Sport and morality have always endured a difficult relationship.

Bernie Ecclestone's decision to go ahead with the Bahrain Grand Prix last weekend in a country that Amnesty International claims is facing a "human rights crisis" is not an isolated example. But it does renew the question of what we want sport to stand for and what we are looking at our games to provide for us.

The 1978 World Cup took place in Argentina while the country was being run by a military dictatorship, and the 1936 Olympic Games were held in Berlin, allowing Adolf Hitler to use them for propaganda. These are just two further examples, but should either event have taken place? Do we expect sport to be isolated from politics, human rights and other ethical concerns? In truth, we cannot. If public opinion had been taken into account, Ecclestone would have cancelled or postponed the grand prix.

Professional sport, particularly at elite level, carries such prominence and public acclaim that the events become powerful influences. Billions of people will watch and be emotionally involved in the World Cup, the European championships, the Olympics, let alone individual occasions like grands prix, international football and rugby matches and athletics meets. That is why sponsors pay so much to be associated with them and why the Bahrain Royal family were so keen to hold the Grand Prix.

Hosting these events brings publicity and a chance to showcase a country, but also confers a form of global acceptance. That is why we are right to demand high moral standards from our sporting bodies and individuals, even if sport itself does not encourage those standards. Academic studies in America have shown that high-contact sports may impede moral growth among young competitors because of the element of combat the games involve; team sports also do not encourage individuals to act morally because there is peer pressure to conform to the values of the team.

In every sport, competitors seek to defeat opponents and constantly improve their own performance. It is an egocentric pursuit, particularly at professional level, which runs counter to acting through moral values alone. Where, too, are moral judgments among football crowds, in which abuse, obscene language and offensive songs are still commonplace? When racism was prevalent in the British game, supporters would celebrate black players on their own side, but jeer those in the opposition team; even a heavy challenge by your own player is cheered when a similar tackle by an opponent is jeered, even if both are fouls. These are double standards, but that does not absolve sporting organisations of the need to act morally.

The financial crisis at Rangers has exposed the conflict between self-interest and the good of the game. No judgment has been made on the Ibrox club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts, but even leaving that aside, is it morally right for a team to spend beyond its means to gain a competitive advantage? Similarly, is it morally right for the Clydesdale Bank Premier League to effectively be run for the benefit of the two clubs that generate all the income: Rangers and Celtic?

Who is protecting the best interests of Scottish football when it is the clubs – who naturally seek only to protect their own concerns – who run the competition? This is sport governed by financial imperatives, and it has caused the clubs to put balance sheets ahead of moral judgments when they consider what sanctions to impose on a team that goes into liquidation. Sport has too high a profile, and is too central in people's lives, to shirk from moral responsibility.

The sporting boycott of South Africa during Apartheid did not effect political and social change, but it played a role. "I don't think one can place sport in such a high category as to say that it was instrumental in bringing about change, but it focused people's attention on the fact that we couldn't live a dual life in which in everyday society we were denied basic rights, we were denied the opportunity to exercise our universal rights and then go and play sport as if it was a normal world," said Joe Ebrahim, the former president of the South African Council on Sport.

That is the power of sport, that it can be used to influence opinion. With that, though, comes moral responsibility.

And another thing . . .

Hampden is to join the Santiago Bernabeu and the Etihad Stadium in becoming fully equipped to allow supporters to access the internet and social media sites during games. Installing the technology is costing a six-figure sum, with hopes that it will be in place ahead of the Scottish Cup final. It will certainly be ready for the Olympic football fixtures in the summer. The connectivity will allow fans to interact during matches using their smartphones, but could allow them to receive data as well as official security and operational messages. It also goes some way to bringing football up to date with technology.