Türkiye and Spain have led calls for Israel to be treated like Russia in 2022, and expelled from UEFA, FIFA and Olympic competitions, but most sporting boycotts have not changed states' behaviour
As a keen Aston Villa fan, I have been closely following the debate about the possible expulsion of Israeli clubs from UEFA competitions, given that my team is scheduled to play Maccabi Tel Aviv in the Europa League in November. While calls to ban Israeli athletes from competing in international competitions have been made by advocates of the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement for decades, the horrors of the Gaza conflict have helped build momentum.
After the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry announced in September that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, UN figures, experts and several governments doubled down on their demands for a sports boycott. Since then, Donald Trump’s successful brokering of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has cooled the issue somewhat, meaning Tel Aviv may yet visit Villa Park. But it is unlikely the idea will go away, and some will promote a ban as a viable tool to pressure Israel.
An age-old measure
Sports boycotts, according to the Economist, are “almost as old as sport itself,” with ancient Athens threatening to withdraw from a 4th-century BC Olympic Games after one of its athletes was accused of cheating. In the modern era, sporting bans and boycotts have been used as levers to try to change government behaviour. For example, the US and 66 other countries boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.
Four years earlier, 29 countries—mostly from Africa and the Arab world—boycotted the Montreal games because the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had not sanctioned New Zealand for its rugby team touring Apartheid South Africa. More recently, US diplomats boycotted the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, protesting China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims, though its athletes still competed. More dramatically, Russia’s football teams were expelled from FIFA and UEFA competitions, and its athletes were banned from the Olympics after Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
The effectiveness of these measures, however, must be questioned. Despite the US being absent from its usual position near the top of the 1980 Olympic medal table, the boycott had little impact, and the Soviet Union remained in Afghanistan for another nine years. Similarly, the 1976 boycott did not immediately alter New Zealand’s position. South Africa was invited to tour in 1981—albeit amid widespread protests—which led to it being the last such visit until the Apartheid regime fell.
While Israel's genocidal policies have enflamed large swathes of public opinion against it across the world, it hasn't faced significant international sanctions
China's treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang was not impacted by the absence of US diplomats from the Winter Olympics, with the presence of American competitors underlining the half-hearted, performative nature of the US's objections. Meanwhile, Russia's formal absence from Olympic, FIFA and UEFA competitions for three years does not yet appear to have had any bearing on Putin's approach to Ukraine. Despite their popularity, the vast majority of sporting boycotts and bans do not change governmental behaviour.
The South African exception
The big exception is Apartheid South Africa, making it the exemplar for the BDS movement and others to rally around. From 1964, South Africa was banned from the Olympic Games, and by 1988, the International Olympic Committee declared it was against apartheid in all sports. While initially sporting boycotts were led by post-colonial African states, eventually Western governments were pressured into joining. By the time that Apartheid fell, South Africa was an international sporting pariah.
The sporting boycott clearly played a role in Apartheid's collapse. One 1990 poll stated that nearly 75% of white South Africans, known for their love of sports, said they felt the impact of the boycott strongly. This suggests the boycott contributed to their support for FW De Klerk's decision to engage with Nelson Mandela and end the apartheid regime. But the boycott was only effective because it came alongside other factors.
Yes, White South Africans were frustrated by their international sporting isolation. Still, they were also impacted by the economic sanctions placed on the regime and the ongoing violent insurgency waged by Apartheid's opponents. There was similarly a significant civil society campaign, involving white alongside black and mixed-race activists, against the regime.
Significantly, the final collapse of Apartheid came amid major geopolitical shifts. The end of the Cold War meant the Apartheid regime had gradually lost its value as a bulwark against Communism in Africa, so various Western governments ended their opposition to sanctions in the mid-1980s, facilitating Apartheid's fall.
Moreover, by the time Nelson Mandela was released from prison, South Africa had been under some form of sports boycott for nearly 30 years. It was a slow cumulative process that, in conjunction with other factors, helped persuade some White South Africans to change course.
Demonstration demanding the suspension of the EuroLeague basketball game between Baskonia and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Spain on February 7, 2025.
Israel in the hot seat
Israel today is in quite a different position. Türkiye and Spain have led calls for Israel to be treated like Russia in 2022, and expelled from UEFA, FIFA and Olympic competitions. The UEFA even proposed a meeting to discuss suspending Maccabi Tel Aviv and the Israeli national team from competitions, though this was paused after Trump's ceasefire plan was announced.
There have similarly been protests against Israeli teams in international cycle races, with suggestions that they be excluded. However, even if these were to come into force—and there is no guarantee they would be, given opposition within UEFA from states like Germany and Hungary, and within FIFA from the US—those expecting a repeat of the South African case should be cautious.
Firstly, this would be the first such sporting boycott Israel has faced. Given that it took 30 years for the boycott of South Africa to deliver, and the lack of success of other sporting boycotts discussed above, it's clear that announcing a ban alone is insufficient. Secondly, the complementary factors that were present in South Africa are largely absent in Israel today.
A Palestinian flag and protest banner are raised during a protest in the city centre against Maccabi Tel Aviv during the UEFA Europa League football tournament in Greece, September 24, 2025.
While Israel's genocidal policies have enflamed large swathes of public opinion against it across the world, it hasn't faced significant international sanctions despite the BDS movement's efforts. Moreover, geopolitics remain in Israel's favour, and it retains the support of substantial Western countries, especially the US, unlike South Africa in the late 1980s.
History suggests that, even if boycotters were able to persuade a critical mass of nations to ban Israel from sporting competitions, it would be insufficient alone to shift Israeli public opinion and, by extension, government behaviour. The South African example that BDS and others hold up as a model suggests many more measures would be needed for the ban to have an effect. That does not mean the effort is without merit, but that it would likely only succeed alongside other measures rather than on its own.
That said, some might argue that the threat of a boycott has already had an effect. It cannot be known whether UEFA's discussions on suspending Israeli teams had any bearing on Netanyahu's decision to accept Trump's ceasefire plan. Still, perhaps the growing isolation of Israel by the international community, including in sports, may have had some influence.
Certainly, BDS advocates and others could argue that the threat of a boycott had some effect and will no doubt continue to advocate for it to pressure Israel in the future. However, the general failure of sports boycotts elsewhere would suggest they'd need a lot more alongside a sporting ban to force major policy shifts.
