Читать книгу Sports Diplomacy - Michał Marcin Kobierecki - Страница 8

Introduction

Sport and politics are in principle distinct. Still, both phenomena are to some extent interdependent. Correlation between politics and sport can take various forms. They may concern the influence of the world of politics on the world of sport. In this case, sport becomes a tool for pursuing political goals. On the other hand, a reversed relation is possible as well, and sports events may lead to political facts. In general, sport can be used to shape international relations, ease or exacerbate conflicts, strengthen relationships, improve the international image of a state and generate international prestige, etc. Sport may also play a role in internal politics since it can be attributed with the capability to integrate the society, stimulate national pride and identity, affect public health or it can be used as a tool of propaganda.¹ The connection between sport and politics is, therefore, a vast area of research, explored by representatives of numerous fields of science such as sociology, sports science, history, or political science.

The relation between sport and politics can have a domestic and international context. In the second form, it is exemplified by the category of sports diplomacy. The term lacks a clear and universally accepted definition. It is often understood as a category of public diplomacy, or at least regarded as dovetailing with public diplomacy.² Generally though it can be understood as a means of international communication with the use of sport. It may have a positive or negative character. Positive sports diplomacy concerns the use of sport to send positive messages, for example, about the desire to improve relations with another country, while negative sports diplomacy may involve sending negative messages, for example, expressing dissatisfaction with other state’s policy. Of course, the assessment of whether an act of sports diplomacy is positive or negative has an explicitly normative character, but in most cases, the objective of particular initiative appears evident. Sports diplomacy may also be understood as using sport to improve the international image of a country. Individual authors also perceive sports diplomacy from the perspective of traditional diplomacy—in the context of diplomatic meetings held on the occasion of sports events or in regard of diplomacy pursued by sports subjects, international sports organizations in particular, whose leaderships engage in diplomatic processes involving other actors of international relations including states.

Even though sports diplomacy is often pursued on a grassroots level, certain states institutionalized their efforts in this field. For example, in the United States—one of the forerunners of sports diplomacy—a unit called Sports Diplomacy division (formerly SportsUnited) operates within the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the Department of State,³ whereas in Australia Office for Sport has been established within Department of Health.⁴ Australian case is particularly interesting since it is the first country in the world to develop a strategy of sports diplomacy. Sport is recognized there as a “natural fit” for public diplomacy.⁵ Most governments, on the other hand, pursue sports diplomacy through bodies responsible for public diplomacy. The growing role of sports diplomacy in contemporary politics could also be observed when European commissioner Tibor Navracsics appointed High Level Group on Sport Diplomacy in 2015. Its goal was to identify how sport may help the European Union to reach its external political purposes and to promote its values.⁶ These examples indicate the growing awareness of the need to pursue sports diplomacy.

The interdependence between sport and politics is subject to growing interest among researchers, particularly since the late twentieth century. Such authors have pursued high-quality research concerning the international dimension of this area of study as Alfred E. Senn, Richard Espy, Christopher Hill, Lincoln Allison, Jonathan Grix, Barrie Houlihan,⁷ and others. Still, the issue of sports diplomacy has not been enjoying similar attention of scholars. For a long time, available publications were limited to single case-study articles, out of which majority were dedicated to the American attempts to employ sport for diplomatic reasons, such as ping-pong diplomacy with China, baseball exchanges with Cuba, sports exchanges with the Soviet Union.⁸ Sport and Canadian Diplomacy by Donald Macintosh and Michael Hawes is one of the few monographs published at the time.⁹

This situation has changed though and scholars became more interested in sports diplomacy. In particular, many investigations were dedicated to how China attempted to use the Olympics in Beijing to alter the way it is perceived.¹⁰ Consecutive Olympics in London and their branding role were also subject to several publications.¹¹ The rising interest in sports diplomacy resulted in more theoretical considerations of this subject. Articles by Stuart Murray, J. Simon Rofe, and Goeffrey Pigman are particularly worth mentioning here.¹² This new trend was also reflected in theme issues of quality scientific journals dedicated to sports diplomacy: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy in 2013, Sport and Society in 2014, Diplomacy & Statecraft in 2016, and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy in 2019. Chapters on sports diplomacy published in handbooks of renown publishing houses, for example, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy,¹³ The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy,¹⁴ and Routledge Handbook of Sport and Politics ¹⁵ are the further evidence for the growing appreciations for this term by diplomacy scholars.

The rising interest in sports diplomacy was also reflected in the publication of more or less comprehensive books. Diplomatic Games: Sport, Statecraft, and International Relations since 1945 edited by Heather L. Dichter and Andrew L. Johns¹⁶ and Case Studies in Sport Diplomacy edited by Craig Esherick, Robert Baker, Steven Jackson, and Michael Sam¹⁷ are collections of case studies concerning widely perceived sports diplomacy which referred to aspects such as sports exchanges aimed to improve interstate relations, hosting sports events and their diplomatic objectives, etc. International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement by Aaron Beacom refers to the diplomatic roles of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Olympic Games. Beacom presented the concept of Olympism as diplomacy according to which the Olympics can be considered as a diplomatic event in itself. By employing a multistakeholder model of diplomacy, he addressed the diversified character of contemporary diplomacy. The most recent books include Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice by Stuart Murray and a collective monograph Sport and Diplomacy. Games within Games edited by J. Simon Rofe. The former is a comprehensive attempt to approach the category of sports diplomacy more theoretically, introducing a new framework of four theoretical subcategories—traditional sports diplomacy, sports diplomacy, the specialized diplomacy of non-state sporting actors, and sports anti-diplomacy.¹⁸ Sport and Diplomacy, on the other hand, is a collection of chapters dedicated to such aspects of diplomatic significance of sport as conceptual dimensions of sport and diplomacy, the use of international sports competitions as a form of public diplomacy to achieve specific aims and withholding of sports competitions, but it also refers to issues such as sport, development, and peace, widening the scope of research on sports diplomacy.¹⁹

Despite the growing number of publications on sports diplomacy, several gaps in the literature can be noted. First, there is no universally accepted definition of sports diplomacy. Different authors perceive the term in different ways. Some present more narrow approaches; others prefer to understand sports diplomacy more extensively. Different approaches not only refer to various aspects but also assume the engagement of other subjects, whether sports diplomacy is an exclusive activity of states or it can also be pursued by non-state actors. If the second answer is accepted, there is a doubt whether the international engagement of non-state sports actors with a typical bottom-up character also marks an example of sports diplomacy if the government does not coordinate it. Another problem refers to the diplomacy of transnational sports actors which cannot be defined territorially. Secondly, comprehensive studies are rare. The majority of publications concern single cases of sports diplomacy, and many of them do not refer to the term “sports diplomacy.” Accordingly, they often lack deepened theoretical reflection apart from several attempts to systemize the inconsistency in defining sports diplomacy.²⁰ Recent book by Stuart Murray, which is more theoretically oriented, is an exception. When it comes to the state of empirical research on sports diplomacy, it can be described as patchy. A rich literature has been dedicated to negative sports diplomacy (although not necessarily called this way) or in reference to the use of sport in shaping the international image of a state, particularly in the context of hosting sports events—the Olympics in Beijing in 2008, London in 2012, and Sochi in 2014.²¹ Sports diplomacy as a tool of shaping interstate relations has been studied mainly in reference to ping-pong diplomacy.²² It is similarly concerning the issue of the diplomacy of international sports organizations. Researchers have been investigating these bodies from the perspective of their history and functioning, also in the political context, but there are few publications concerning their diplomatic subjectivity. The book by Aaron Beacom mentioned earlier is particularly worth mentioning here.

The aim of this book is to fill at least some of these gaps. Like the majority of the available publications, it is based on case studies, but some of them have not been dedicated more in-depth investigations yet, particularly if sports diplomacy of smaller states is considered. However, despite the focus on case studies, the major goal was to derive theoretical observations and generalizations. Apart from the chapter of the research dedicated to the IOC, cases have been compared. Based on certain criteria and variables discussed below, the analysis allowed for a proposition of generalizations and models, including characteristic qualities of sports diplomacy conducted by certain states, or types of states. A lot of attention was dedicated to the means of pursuing sports diplomacy. An in-depth analysis of the diplomacy of the IOC resulted in a proposition of a model explaining the reasons for its diplomatic prowess. This book has also addressed the problem of the definition of sports diplomacy and referred to the dilemma of actors of sports diplomacy. Even though it is not an explicitly theoretical investigation, such reflection has been dedicated substantial attention. The theoretical considerations that have been made aim to contribute to the development of the emerging field of sports diplomacy, which as has been mentioned, in principle is practice oriented.

The book aims to investigate the role sport may play in states’ foreign policy and in international relations. On the theoretical level, it attempts to conceptualize the relation between sports diplomacy and public diplomacy. Apart from that, attention is dedicated to the objectives, such as how sport may be used, their effectiveness, typical forms of behavior. The main goal was to observe differences between various states using sport for diplomatic reasons. This applies both to the issue of using sport in fostering foreign policy goals by the example of international rapprochement and in shaping the international image of a state. The book argues that there are several determinants that affect the way states pursue sports diplomacy, such as assets at their disposal, political regimes, and external and internal circumstances. The study also refers to international sports organizations and their diplomatic subjectivity. The investigation looked for the reasons for their capability of engaging in the processes of negotiation, communication, and representation with other actors of international relations (by the example of relations with states as the primary subjects of diplomacy).

The fact that states are in the spotlight does not mean that other actors and their roles are not acknowledged. The research is by no means limited to the activities undertaken by governments. It includes grassroots initiatives of non-state actors that are not necessarily directed or coordinated by governments. It also includes international sports organizations assessed as diplomatic actors on their own. The effects of their activities are simply analyzed from the perspective of states and their interests, even when their governments remain passive. Similarly, the diplomatic subjectivity of international sports actors is investigated in principle in reference to their relations with states, for whom they serve as external public diplomacy stakeholders—they possess the assets that states may need to pursue their own public diplomacy.

A tripartite analytical framework is introduced in this book, with three levels of analysis of sports diplomacy. The first one assumed sports diplomacy as a means of shaping interstate relations, the second as a means of building international image and prestige of states, and the third as diplomatic activity of international sports subjects. The first two levels are based on teleological distinction with more particular goals in the first case, and more general ones in the second. Sports diplomacy as a means of shaping interstate relations, in general, includes various attempts to alter the state of relations with another country, both in the context of improving them or expressing negative attitudes (within this level positive and negative sports diplomacy may be distinguished). Image-building sports diplomacy, on the other hand, aims to generally enhance the way a state is perceived by the international public. It should be noted though that the distinction between these two levels has a normative character. Some of the activities undertaken within both of these categories are very similar, and one may claim that examples of sports diplomacy aimed at shaping interstate relations are also targeted at improving the international image of a state. It has been assumed that the sports diplomacy as a tool of shaping relations between states is associated with particular political goals which are easy to identify, such as rapprochement or breaking international isolations, whereas the image-building sports diplomacy has more general purposes. The third level of analysis—sports diplomacy as diplomatic activity of international sports subjects—was easier to distinguish since it refers to international sports governing bodies, the NGOs which cannot be attached to any territory or are controlled by any government, whereas the first two levels were ultimately connected with states, even though grassroots initiative pursued by non-state actors were also included.

Public diplomacy is the central category within this framework. As has been mentioned, in principle sports diplomacy is regarded as a category of public diplomacy. It should be noted though, that some of its forms exceed the scope of public diplomacy. For example, many of the sports diplomacy endeavors aimed at improving the way a country is perceived by the external public have the qualities typical for nation branding. Sports diplomacy can also be analyzed from the perspective of traditional diplomacy. This is particularly visible if ISOs’ involvement in international negotiations is considered. It should be also acknowledged that the research presented in this book is state-oriented. It does include analysis of non-state actors and their significance is acknowledged and accepted, but the states and their interests remained in the spotlight.

In the context of sports diplomacy as a tool of shaping interstate relations, the scope of the research was limited to so-called positive sports diplomacy (normatively assessed). Negative aspects such as sports boycott or sports isolation have been excluded from the investigation since the scholarly on such issues is already very rich, although they have not necessarily been investigated from the perspective of sports diplomacy. Attempts to use sport to deepen proximity between states have also been omitted. In history, such efforts were employed, for example, among countries belonging to the communist block or to integrate former colonies (e.g., Commonwealth Games, Jeux de la Francophonie). These aspects are connected with similar processes and mechanisms as the cases included in the research, so the author decided to investigate the issue on the example of situations in which sport was employed to bring hostile or estranged countries closer together.

The usefulness of sport in building an international image of a state was considered most of all in the context of the tools that can be employed. The goal was to identify methods of image-building sports diplomacy and to analyze what determines their selection by states which wish to improve the way the international public perceives them.

The third detailed research subject referred to the sort of diplomatic subjectivity of international sports organizations. Contemporary diplomacy is not perceived any more as an exclusive activity of states. The diffusion of diplomacy meant the emergence of non-state diplomatic actors, including nongovernmental organizations such as the IOC.²³ That part of the book refers to the concept of sport as diplomacy proposed by Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman which will be described in chapter 1. The primary attention was dedicated to the interactions between the IOC and states. Such activities of the committee were referred to as “diplomacy,” although the author is aware that it was to some extent a simplification.

The research presented in the book attempted to answer several research questions. They concerned the possibility of using sport in shaping interstate relations, situations in which sport may be useful in this respect and the specific qualities of such employment of sport by different states. The second group of research questions referred to the use of sport in image-building and concerned which methods can be used for this sake and what affects their selection by different types of countries. The research was also dedicated to answering whether international sports organizations can play the roles of diplomatic actors, how it can be indicated and what the reason for that is.

The book is divided into four chapters. The first chapter, entitled “Connotation of the Category ‘Sports Diplomacy’—From a Colloquial Overview to a Conceptualization Attempt,” is theoretical and refers to the inconsistency in defining the term sports diplomacy. This chapter discussed the evolution of the understanding of diplomacy with particular reference to its diffusion and the growing role of new actors, and to public diplomacy which apart from sports diplomacy is the main category of the research. The chapter also included extended conceptualization of sports diplomacy through confronting the most critical approaches in pursuit of developing a possibly consistent way of understanding the term. This chapter also referred to the issue of subjects of sports diplomacy. These considerations allowed for the presentation of three forms of perceiving the term which were described shortly and to which subsequent, more empirical chapters were dedicated.

chapter 2, entitled “Sports Diplomacy as an Activity for Shaping Positive Relations between States,” addresses the means of using sport by states to alter the relations with other countries, with the focus on attempts to improve bilateral relations between hostile or estranged states. The following cases have been included: ping-pong diplomacy between China and the United States, cricket diplomacy between India and Pakistan, football diplomacy between Turkey and Armenia, track and field exchanges between the United States and the USSR, basketball exchanges between the United States and the USSR, baseball diplomacy between the United States and Cuba, hockey diplomacy between Canada and the USSR, tennis diplomacy between China and South Korea, sports diplomacy between North and South Korea, and sports diplomacy between Iran and the United States. The first three cases considered situations when sports exchanges were employed to establish contact between political representatives of respective states. Ping-pong diplomacy was described firsthand since its presence in collective awareness as an example of this type of sports diplomacy and has proven to be particularly useful, thus constituting a sort of a model. Other case studies have been sorted chronologically, although some cases referred to an extended period. The case studies were selected with the use of typical case sampling and concerning their representative character. Each of these cases is analyzed concerning the following variables:

• Sports contact necessary to establish political contact,

• Improvement or lack of improvement of the state of political relations as a result of sports contact,

• Correlation between the consistency of sports exchanges and the current state of political relations,

• Existence of formal agreements sanctioning sports diplomacy,

• Sports exchanges arranged on purpose or spontaneously occurring,

• Relevance attributed to sports victories during the exchanges,

• High-level or grassroots character of the sports exchanges.

This part of the research allowed for formulation of several generalizations concerning this type of sports diplomacy and proposition of three models of sports diplomacy used to initiate international rapprochement. The models were based on the specific qualities of the use of sports diplomacy by three states that have been particularly active in this field: the United States, the Soviet Union, and the People’s Republic of China. chapter 2 also included testing two hypotheses: sport may serve as a useful tool for shaping relations between states by creating favorable circumstances (H1); there is no direct correlation between the type of sport used in sports diplomacy for political rapprochement and its effectiveness in bringing states closer together (H2).

chapter 3, “Sports Diplomacy as a Tool for Shaping the Desirable Image of States,” undertakes issues related to employing sport within activities directed at shaping the perception of a state by the foreign public. The research included case studies of the United States, China, Russia/the Soviet Union, Great Britain, Norway, Qatar, and Kosovo. The selection of states to be investigated was determined by the fact that they pursued image-building sports diplomacy since not every country is active in this field. Apart from that, the selected countries differ from each other in their wealth, size, and political regime. Accordingly, the research included democratic and nondemocratic countries, superpowers, regional powers, and small states. This selection was connected with the need to answer the research question concerning which methods of image-building sports diplomacy are used by different kinds of states. Doubts may appear concerning the selection of the states mentioned and not taking into consideration countries such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Brazil. These countries belong to democratic regional powers, a category that has been investigated on other examples. The United States, China, and Russia are particularly strong in terms of sports performance and are active players of public diplomacy, therefore not including them in the analysis would be difficult to accept. Great Britain is smaller than the previous three but still relatively big and as a country became much more active concerning image-building sports diplomacy recently.

The other three countries investigated in the chapter are considered as small states. There are several criteria that may be used to determine small states, but most often they refer to their populations. According to one of the investigations on sports policies, small states have populations lower than ten million,²⁴ and this definition has been adopted in this book. From among small states, three in completely different international situations have been selected, with different foreign policy goals and with different capacity for action. Some of the governments question Kosovo’s statehood, and its financial assets are very limited. Qatar, on the other hand, belongs to very wealthy countries concerning GDP per capita. Both of them regard sports diplomacy as important means of realizing foreign policy goals, although their objectives and possibilities are inherently different. The third small state in the analysis—Norway—has a well-grounded position in international relations and also belongs to very wealthy countries. It has been included in the research because it enjoys a solid nation brand and because in this case, sport plays only a secondary role in building the state’s international image.

All the selected states were investigated concerning the methods of image-building sports diplomacy they have been using among the following: sports exchanges, hosting sports events, sports achievements, sports development aid, having internationally known athletes, sports investments, and participation in sport. Despite the employment of case-study protocols the structure of parts concerning particular states was not entirely coherent since in each section the use of the most dominating method was described in the first place, and there were methods that were used by some countries but not by others. Some of the methods of image-building sports diplomacy were to some extent related to others, for example, sports development aid was often associated with sports exchanges (apart from the cases of Norway and Qatar). The structure of the respective subchapters was therefore adjusted to a particular case, whereas all cases were uniformly compared in the concluding part.

The activity of respective states concerning building their international image through sport was analyzed in reference to the following variables: the size of the state (based on population), the wealth of state (based on GDP per capita), and the political regime (democratic or nondemocratic). Apart from that, the research considered the costliness of particular methods and whether sport was regarded as a priority area of general attempts to build the international image. The study also took into consideration whether the analyzed countries experienced an “image loss”—a situation or situations when pursuing image-building sports diplomacy also led to disseminating negative messages, for example, in reference to international criticism, protests, etc. It was also considered which methods were attached priority and whether they were inspired by governments or were initiated on the grassroots level. This allowed for making several generalizations and verification of the following hypotheses: methods employed by states within their branding sports diplomacy are determined by their assets and political regimes (H3); democratic states prefer grassroots activities while nondemocratic countries prefer to act from above (H4); states may benefit from the actions of non-state actors despite their government’s passivity in the context of their international image (H5).

chapter 4, entitled “The Diplomacy of Organizations Governing International Sport,” has a slightly different character than chapters 2 and 3. It refers to an approach to understanding sports diplomacy that is connected to the activity of international sports organizations—institutions responsible for international competitions in particular sports (International Federations [IFs]) and the IOC—the supreme body of international sport. Considerations undertaken in this chapter go beyond the theoretical frame of public diplomacy and refer to these bodies as participants of international negotiations. Still, states remained as the main subject of analysis since the diplomatic activity of ISOs was analyzed in the context of states’ public diplomacy. Sports bodies were investigated as external stakeholders of states’ public diplomacy, with governments remaining contacts and negotiating with them because of the assets in their possession that countries need.

The part of the research presented in chapter 4 concerned the IOC in the context of its interactions with states. The analysis included issues such as selecting the hosts of the Olympic Games, negotiations concerning the organization of the Olympics, recognition of National Olympic Committees (NOCs), attempts to exert influence on states by the IOC, and the specificity of contacts between representatives of the committee and of states. Other issues under consideration included the functioning of the IOC as a sort of a diplomatic forum, its cooperation with the United Nations and the pursuing of development and educational programs. All these issues were considered based on indicative situations and processes since the goal was to learn why and how ISOs become subjects of diplomacy instead of measuring the strength of this subjectivity. This part of the research had primarily qualitative character, although there were also several quantitative analyses—concerning backing candidate cities to host the Olympic Games by state representatives and meetings between political leaders and the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch during his foreign trips. They served to illustrate the scale of readiness of key state representatives to engage in contacts with representatives of a sports organization.

Three hypotheses are tested in chapter 4. The most important one assumes that international sports organizations in selected spheres obtain diplomatic subjectivity (H6), which is connected to their inclusion in the circle of public diplomacy stakeholders. The second hypothesis states that international sports organizations in certain situations may successfully exert pressure on states (H7), whereas the third hypothesis assumes that international sports organizations may comprise a forum for international diplomacy (H8). The considerations undertaken in this chapter allowed for the proposition of a model illustrating the diplomatic roles of international sports organizations that displays a set of possible diplomatic activities undertaken by sports organizations.

Chapters 2–4 comprise the central part of the research conducted during the preparation of this book. Because of its complexity, the research required the employment of a range of research methods and techniques. Generally, the research was qualitative and was based on inductive reasoning. Comparative case studies was the most critical research method used. Chapters 2 and 3 included a comparison of groups of selected cases. The acquired data were systematized in case-study protocols, which was supposed to ensure the most consistent approach to any of them. Consolidation of a higher amount of case studies within one research was enforcing a less detailed approach to any of them. The goal was to allow the formulation of generalizations concerning the investigated phenomena and such objective was easier to achieve through a comparative approach than by focusing on single cases. Afterward, based on qualitative data, the cases were compared concerning several variables.

Contrary to chapters 2 and 3, chapter 4 did not include a comparative case study even though such was the initial intention of the author. It appeared more appropriate to investigate various forms of contacts between states and ISOs on the example of one of them—the IOC. Therefore chapter 4 constitutes an extended case study of this sports organization, although the research goal was to learn the nature of diplomatic functions and roles not only of the IOC but generally of international sports organizations. The decision to focus on the IOC as the research subject stemmed from the assumption that the diplomatic roles of ISOs rise alongside the growing popularity of sports or the sports events they administer. Accordingly, the federations in niche sports are expected to be less significant diplomatically than those in charge of the most popular sports. Therefore case study concerning the IOC was supposed to allow observation of the highest number of possible means of a sports organization playing diplomatic roles.

The data needed to pursue the research were collected from various sources. The author used the available scientific literature both in the context of sports diplomacy and the history of sport and the Olympic Movement, which acted as a supplement to the aforementioned political science outlet, particularly in the areas of international relations, specifically diplomacy and public diplomacy. An important share of the materials was acquired during archival queries—in IOC’s Historical Archives in Lausanne (Switzerland), US National Archives in College Park, Swedish National Archives Riksarkivet-Marieberg in Stockholm, and archives of the FIFA Museum in Zurich (Switzerland). Olympic archives in Lausanne proved to be particularly useful in the preparation of chapter 4, whereas the research conducted in the US National Archives was necessary for the investigation of American sports diplomacy concerning gaps in the literature. Documents consulted in Sweden allowed for a better understanding of the situation connected with communist states integrating with the Olympic Movement (prominent particularly concerning the German question in international sport). Remotely the author also consulted Carl und Liselott Diem archives in Cologne (Germany). The author of this book has also conducted library queries in Poland and other countries, including the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., Library of Olympic Studies Centre in Lausanne, Library of Deutsche Sporthochschule in Cologne, Library of FIFA Museum in Zurich, and Library of FIFA International Centre for Sports Studies in Neuchâtel (Switzerland). Additionally, the research included consultation of online press reports and websites.

The research was meant to concern present-day events and developments, but the character of the research object required accepting a more extended timescale, particularly concerning sports diplomacy directed at bringing hostile or estranged states closer together. In recent years there were not enough examples of such use of sport, whereas the Cold War reality favored such attempts. The availability of the documents regarding the IOC was also problematic since researchers are only allowed to consult documents older than twenty years. As a result, the timescale of the research encompasses times since the end of World War II, although the author attempted to refer to as contemporary events as possible.

Theoretically, the research presented in the book refers, in particular, to Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power. Accordingly, a state may sometimes fulfill its objectives without resorting to coercion or payment because other states could aim to follow in its path by admiring the values it represents, emulating its example or aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. Soft power is, therefore, about “getting others to want the outcomes you want.”²⁵ In the context of this book, sport is regarded as a soft power asset, although not exclusively. Consequently, if public diplomacy is a means of using soft power by governments to communicate particular contents to the public in other countries and to attract it,²⁶ then sports diplomacy—part of public diplomacy—is a more specific tool of using sport as the soft power asset.

Given the character of the research, it was necessary to refer to the international relations theory, particularly in the context of subjects of diplomacy. Although states remained in the center of interest as the actors pursuing public diplomacy with the use of sport, the author’s perspective is not state-centric, both in reference to actors directly engaged in the analyzed occurrences and the context of the diplomacy of ISOs. The book refers directly to the modernist approach of the study of international relations, particularly to institutional liberalism and interdependence liberalism which have been developed by authors such as Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane, and David Mitrany. This approach is connected to broadening the field of research and taking into consideration not only states but other subjects as well, such as international organizations, stateless nations, and social movements.²⁷ It is also assumed that states are capable of cooperation, which, according to David Mitrany, may be initiated in a technical sphere, and when both sides are satisfied spread into other areas.²⁸ This approach refers mainly to the function of sport investigated in chapter 2 where sports exchanges played a role of such technical cooperation and to the diplomacy of ISOs developed in chapter 4. The mentioned concepts also refer to the issues of interdependence, relationships occurring in the contemporary world and the role of international institutions, which also applies to the diplomacy of international sports subjects and their role in shaping interstate relations.

The monograph also refers to the multistakeholder diplomacy (or network diplomacy) concept,²⁹ represented, for example, by Brian Hocking. This concept assumes the complexity of processes connected with pursuing politics, the need for broader cooperation, and the engagement of many new actors in diplomatic processes.³⁰ Accordingly, diplomacy is becoming an activity oriented at creating networks composed of state and non-state actors focused on managing matters which require assets that no single subject owns. States function as generators of diplomacy. Even though the state-centric model of diplomacy also acknowledges non-state actors, it assumes them only as consumers of diplomacy, whereas according to the multistakeholder model, they can be producers of diplomatic effects as well.³¹ As Rhonda Zaharna put it, they may participate in networks sponsored by states, but they can establish such networks including state subjects as well.³² The model of multistakeholder diplomacy is useful in investigating interactions between numerous stakeholders, for example, in analyzing diplomacy associated with applying to host the Olympic Games.³³ States in search of necessary resources establish cooperation with sports subjects and include them in the diplomatic processes. Accordingly, ISOs such as the IOC are becoming diplomatic subjects—as stakeholders of states’ diplomacy which desire to use the popularity of sport to build their external image. Similarly, domestic sports subjects such as national federations, sports leagues, or clubs can become such stakeholders.

The author faced several challenges while conducting the research, particularly in connection to few scientific elaborations on the investigated subject. The inconsistency concerning the definition of sports diplomacy was also problematic. Definitions suggested by various authors differ from each other, which made it necessary to propose own approach. Certain difficulty also referred to the part of research concerning the diplomatic activity of ISOs in reference to investigating the frequency of the meetings between the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch and representatives of states he was visiting. The documents available to the author did not include all the trips Samaranch made. Apart from that, documents concerning subsequent IOC presidents were not available. It has, therefore, been assumed that the available data were sufficient to identify the general trend, although the author is aware of the limitation of this part of the research.

This book was originally published in Polish by the publishing house of the University of Lodz, Poland. The research was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland [grant number 2015/19/D/HS5/00513].

NOTES

1. Ahn Min-Seok, “The Political Economy of the World Cup in South Korea,” in Japan, Korea and the 2002 World Cup, ed. John Horne and Wolfram Manzenreiter (London: Routledge, 2002), 166; John Kelly, “Western Militarism and the Political Utility of Sport,” in Routledge Handbook of Sport and Politics, ed. Alan Bairner and John Kelly, Jung Woo Lee (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 282; Barrie Houlihan, Sport, Policy and Politics: A Comparative Analysis (London: Routledge, 1997), 62.

2. Stuart Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge: 2018), 94-5.

3. “About Us,” Sports Diplomacy, accessed October 30, 2019, https://sportsvisitorenvoy.org/about-us-4; “Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,” United States Department of State, accessed March 23, 2018, https://eca.state.gov/programs-initiatives/initiatives/sports-diplomacy.

4. “Australian Sports Diplomacy Strategy 2015–18,” Australian Government, accessed March 23, 2018, https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/aus-sports-diplomacy-strategy-2015-18.pdf.

5. David Rowe, “Football, Diplomacy and Australia in the Asian Century,” in Sport and Diplomacy: Games within Games, ed. J. Simon Rofe (Manchester, Manchester University Press), 153.

6. High Level Group on Sport Diplomacy, Report to Commissioner Tibor Navracsis, June 2016.

7. Barrie Houlihan, Sport and International Politics (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994); Sport and Society: A Student Introduction, ed. Barrie Houlihan (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008); Alfred E. Senn, Power, Politics and the Olympic Games: A History of Power Brokers, Events, and Controversies that Shaped the Games (Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1999); Richard Espy, The Politics of the Olympic Games (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979); Christopher R. Hill, Olympic Politics: Athens to Atlanta 1896–1996 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996); The Politics of Sport, ed. Lincoln Allison (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986); Jonathan Grix, Sport Politics: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave, 2016).

8. See: Hong Zhaohui and Sun Yi, “The Butterfly Effect and the Making of ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy,’” Journal of Contemporary China 25, no. 9 (2000): 429-448; Thomas Carter, “The Political Fallacy of Baseball Diplomacy,” Peace Review 11, no. 4 (1999): 579–584; Joseph M. Turrini, “‘It Was Communism versus the Free World’: The USA USSR Dual Track Meet Series and the Development of Track and Field in the United States, 1958–1985,” Journal of Sport History 28, no. 3 (2001): 427–471.

9. Donald Macintosh and Michael Hawes, Sport and Canadian Diplomacy (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994).

10. Guoqi Xu, Olympic Dreams: China and Sports 1895–2008 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Anne-Marie Brady, “The Beijing Olympics as a Campaign of Mass Distraction,” in China’s Thought Management, ed. Anne-Marie Brady (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), 11–35; Ying Yu, “Olympic Aspirations: Reconstructed Images, National Identity and International Integration,” The International Journal of the History of Sport 27, nos. 16–18 (2010): 2821–2841; Owning the Olympics: Narratives of the New China, ed. Monroe E. Price and Daniel Dayan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008).

11. M. R. G. Pope, “Public Diplomacy, International News Media and London 2012: Cosmopolitanism^TM,” Sport in Society 17, no. 9 (2014): 1119–1135; Jonathan Grix and Barrie Houlihan, “Sports Mega-Events as Part of a Nation’s Soft Power Strategy: The Cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012),” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16 (2014): 572–596; John Horne and Barrie Houlihan, “London 2012,” in Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-Events: Concepts and Cases, ed. Jonathan Grix (London: Palgrave, 2014), 107–117.

12. Stuart Murray, “The Two Halves of Sports-Diplomacy,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23, no. 3 (2012): 576–592; Stuart Murray, “Moving Beyond the Ping-Pong Table: Sports Diplomacy in the Modern Diplomatic Environment,” Public Diplomacy Magazine 9 (2013): 11–16; J. Simon Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: A Global Diplomacy Framework,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 212–230; Stuart Murray and Geoffrey A. Pigman, “Mapping the Relationship between International Sport and Diplomacy,” Sport in Society 17, no. 9 (2014): 1098–1118.

13. Stuart Murray, “Sports Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 617–627.

14. David Black and Byron Peacock, “Sport and Diplomacy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), 708–726.

15. Udo Merkel, “Sport as a Foreign Policy and Diplomatic Tool,” in Routledge Handbook of Sport and Politics, ed. Alan Bairner, John Kelly, and Jung Woo Lee (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 28–38.

16. Diplomatic Games: Sport, Statecraft, and International Relations since 1945, ed. Heather L. Dichter and Andrew L. Johns (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky: 2014).

17. Case Studies in Sport Diplomacy, ed. Craig Esherick, Robert E. Baker, Steven Jackson, and Michael Sam (Morgantown: FiT Publishing: 2017).

18. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 6.

19. Sport and Diplomacy: Games within Games, ed. J. Simon Rofe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018).

20. Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: A Global,” 212–230; Black and Peacock, “Sport,” 708–726; James Pamment, “Rethinking Diplomatic and Development Outcomes Through Sport: Toward a Participatory Paradigm of Multi-Stakeholder Diplomacy,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 231–250; Murray and Pigman, “Mapping,” 1098–1118; Murray, “The Two Halves,” 576–592.

21. Guoqi Xu, Olympic Dreams: China and Sports 1895–2008 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Fan Hong and Zhouxiang Lu, The Politicisation of Sport in Modern China: Communists and Champions (London: Routledge, 2013); Owning the Olympics: Narratives of the New China, ed. Monroe E. Price and Daniel Dayan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008); The Beijing Olympics: Promoting China: Soft and Hard Power in Global Politics, ed. Kevin Caffrey (London: Routledge, 2011); Victor D. Cha, Beyond the Final Score: The Politics of Sport in Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); The Global Impact of Olympic Media at London 2012, ed. Andrew C. Billings and Marie C. Hardin (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015); Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-Events: Concepts and Cases, ed. Jonathan Grix (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014); The Sochi Predicament: Contexts, Characteristics and Challenges of the Olympic Winter Games in 2014, ed. Bo Petersson and Karina Vamling (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2014); Jules Boykoff, Power Games: A Political History of the Olympics (London: Verso, 2016).

22. Xu, Olympic Dreams; Yafeng Xia, Negotiating with the Enemy: U.S.—China Talks during the Cold War, 1949–1972 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006); Nicholas Griffin, Ping-Pong Diplomacy: The Secret History behind the Game that Changed the World (New York: Skyhorse, 2014).

23. Beata Surmacz, Ewolucja współczesnej dyplomacji: Aktorzy, struktury, funkcje [Evolution of Contemporary Diplomacy: Actors, Structures and Functions] (Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 2015), 375.

24. Barrie Houlihan and Jinming Zheng, “Small States: Sport and Politics at the Margin,” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 7, no. 3 (2014): 330.

25. Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004), 5.

26. Joseph S. Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008): 95.

27. Teresa Łoś-Nowak, Stosunki międzynarodowe: Teorie-systemy-uczestnicy [International Relations: Theories-Systems-Participants] (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2006), 74.

28. Scott Burchill, “Liberalizm” [Liberalism], in Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych [Theories of International Relations], ed. Scott Burchill, Richard Devetak, Andrew Linklater, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True (Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza, 2006), 59; Judit Trunkos and Bob Heere, “Sport Diplomacy: A Review of How Sports Can Be Used to Improve International Relationships,” in Case Studies in Sport Diplomacy, ed. Craig Esherick, Robert E. Baker, Steven Jackson, and Michael Sam (Morgantown: FiT Publishing: 2017), 2.

29. Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century, Report no. 1 (The Hague: Clingendael, 2012), 11.

30. Aaron Beacom, International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement: The New Mediators (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012), 27.

31. Brian Hocking, “Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Foundations, Forms, Functions and Frustrations,” in Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. Jovan Kurbalija and Valentin Katrandjiev (Malta–Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2006), 13, 17.

32. R. S. Zaharna, “Network Purpose, Network Design: Dimensions of Network and Collaborative Public Diplomacy,” in Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift, ed. R. S. Zaharna, Amelia Arsenault, and Ali Fisher (New York: Routledge 2013), 175.

33. Beacom, International Diplomacy, 28.