So the conditions to be met are as follows
Has to be a world cup sport
A team sport
Held every 2,3 or 4 years as most of them do
Can be a Olympics games
The country should have been ruled by 1 or more dictators between the tournament years or more.
I cannot think of any of the top of my head. I am veering towards Tito, Mussolini and other such years. Most other dictators probably ruled poor countries with no sporting achievements.
Surprise me.
The Soviet Union won plenty of Olympic ice hockey gold medals. Does that count?
Also, Argentina won the 1978 FIFA soccer World Cup with Jorge Rafael Videla as dictator.
Italy won the 1934 and 1938 soccer world cup.
Yugoslavia won the 1970 and 1978 basketball world championships.
If Olympic games count, Germany and Italy won the 1936 handball and soccer tournaments respectively.
The Soviet Union/Russia won Olympic gold medals in Men’s Volleyball in 1964, 1968, 1980, and 2012 and in Women’s Volleyball in 1968, 1972, 1980, and 1988. China won Olympic gold medals in Women’s Volleyball in 1984, 2004, and 2016. Cuba won Olympic gold medals in Women’s Volleyball in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Poland won an Olympic gold medal in Men’s Volleyball in 1976.
I know this isn’t GD/IMHO, but I am wondering what the OP is really asking with this thread. Is the premise that Western democracies are better at team sports than dictatorships? I don’t see any reason why that would be the case.
Speaking of Cuba, they have utterly dominated many international baseball contests during the Fidel Castro era.
Can i change the condition to where the dictator came to power by a military or violent coup. Not where they got elected and liked power so much that they changed the rules or imprisoned their opposition leaders.
So has any country won a world sporting tournament after a violent military coup in their country.
Yes, that is the reasoning behind my question.
The 1978 World Cup example still applies, then. Videla came to power in Argentina in a military coup in 1976. He was dictator of Argentina when Argentina won the 1978 FIFA soccer World Cup.
If anything, I’d expect dictatorship nations to field sports teams that practice even more gruelingly and intensely than Western democracies.
Yes when the Olympics was still confined to amateurs, it was often claimed that the USSR (and perhaps East German) teams were not really amateurs. As I recall, the hockey team was composed of soldiers whose real full time job was to practice hockey.
And the Soviet government came to power in the Bolshevik Revolution.
Castro came to power by overthrowing Batista.
Neither were democratic transfers of powe.
Moved to the Game Room.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Of the examples given above, that would only possibly apply to Mussolini and Hitler, but neither won power directly as result of a popular vote. They were appointed Chancellor/Prime Minister and then consolidated power through violence or the threat of violence. So the condition doesn’t change anything much. I also don’t see why it should.
East Germany won 192 Olympic Gold medals (sorry, don’t know how many were team sports.)
The Soviet Union won many world chess team championships (counting chess as a mind sport.)
China has won the World team table-tennis championships 21 times.
Anyway - why would a dictatorship do worse in team sports than a non-dictatorship?
Generally dictatorships aren’t the best places to live in and would experience a talent drain to more open countries, unless of course the athletes are given incentives to stay there.
Handball world champions:
Germany 38
Romania 61, 64, 70, 74
CSSR 67
USSR 82
Yugoslavia 86
Didn’t easily work for instance for the citizen of eastern block countries, especially those of the GDR. Some who flew were later killed in revenge by the Stasi.
ETA: so they had “incentives to stay there”: Rifles to their heads.