Is the Euro unpolitical?

These days in Europe, no one would any longer doubt the truly political nature of the common currency, the Euro. After all, it is an open secret that the Euro’s architects thought of it as a vehicle to create the political union they could not achieve at the time after the end of the Cold War. Yet, this commentary is about the other event that drags people onto the streets in Europe these days, i.e. the European Soccer Championship, dubbed Euro 2012.

As a sports event, the organising UEFA would like to think of the tournament as a purely non-political affair. Yet just as in the other arts business, say singing, major events often turn political – either involuntarily or purposefully as planned by the organisers. Witness the Eurovision Song Contest recently held in Azerbaijan where the organising autocrat's intentions to use the event as a showcase for his country’s progress trumped any shy attempt by the righteous to point out to the regimes shameful human rights record. (Just in case you are unsure about Europe’s borders: Azerbaijan not only participates in Eurovision but also in the Euro 2012 – although it did not pass the qualifying stage.)

Which brings us back to football: Yes, when the tournament’s co-hosts, Poland and Ukraine, won their bid, they did so on a platform of historical and political ties between the two countries that find itself on different sides of the EU border. But the event itself should, as always, be free from political messages. Yet this is not how the spectators view it. Given how the games have unfolded, there is both a direct and an indirect political dimension to them.

Indirectly, newspapers were quick to reframe sportive meetings as political encounters, such as the match between Poland and Russia in the group stages (read: historical enmity meets current political tensions). When Greece, a little surprisingly, entered the quarterfinals, the headlines centered on the “Greece avoids exit from the Euro” theme. That it should meet Germany there, was more than an irony of football history: Certainly the Greeks would have found extra pleasure in defeating their perceived taskmaster in what was quickly dubbed the “bailout game”. As it happened, Germany advanced to the semi-finals, and with it three other teams from the eurozone: Spain, Portugal, and Italy.

Interestingly, when England lost the penalty shootout to Italy, this meant that the last remaining non-Euro team left the tournament. Whether this implies that countries with the common currency have better football teams, or countries with successful teams have a tendency to join the Euro, is open for speculation. Yet, as it happens, the first semifinal between Portugal and Spain is a match between two nations that have already sought refuge under the EU’s rescue umbrella. The other semifinal sees a meeting of Italy, the potential next applicant for financial aid, and Germany, the EU’s main creditor.

Whoever wins this tournament, some commentators will interpret the result in terms of the current malaise of the Euro – the currency, that is. However, before the finals will be played in Kiev on Sunday, July 1, some hard – and direct – political decisions will have to be taken. Will the leaders of the two competing nations travel to Ukraine to sit next to its President Yanoukovich? So far, most European officials have boycotted the matches played in the stadiums of the more Eastern co-host, mainly with reference to the treatment of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. But this may no longer hold for the finals – too high is the prestige of the cup, too tempting also the opportunity for politicians to score points at the home front by supporting their national teams.

This, ultimately, is the effect of hosting international mega events in countries with weak or no democratic credentials. Whether it is Eurovision or Euro 2012, the Formula 1 at Bahrain or – a classic already – the Beijing Olympics of 2008: In today’s media-dominated world, even the ostensibly unpolitical becomes political as soon as it gives autocrats a worldwide platform. The counterargument that such events also turn the world’s eyes towards the situation in an unfree country is substantiated; however, past experience shows that this effect is weaker than the benefits for the host. In the end, officials from the liberal world have to walk a fine line, trying to let sports be sports (or music be music) and target the responsible individuals with their criticism or, at least, contempt. So it will be interesting to see whether any prime minister or chancellor will be there in Kiev’s Olympic Stadium on Sunday night to shake hands with Victor Yanoukovich. No less important will be what the EU’s leader will have decided by then to save the Continent’s currency – but that's politics again.