POLITICS and sport have always been a heady and controversial mix. Never more so than when calls are made to boycott major events as a means of expressing political disapproval or bringing diplomatic pressure to bear.

Given Britain’s ongoing crisis with Russia over claims that Moscow was behind the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, the issue of whether to boycott this summer’s World Cup in Russia has been thrust into the spotlight. There are of course historical precedents to this call. For decades, people have debated whether liberal democracies should boycott sports events held under the auspices of repressive governments. Apartheid South Africa immediately springs to mind. It saw itself facing a long-standing sports boycott that denied it the right to even participate in most international sports events, much less host them.

Boycotts have been used to express disdain and condemnation for the actions of another. This was the case with the 1980 snubbing of the Olympics in Moscow, in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More recently, human rights activists called for a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics, held in Sochi, Russia, over the Russian government’s oppression of those within the LGBT community. On all of these occasions the now familiar debate arose. The standard argument against is the traditional idea that international sports events should be kept free of politics. The problem with this theory is that many major events almost always serve as some form of promotional or propaganda tool for host governments.

Then there is the argument that boycotts are only symbolic. Any such response to Russia, some argue, would be little more than a knee-jerkone . While politicians are often fond of symbolic bread and circuses-type gestures, on this occasion it might well backfire on the UK Government. Certainly it would serve to hurt those participating and disgruntle many fans who have already made plans to go to the World Cup or are eagerly anticipating the tournament here at home.

Any British retaliation by way of boycotting the tournament would arguably be little more than a small symbolic slap towards Moscow. That said, symbolism shouldn’t be discounted out of hand. Sometimes when facing a difficult situation with few good responses, as typifies the current standoff, at least doing something minimal and symbolic to oppose it is better than doing nothing and appearing to tacitly endorse it by default.

The whole point of sporting boycotts is that they draw the world’s attention to what is happening within the borders of despot countries. It’s a quiet act of opposition that keeps attention on the problem and hopefully contributes in some way to instigating reform or changes in behaviour. Albeit in Russia’s case this would seem unlikely right now, not least given the certain re-election of Vladimir Putin as president following this weekend’s elections. Mr Putin no doubt knows that the World Cup will serve to burnish his country’s reputation, perhaps for that reason alone a boycott might be worth considering, but far better that Russia had been prevented from hosting the tournament in the first place. It’s fair to say too that probably neither the Russian Football Federation or Fifa would care very much if England went or not.

Should a boycott be the chosen course of action then far better it is done as part of a co-ordinated retaliation involving other countries whose national governments press their respective football associations to withdraw teams from participation in the World Cup. Whatever the decision taken in the UK, one thing is certain. It will take more than sports boycotts to bring Mr Putin’s Russia into line.