THE 2024 European Championship has coincided with elections in the UK and France, leading to an international tournament played against a backdrop more obviously political than might usually be the case.

Elections taking place in the UK and France at the same time as the Euros have meant that the two big news stories of recent times have been around winners and losers in football and politics.

As discussed in this column’s Euro 2024 preview, international sport is inherently political and geopolitical.

Sport, however it is played and whoever it is played by, is inseparable from politics. At the international level especially, as tournaments pit nation against nation, encouraging different forms of nationalism, or the rejection of it, across the political spectrum.

The profile of sports can lead to heightened political awareness, which is why many politicians will try to use sports, especially one as popular as football during a summer tournament, as part of their campaigns.

Participants have a voice too, and members of the France national team in particular have let theirs be heard.

Players such as Kylian Mbappe, Jules Kounde, and Marcus Thuram were the most vocal, but there was support throughout their team, with many showing solidarity on social media.

Marcus Thuram is the son of former France international centre-back Lillian, who won 142 caps for his country and is outspoken on numerous issues.

Lillian Thuram is involved with many anti-racism initiatives, including founding the Lillian Thuram Foundation in 2008 to “ensure non-xenophobic education and the dismantling of racist prejudices.”

His politics are practical, on the ground and rooted in the reality faced by oppressed people in France and worldwide.

“Today, the most open hatred is hatred of Muslims, but hatred breeds hatred, and inevitably each and every one of us will end up suffering from it,”  Lillian Thuram wrote in an op-ed ahead of the election for the French newspaper, Le Monde.  

“History has shown us that hatred first affects the poorest and gradually spreads throughout society.

“The only way to protect ourselves is to recreate links and build genuine policies of solidarity.

“We can’t be neutral in the face of hatred. We can’t condone it. Remaining silent, abstaining from the next elections, means endorsing it.

“Let’s resist and fight hate. We have to pull together. We cannot collaborate with hatred.”

Marcus Thuram also spoke passionately about the upcoming election and how important it was to vote against the far-right National Rally party, formerly known as the National Front.

“We must tell everyone to go and vote,” he said in a press conference at the Euros.

“We all need to fight daily so that this doesn’t happen and that National Rally does not succeed.

“I understand that some players can come here and just say people should vote, but I don’t think that’s enough. You have to also explain how we got here and the seriousness of the situation.

“There is no doubt in my mind that everyone thinks like me in the France squad.”

England and Scotland players, on the other hand, have been relatively silent on the UK election during the Euros.

It was an election that saw a rise in the popularity of several parties outside of Labour and the Conservatives, including the far-right Reform UK.

Despite this threat, albeit much less of a threat than France’s National Rally party, England players did not match their French counterparts in warning against it.

The election also saw a rise in popularity for the Green Party and a record number of seats for the Liberal Democrats, but the Scottish National Party lost both seats and votes.

Regardless of their political leaning, England and Scotland players appear to have been discouraged from speaking about the election, with John Stones describing the England camp as a “politics-free zone.”

The majority of the media seem happy to go along with not asking them about it.

Another player who has spoken on political issues during this tournament is Germany midfielder Toni Kroos, who spoke about immigration in Germany.

“I have the feeling that, of many problems, this big issue of migration is also — how should I put it — such a, that it’s full, that you have this feeling that it’s a clear topic [for discussion],” Kroos told Lanz and Precht podcast, as translated by journalist Archie Rhind-Tutt.

“I think we are already showing, whether it was back then in 2006, whether it is again now, with what kind of open arms this country welcomes people.

“I think that that’s really great. But I think it was just too uncontrolled.

“I don’t think they managed [to succeed] with this fundamentally very positive approach or idea, which I support 1000 per cent because, I think, it’s sensational because people come to us from abroad and then they’re happy. But I think we simply underestimated it and ended up with something too uncontrolled.

"When a lot of people come, there is always a percentage, just like there is among Germans, that is not good for us.

“If you can't differentiate between those who are not good for us, then it becomes difficult.”

By approaching it from this angle, saying he welcomes immigrants before going on to speak about things being “uncontrolled” and “a percentage that is not good for us,” Kroos, like many on this issue, not only ignores the real problems but begins to support anti-immigrant stances and arguments, even if unintentionally.

It’s safe to say Kroos’s words on the matter do not match that of the French players and could be seen as a dog whistle to supporters of far-right nationalist parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which came second in Germany’s recent European Parliament elections, even if Kroos doesn’t support such parties himself.

As part of its anti-immigration approach, AfD has been openly racist towards Muslims, which goes back to what Thuram said about the open hatred of Muslims.

Kroos’s comments were exaggerated by an anti-immigration blog to try to use him as an endorsement of their views, as much as they were mistranslated on social media in order to brand him a racist.

But the fact that such a blog could run with his comments in the first place shows how problematic his statements were.

With Kroos’s comments in mind, what if, after being encouraged to speak about politics, an England player voiced similar views on immigration or came out in support of Reform UK?

It would be interesting to see how the media in this country would react. The majority of the mainstream national press in Britain is right-wing, so would probably be in favour or at least not voice strong opposition.

In the case of Reform UK, though, many outlets have tended to be loyal to their Conservative paymasters even if Reform matches many of the views they put across on their news pages.

Even on the back pages, we have seen a blatant trend of using images of black players when things are going badly for England, even if those players weren’t heavily involved in the game.

Though the sports sections of the right-wing press have often been more liberal than the rest of their outlet when it comes to politics, the gap between the politics of the front and back pages seems to be closing.

It means that as football tournaments and those playing in them raise issues around politics and nationalism, the reporting of them also plays a part in their framing.

Media across the board appear to have given Kroos a pass, saying his comments weren’t racist, but at the same time not challenging how problematic they still are.

Even the straight reporting of the comments of Mbappe, Thuram, et al, is framed in a certain way.

Various forms of nationalism have been on display in this tournament, and we haven’t yet touched on incidents involving Turkey and the Balkan states.

Albania and Serbia are among the nations fined by Uefa for incidents involving the display of altered political maps and nationalist banners, while Turkey defender Merih Demiral celebrated using a far-right wolf symbol, for which he has been banned for two games.

The organisers themselves are involved in politics, even though they claim to be apolitical and fine players and nations for any political displays.

Uefa’s decision to ban Russia from their competitions, but not Israel, is a political choice. Denying a group of athletes the chance to compete in an international tournament due to the actions of their country’s leaders is a political choice.

As the Euros comes to an end this weekend, it is unlikely that the closing montages will feature the political backdrop and nationalist tensions that have accompanied the football, but these elements will remain an inseparable part of the sport.