Since 6 February 2026, the Milano Cortina Winter Olympics have been underway, with thousands of athletes competing in 16 disciplines. According to the new President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Kristy Coventry, these and future Games should focus on their core purpose: sport, not politics. But how realistic is such a strict separation in practice?

Whether the Winter Olympics in Russia (2014) or China (2022), the FIFA World Cups in Russia (2018), Qatar (2022), or the upcoming tournament in the United States (2026), one term has hovered around many major sporting events in recent years: sportswashing.

The idea is simple: companies or states use engagement in sport – such as sponsorship or hosting major events – to polish their image and divert attention from issues such as human rights violations.

Tobias Thune Jacobsen, a doctoral researcher at the Chair of Sport Science at Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU), takes a closer look at sportswashing through the example of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.
His article, “Understanding the interplay of sportswashing and soft power in the case of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics,” was published on 28 January 2026 in the journal International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.

Personal experience as a source of inspiration

For Jacobsen, sportswashing is not merely an abstract concept. As a member of the Danish curling team, he experienced the Olympic Games in Beijing firsthand. “That experience certainly fuelled my interest in this field of research”, the sport scientist explains. He is now contributing to the academic examination of a term that originally emerged in journalism.

By analysing media coverage as well as official documents and promotional materials, Jacobsen traces how the People’s Republic of China attempted to use the event, how global reactions unfolded, and which forms of political power are associated with sportswashing.

How sport generates power

On the global political stage, sport has long been used as a means of influence. Research refers to this as a form of soft power. “Unlike hard power – military or economic power – soft power relies on more subtle mechanisms. Cultural attractiveness is meant to help create a positive image of a nation and ultimately strengthen its influence. Sport, as a universal means of communication, plays a central role here”, Jacobsen explains.

In the run-up to the Games in China, debates about human rights violations – such as the treatment of the Uyghur minority – dominated public discourse. Several states announced diplomatic boycotts, meaning they did not send political representatives. Athletes feared they might be barred from participation if they voiced criticism.

China sought to counter these debates. The Games’ slogan, “Together for a Shared Future,” emphasised international unity rather than cultural differences. “Overall, three core elements of the Chinese strategy can be identified: unity, technological innovation, and sustainability. State media continuously reinforced these narratives”, says Tobias Thune Jacobsen.

Whether such efforts are perceived as a legitimate form of soft power or as sportswashing depends on several factors.

Criticism declines over time

One theory suggests that critical voices often diminish over the course of major sporting events. “A media analysis confirms this for Beijing 2022 as well. The frequency of critical terms—such as boycott, human rights, or Uyghurs—declined in European media coverage”, Jacobsen reports. One could therefore argue that perceptions became more positive over time—shifting from the notion of sportswashing toward a more favourable form of soft power.

Strict restrictions imposed on both media and athletes also frequently enabled the host nation to control the narrative of the Games and minimise criticism. The IOC played a key role in this context, as awarding the Games to China in the first place opened the door to the potential generation of soft power.

Is it always about external perception?

For authoritarian states, successful sportswashing remains a complex endeavour, as objectionable conditions inevitably come into focus. Yet international reputation is not the sole objective. “Sportswashing can also be directed inward, aiming to invoke a sense of national unity, legitimise the political system, and potentially even deliberately create a ‘us-versus-them’ mentality. Research refers to this as negative soft power”, Jacobsen explains.

In this case, sporting success is used to underscore the strength of the system. Chinese athletes contributed their share: with a total of 15 medals – nine of them gold – China achieved its most successful Winter Olympics to date.
If the underlying goals are at least as much domestic as they are international, Tobias Thune Jacobsen argues that the Western perspective must be reconsidered. “To better capture this interplay, I have developed the concept of reverse sportswashing. In analogy to negative soft power, we need to consider the possibility that regimes deliberately turn accusations of sportswashing to their advantage to strengthen their domestic power."

The debate on sportswashing is therefore more complex than it is often portrayed; a purely moral judgement does not do it justice. “If we truly want to understand how and why sport is used politically, we need critical journalism and research. Simple dichotomies – sportswashing: yes or no? Boycott: yes or no? – are not sufficient.”