German arms manufacturer. I mean, you have to think that the French Olympics are an attractive target for them right now.
Sally Jenkins:
Of course, they are and this is really the first time that the IOC, which normally is the great friend of dictators, it's certainly at the moment very close to Xi Jinping, to the point that they actually exonerated 23 swimmers who tested positive for drugs. This is the first time that the IOC has really made an enemy out of Vladimir Putin. Normally they're sitting with Putin in a VIP box. Normally Putin is considered a great friend to the Olympics. But in this case, because of the sanction against Russian athletes over the Ukraine war, you've got a real enemy in Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Putin does not deal kindly with his enemies.
Ian Bremmer:
I mean, they can still participate, the Russian athletes, they're still allowed to participate by the Russian government, but under a neutral IOC flag.
Sally Jenkins:
Correct. So Putin doesn't get quite the prestige that he would like from an Olympics exercise, which is what he's really in it for. The reason he hosted the Sochi Games was to disarm the world on the eve of his antics and invasions. And so he's not getting that now that Russians will be stigmatized by competing under this neutral flag, and it's a blow to his prestige, and he's clearly quite angry about it. And the campaign of disinformation so far has been really, really ugly. And there's no evidence whatsoever that when Putin is unhappy, he just stops at disinformation.
Ian Bremmer:
Yeah, there's been a lot of fake AI generated disinformation I've seen. Compared to other Olympics that you've covered, and you've covered a bunch of them, are your concerns highest in the run-up to France?
Sally Jenkins:
Yes. Normally the concerns over an Olympics are largely environmental. There's been COVID Olympics where you really worried about the IOC's transparency and honesty in whether they could keep so many athletes and spectators safe from germs, okay? There have been other Olympics where you knew, for instance in Rio, that the water athletes would be swimming in was not going to be clean despite every promise. This is different by several magnitudes because one of the things Russia is doing with its AI campaign and its cyber campaign it appears, is whipping up fears of terrorism which in turn may invite terrorism. The Palestinian issue is really frightening in its vehemence and some of the AI that appears to be coming from Russian sources is almost baiting them, if you ask me. I mean, I'm not a national security expert, but it certainly is inviting the idea of violence in Paris.
Ian Bremmer:
Now, French leaders I've spoken to, I mean, have absolutely raised the alarm specifically about Russia disinfo and cyber intrusions in the past months, and it does seem like they are bearing the brunt of those efforts right now.
Sally Jenkins:
I mean, one of the things that they could cause is panic, youw know, in areas with really, really large groups of people. I mean, this is going to be the most urban Olympics and also one of the most sprawling Olympics I've ever seen. You're talking about events in all the major districts in Paris, inside Paris, in very old stadiums. One of the great things about the Paris Olympics is that they haven't built a whole lot of new structures. They're actually going to be holding events at already existing buildings that are very entrenched deeply into the city of Paris. They're also going to be holding events across the entire country. They're going to be having events in Marseilles. They're having surfing in Tahiti. So it's a really, really sprawling logistical problem. And between drones, cyber security and all of the new concerns in the world, you know, this is going to be the most difficult Olympics to secure by a long shot.
Ian Bremmer:
I was wondering to myself if part of the reason that Macron was interested in calling snap elections is because he recognizes the uncertainty and the Olympics might not be as much of a celebration as he would otherwise have hoped and expected.
Sally Jenkins:
You know, probably one of the most joyous Olympics I ever attended was London, and Athens was also that way. Urban Olympics can be really joyous affairs and they can be great, great celebrations of wonderful, magnificent cultures. And that's what you would hope for Paris. That's why they wanted the Olympics. But honestly, they really are facing problems that London and Athens, even those two cities did not face.
Ian Bremmer:
So politics all over these Olympics given the world we're living in right now. You mentioned the Palestinian issue. A lot of Palestinians saying that the Israelis should have to also compete under a neutral flag given the war in Gaza right now. How much do you think politics should and should not play a role in the Olympics generally? The athletes clearly have very, very different views about this.
Sally Jenkins:
Well, you know, the Olympic truce is a wonderful idea and in large measure it can work. I think one of the reasons other Olympics have been secure in dicey situations is because there's been so much brotherly collaboration between governments that otherwise have tensions. They all agree to set things aside and cooperate in sharing security and contributing to the enormous cost of that. But, you know, this is probably one of the most divisive eras we've ever faced, and you've got some actors here who are not necessarily rational government actors, right? And so that's part of the problem.
Now, I'll say this, I think that if Putin wants to crawl back into, you know, some sort of brotherhood of government leaders, this is a good opportunity to do it. To actually become part of the solution here rather than the creator of tension. That might go a long way towards resolving some of his issues. And by the way, Russia is a sports crazy nation. One of the reasons the Sochi Games was important to him, and one of the reasons why he's so irritated is because they do love their competition just like we do. So things like boycotts and things like sanctions can really hurt him domestically, and I think that's one reason why he's aggravated.
You know, as far as politics and the Olympics, one of the great acts of resistance that really, really worked was the boycott of South Africa. South Africa, very badly in the end, wanted to join the international sports movement because sports were very important to that country. Boycotts work in the Olympics. We saw it with South Africa. And so from that standpoint, I think it's very, very important what the IOC did with Russia. It's one of the few acts of real courage the IOC has ever committed, and so I think they're to be congratulated for that.
Ian Bremmer:
No, indeed. If you look at sanctions, which are generally spotty, the divestment movement broadly against South Africa was clearly something that helped move them beyond apartheid. Problem being that frequently authoritarian countries who benefit from a level of isolation, control of their populations and blamemanship are more challenged in the way you motivate them that way. But clearly it's a tool and I see that embarrassment of Putin being a problem.
Now, on the other hand, an authoritarian country that has done a much better job with sports recently has been Saudi Arabia. I mean throwing an enormous amount of money around into golf, into tennis, into the World Cup very successfully, and also bringing young people in an environment where there hasn't been an awful lot of entertainment. Bringing women in an environment where they've not had equal opportunities at all, suddenly creating real reform inside their society. Talk a little bit about the sportswashing debate and the pros and cons there.
Sally Jenkins:
Well, you're talking to someone who works for The Washington Post, and so my view of Saudi Arabia is not nearly as congratulatory. You know, I think Saudi Arabia actually has a lot more to prove before they should be allowed to invest-
Ian Bremmer:
And by the way, I mean just for the audience, let me make it clear when you say The Washington Post. It's because of course Jamal Khashoggi, who was assassinated by the Saudi regime, was a Washington Post reporter.
Sally Jenkins:
Yeah, so Washington Post columnist assassinated by the regime. I will be much more willing to look at Saudi Arabia's reforms and so-called progress on say, women's rights when they stop kidnapping women. When they stop arresting women merely for protesting basic civil rights issues. So I actually think that the world is being far too kind to Saudi Arabia.
Look, there's Saudi Arabian money in your toothpaste, right? I mean, there's nothing wrong with Saudi investments in American companies and in American exercises. There are tons of companies that accept that money. To me, the appropriate limit for whether you're talking about the IOC accepting sponsorship or whether you're talking about the US Open tennis tournament accepting sponsorship dollars, American companies do a very, very sensible thing, most of them. They cap capital foreign investment at 20%. So in other words, a foreign government cannot buy the NBA because their investment is limited to 20%. That to me is the real common sense solution for bodies like the IOC. We should never be in a position where we allow Saudi Arabia to simply buy golf, which is what they've been attempting to do, or simply buy women's tennis, which is something they're attempting to do simply in order to look better both at home and abroad.
Sportswashing is important, not just because it's a moral issue. Sportswashing is important because the more you entangle foreign money with your companies and with your entities, the harder it is for our State Department to do its job and our presidents to do their job by drawing red lines because the stakes rise with the finances. That's why it matters, and that's why things like the Olympics matter as far as sportswashing. You don't want Chinese money or Saudi Arabian money so compromised you that you cannot take the right diplomatic stand.
Ian Bremmer:
And it did seem that the PGA was both hands up and we want that cash after a long time having a very, very different position, right? I mean, the money spoke very loudly.
Sally Jenkins:
Oh, they were totally raising the white flag. I mean, it was one of the most hypocritical acts I've ever seen a commissioner of golf commit. One day, Jay Monahan was standing with 9/11 families and the next day making a backroom deal that he didn't even tell his own players about to accept billions in cash to literally sell the tour to Saudi Arabia. It was an absolutely contemptible series of events, and the backlash was so significant that they obviously have had to walk it back. I think what you'll end up seeing with the PGA Tour and LIV Golf is again, and Tom Watson was the first person to point this out, some kind of sensible cap on Saudi money that does not turn over governorship of worldwide golf to the state fund of Saudi Arabia.
Ian Bremmer:
So I mean, we've got all of these organizations. The World Cup, the IOC, you've got PGA, they all seem to have different sorts of challenges in terms of where their values are and are not, and what money means to them. I want to ask you about the NBA, which on the one hand has seen to be really leaning into a whole bunch of political issues that would be seen as forward-looking and progressive in the United States. I also see that China's an absolutely critical market for them, and they have been deeply problematic in the way they've responded, for example, to Hong Kong issues, to Taiwan issues and others. Talk to me a little bit about that.
Sally Jenkins:
It's really interesting. You know, scholars of Chinese tactics call it the anaconda in the chandelier. When you accept Chinese wealth, when you do business with China, it's like letting the anaconda into your house and it will slowly start to squeeze you. It lurks overhead as an implicit threat when you do business with China, and that is what you're seeing with the NBA. You're seeing the anaconda in the chandelier. Enormous wealth is coming out and enormous exposure is coming out of that relationship, and yet China can squeeze the NBA, and this is the danger in over-engagement. Engagement is good, but when you literally leverage yourself so commercially that you've let the anaconda into your house, into your cell phones, into your TikTok videos, you are really asking to be choked to death.
Ian Bremmer:
So what's the major sports industry that's doing the best job in your view, and why?
Sally Jenkins:
Well, I don't know that any of them are doing a really great job. I think they're all struggling with these issues because they blithely accepted so much foreign money for so long and because for so long there was this misapprehension that commercial engagement and capitalism would change the behaviors of these states, and it's quite the opposite. What we've discovered from all of this engagement, and people were allowed to make these mistakes, it's one thing to go to Beijing for the Olympics once, but to go twice was a serious mistake. What you find is that we are not changing their behaviors, they're changing our behaviors. And this is a critical point. That idea that somehow we could change China's behavior, that Xi Jinping was going to be someone else, that Vladimir Putin was going to behave as someone else just because he loved Western money has turned out to be utterly false.
Ian Bremmer:
Absolutely.
Sally Jenkins:
We see that now with the Paris Olympics and Putin's behavior towards this Olympics.
Ian Bremmer:
I mean, wouldn't we be better off at the end of the day if we just got rid of all the flags at these events and just let athletes compete as athletes?
Sally Jenkins:
I don't think the flags are the problem. I think the United States Olympic movement is one of the great opportunities for kids in this country. I think that it's aspirational. I love the Olympic movement. One of the things that happens at every Olympics is that the kids come in, the athletes come in and they clean it all up. Their effort and their commitment to compete for four high stakes minutes after training for four years is one of the great competitive miracles we all get to watch. And it's a remarkable event in that way. They really scraped the grime off the Olympics for me in a lot of ways. Sha'Carri Richardson when she runs, or a Simone Biles when she competes, you forget everything.
Ian Bremmer:
I agree with that, but that wasn't my question. My question, because these are tremendous kids aren't cleaning it up because they come from the Czech Republic or the United States, they're cleaning it up because they're incredible kids.
Sally Jenkins:
But they come from cultures, and one of the things the Olympics can do is celebrate those cultures. So I don't think the flags are the problem. I think the commerce is the problem. Clean up the commerce. I think the money is where, if you start to organize, as we've been talking about in this whole conversation, if you start to organize the sponsorship ties in a more sensible way, if you use the awarding of the Games themselves as a reward rather than as an act of corruption, then I think the flags are okay. But if we continue to award Olympics to bad actors just for their cash, just because we've bloated the Olympics so badly that we don't have any legit offers to hold these games in places that celebrate human rights, and so we're going to human rights violators, and as they're building stadiums, they're committing even more human rights violations, then you're right. Take the flags away.
Ian Bremmer:
How about if we make the IOC a little bit more like the IMF, and if you're granting an Olympics to a major country, there are reforms that are actually intrinsic and required in order for you to pull those Games off?
Sally Jenkins:
Unfortunately, that is supposed to be in place. The Olympic Charter, the Olympic contract supposedly holds the host to those very things, and they violate them every single time. And every human rights organization on the face of the earth pleads with the IOC for four years, "Please hold them to their contract," and they allow Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin to break the contracts every single time. They displace people, they beat people, they hit them with cattle prods when you're not cooperating in the great state ideology and state exercise of hosting the Olympics for international prestige. And so that's the problem.
One potential solution, I think number one, I think that the IOC should have to turn over its governing membership much, much more rapidly. You've got people who've been in there for 40, 50 years, number one.
Ian Bremmer:
Really?
Sally Jenkins:
So new leaders-
Ian Bremmer:
On the board?
Sally Jenkins:
Yes, on the board, which really entrenches corruption. Number two, there is something to be said for thinking about holding the Olympics on one site and not awarding it to different cities.
Ian Bremmer:
Every time.
Sally Jenkins:
Every time.
Ian Bremmer:
Just give it to Greece. Give it to Greece. That'd be the right way to do it, right?
Sally Jenkins:
Yeah. I mean, go to Greece for the Summer Olympics.
Ian Bremmer:
I mean, you wouldn't have to build out more architecture every time.
Sally Jenkins:
Right. It'd be cheaper. Be cheaper-
Ian Bremmer:
They've got Acropolis. I mean, you probably need to renovate it a little. It's showing its age.
Sally Jenkins:
The Athens games were my favorite games ever. They were magnificent.
Ian Bremmer:
You mentioned that before. I mean, I love London for the opening ceremony was fantastic.
Sally Jenkins:
It was.
Ian Bremmer:
But in terms of the games as a whole, I thought Athens was better.
Sally Jenkins:
Yeah, I mean, there was something great about seeing a triathlon being conducted literally along the Horse Guards Parade in London. Those things are really thrilling, and I hope they go well for Paris. I truly do.
Ian Bremmer:
The Greeks also do democracy better than we do. I mean, they've been at it for longer. So there's that.
Sally Jenkins:
Well, they did start it. Yeah.
Ian Bremmer:
I got to ask you, because I don't know who else to ask, about the WNBA. Okay? Because I mean now suddenly we're watching it, right? And there has historically been literally zero money in it. I mean, they're traveling and broken down buses and I mean, they don't have sponsorship deals and all this. The salaries are horrible. And now it's suddenly changing. Is it changing in the right way?
Sally Jenkins:
I think it is. I mean, just the fact that these women will be able to make a living in the United States playing basketball rather than having to go overseas and get arrested by Putin's government.
Ian Bremmer:
Oh, geez, I completely forgot. We had that issue with Russia and Brittney Griner. Geez, we can't avoid Putin in this conversation.
Sally Jenkins:
Every good WNBA player was having to go to Russia every year to play basketball to make a living wage in addition to their more paltry WNBA salaries. And so one of the things that's happening here is that you're going to see American women able to stay home to make a living and not have to take that kind of risk. So that's the biggest bonus I can see from all this.
But more broadly, what's really interesting is you are seeing 50 years of women's sports experiences accelerated into like fast-forward frames. What you're seeing with the WNBA just in the last year, that's been the experience of all women in sports over 50 years in this country. You know, Title IX was really the closest thing to an equal rights amendment that passed. The secret history of the women's movement came through athletics, not through politics. That's what's so interesting. Women have proven their physical and emotional competency and overcome these notions that they were handicapped by frailties through women's sports in this country. And it became a worldwide movement. And you're seeing that encapsulated in one moment in this particular sport, and it's really thrilling.
Ian Bremmer:
One of the things I love about the US Open, you get seats to go and it brings New York together. It's wonderful, and you don't really care if you're going to a women's match or a men's match. I mean, it's incredible world-class tennis. And that feels like such a normal and obvious thing, and yet for so long it was anything. And now we're seeing that starting to happen in basketball really, really quickly. It's like you flipped the switch.
Sally Jenkins:
Yeah. I mean, what's that saying is that it happens slow until it happens fast. It can seem like nothing is really happening, nothing's really moving, and then all of a sudden, these seismic very profound cultural shifts happen all at once. But it's because of that 50-year buildup. The tidal wave has been coming. It's been building to a crest. I'm not sure we've crested it yet. I mean, when you have 2.3 million peoples watching Indiana play Chicago on a Sunday night, a work night in the middle of July, something big is happening. The big question for women's sports was always, could they ever do that? People would watch a US Open final. They would watch an Olympics gymnastics or figure skating event, or a gold medal game that featured Diana Taurasi or Candace Parker, but would they watch Indiana versus Chicago on a weeknight in really large numbers? And that has happened.
Ian Bremmer:
Absolutely. Sally Jenkins, thanks so much for joining us on GZERO today.
Sally Jenkins:
My pleasure.
Ian Bremmer:
That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of course you do. Why not make it official? Why don't you rate and review GZERO World, five stars, only five stars, otherwise don't do it, on Apple Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Tell your friends.