Brazil has been in the news these past few weeks.

It hosted football’s Confederations Cup and, in this soccer-crazy nation, the expectations were for a festive event that was to serve as a dress rehearsal for next year’s World Cup. Few expected that the competition would be used for political means.

But the people of Brazil saw it as an opportunity to express their disdain at the government because they think that the money that has been spent – and will continue to be spent – on sport in the next few years should have gone instead towards improving the country’s health and education systems.

They believe that, although the growing Brazilian economy is set to gain even more due to the World Cup to be held next year and, following that, the Olympic Games in 2016, it would have been wiser for the Brazilian government to have invested in these sectors which, on the whole, are also vital to the economy. They believe that a country like Brazil cannot as yet sustain two such important and potentially financially-crippling world events within a space of two years. They think that the money invested in stadia and transport facilities should have been used more wisely.

And so thousands of Brazilians marched in the streets close to the venues where Confederations Cup matches were being held to make their voices heard. They knew the world was watching, and they wanted the world to know what was happening. Beyond the glamorous stadia and cheerful football fans, they wanted the world to understand that there is another Brazil which is poorer, and which sees football as a threat to its livelihood, rather than as a means for progress in the country.

Their message was heard, but it will not be easy for the Brazilian government to satisfy their demands in the short term. There are, therefore, fears that next year’s World Cup could turn out to be a football competition that runs in parallel with massive protests across the whole country.

This time, the Brazilians had not prepared for these public manifestations, and yet they managed to organise themselves well in just a few days, mostly through social media networks. Now that they have a full year in which they can get themselves ready for the World Cup (and three years for the Olympic Games), their public dissent could be even stronger.

In the past, important sporting events have been used for political messages to be made. These have also, unfortunately, included terrorist attacks in which many have died or been injured. The Munich Olympic Games in 1972 are remembered for two things: Mark Spitz and the taking of hostages by a Palestinian group that led to the death of 11 Israeli hostages and most of the militants. At the height of the Cold War, the 1980 Olympic Games in the then Soviet Union were boycotted by the United States and the reverse happened four years later when it was the turn of Los Angeles to organise the event. I could mention other examples of incidents not connected to sport which happened precisely because the Olympic Games (and other major sporting events) were taking place, but space is limited.

It is always a pity that sport is used in this way, but at the same time it is natural for people to try to get the most from what they do – and so they look for the best exposure they can get. If no Confederations Cup had been held in Brazil, there probably would not have been any protests and, if there were, probably they would not have received the same attention that they did in recent weeks.

There is another country that has been in turmoil again these last few weeks – and this is Egypt.

Here, in the land of one of the oldest civilisations known to man, the people rose up against a leader to eventually oust him from power. It was the second revolution this country faced in recent times – only two years ago, President Mubarak was replaced by President Morsi, but the promise of a new beginning and a better lifestyle did not materialise, and the people have risen up a second time.

It is a clear example that when politicians fail to keep their promises, or when it is simply time for them to go, they are pushed away. In some countries, this happens in a democratic way, through elections that are held in an established period of time. Here, leaders go away quietly because they understand that they cannot go against the will of the people.

There are then leaders who do not see the signs of the times or else think that they can somehow overcome them. Morsi himself was reluctant to go – perhaps because of the support he still enjoys with part of the population, which is now protesting against the way he was removed – but eventually he had to, just like others did before him.

The problem with leaders who hold on to power, despite not being wanted, is that their behaviour will in turn lead to uprisings, which start off with peaceful intentions but which often end up in bloodshed. It happened in Libya with Gaddafi, who thought that somehow he would be able to stay on and eventually ended up being killed – but others do not learn from history.

This, of course, is the saddest part. Take what is happening in Syria as an example, with President Assad oblivious to the demands of his people as he seeks to retain power, believing that the protests that have been taking place in the streets for months are being led by the minority.

In the meantime, thousands have been killed.

[email protected]