cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/12187208

The commercial fallout for Real Madrid may be temporary, but the precedent for censoring speech beyond China’s borders is far more consequential.

Archived version (removepaywall.com)

A footballer’s joke about an internet meme has become a demonstration of China’s ability to influence speech far beyond its borders. During a casual interview, French football star Kylian Mbappé described a meme depicting his face superimposed onto Mao Zedong’s body as showing a “Chinese dictator.” The joke was directed at himself, playing on fans’ perceptions of his influence over the teams he plays for. Yet within days, three Chinese sponsors had terminated their partnerships with him, Chinese broadcasters had suspended football coverage, and Mbappé, La Liga, and Real Madrid had all issued apologies.

Whether these apologies will restore their commercial relationships in China remains uncertain. Chinese authorities and businesses may eventually decide that resuming cooperation serves their interests. What is already apparent, however, is the precedent established for freedom of expression. A French athlete, speaking in a non-political context outside China, has publicly apologized for referring to a historical political leader as a dictator.

...

There is no solid evidence that Chinese authorities individually instructed these companies to terminate their agreements. In China’s political and commercial environment, however, businesses have incentives to anticipate official sensitivities and demonstrate loyalty before being asked. Once one company publicly takes a position, others may perceive a need to respond with comparable or greater severity. Silence, or a comparatively restrained response, can become a reputational liability.

...

China’s Foreign Ministry subsequently elevated the controversy into a matter of national dignity. “Any rhetoric or action that hurts the feelings of the Chinese people will naturally be rejected across the sectors in China,” spokesperson Guo Jiakun declared.

...

Such rhetoric presents the Communist Party’s preferred interpretation of history as inseparable from the feelings of the Chinese population, leaving little room for disagreement among Chinese citizens themselves. Yet Chinese society is neither politically nor historically homogeneous. Views of Mao’s legacy differ across generations, communities, and personal experiences. By framing the controversy as an affront to “the Chinese people,” the Foreign Ministry gave an unfolding commercial backlash the authority of a national grievance.

...

Respect for Chinese people does not require agreement with the Chinese government’s interpretation of history. Nor should maintaining friendships and commercial relationships entail allowing the CCP’s political sensitivities to determine what foreigners may say about Chinese political figures.

Now that apologies have been made publicly, the significance of the controversy extends beyond those directly involved. Other athletes, entertainers, businesses, and media organizations may begin avoiding historical references, political subjects, or even casual jokes, because the potential commercial consequences are difficult to predict. Such anticipatory self-censorship is difficult to measure.

...

Chinese authorities and commercial institutions can unilaterally decide what “hurts the feelings of the Chinese people.” They also have the power to determine when a controversy has been sufficiently addressed, whether an apology is acceptable, and when normal business relations should resume.

...

China’s influence over international speech therefore cannot be understood solely by counting canceled contracts, suspended broadcasts, or public apologies. Its more enduring effect lies in the ability of political restrictions originating in China to shape the conduct of institutions and individuals operating in societies that do not formally recognize those restrictions.

Real Madrid may eventually recover its commercial standing in China, but the consequences for freedom of expression are far harder to undo.

...