This is an automatically translated description

Football matches seem to be a metaphor for real war, they are bursting with meanings and subtexts. It wasn't the Germans who played the Poles in 1934, it was the Fuhrer who played the Marshal, Hitler who played Pilsudski, superhumans who played half-humans, Aryans who played Slavs. In the final of the World Cup that year, it was not the Italians who defeated the Czechoslovakian team, it was Mussolini who defeated Masaryk, fascism defeated democracy. The world understood that de Coubertin's idealism and dream of separating sport from politics were fantasies: Mussolini's World Cup in 1934 and Hitler's Olympics in 1936 left no doubt about it.

Or the match on the eve of the Second World War between France and Hungary: a game between the defenders of the Versailles Peace Agreement and its greatest opponents, a struggle between a satisfied superpower and a small republic suffering from phantom pain after the collapse of the empire not so long ago, a match between democracy and authoritarianism. FIFA claims that sport is beyond politics.

This noble Coubertinist concept of sporting idealism from the 19th century is no longer true. FIFA can either turn a blind eye to reality or recognise that in such high-profile cases as the armed annexation of a part of an independent country, even the most noble intentions (like the desire to protect Crimean football from death) do not allow it to suppress aggression at its roots.

Sport is not outside of politics, and to continue to broadcast this myth over and over again means to blind ourselves and not want to take responsibility.