Читать книгу Sports Diplomacy - Michał Marcin Kobierecki - Страница 9
ОглавлениеConnotation of the Category “Sports Diplomacy”
From a Colloquial Overview to a Conceptualization Attempt
SPORT AND DIPLOMACY
“Sports diplomacy” as a term is about combining sport and diplomacy. According to J. Simon Rofe, it should instead be called “sport and diplomacy” to underline a two-way reliance between both categories.1 Sports diplomacy is often described as a form of specification of public diplomacy. However, if the diplomacy of international sports organizations is considered, then their activity and subjectivity in the sphere of diplomacy refer rather to a more traditional perception of diplomacy.
Traditional approaches to diplomacy describe it as the management of interstate relations.2 Hans Morgenthau defined diplomacy as an instrument of securing peace aimed to foster national interest with the use of peaceful means.3 Morgenthau distinguished ministries of foreign affairs and diplomatic representatives sent to other states by these ministries as the only organized instruments of diplomacy.4 The state-centric approach to diplomacy has also been expressed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961.5 In the main current of international relations diplomacy has been recognized most of all in the context of the activity of states, what can be derived from a generally state-centric approach of this field of study.6 Such an attitude toward diplomacy is characterized by bounding diplomacy with sovereignty and “high politics” where diplomats are regarded as people with appropriate predispositions and capabilities.7
Even though diplomacy traditionally was considered to be exercised exclusively by governments, nowadays authors tend to support the view that it also refers to processes of mediation and negotiation which are not limited to sovereign states.8 James Der Derian claimed that diplomacy is a mediation between mutually estranged individuals, groups, and subjects.9 Therefore, if we accept that the contemporary world is characterized by the diffusion of state authority into other actors, the concept of state diplomacy as the only medium of affecting international relations is contested.10
The changing nature of diplomacy in the context of the Cold War was noticed already in the 1960s by Harold Nicolson.11 It can be assumed, that together with the evolution of contemporary international relations, non-state actors found their place within diplomacy. For example, NGOs developed a diversity of relations with states.12 The diplomacy is undergoing changes and its actors and locations are multiplicated. Noé Cornago referred to the process of pluralization of diplomacy and claimed that nowadays there are diplomacies rather than diplomacy.13
Diplomacy is evolving and becoming increasingly open, with network forms and processes challenging previous hierarchical structures. These networks include several actors apart from governments, often not determined by national boundaries.14 Rebecca Adler-Nissen apart from traditional actors of diplomacy mentioned subjects such as subnational and regional authorities, interstate organizations, multinational corporations, celebrities, and nongovernmental organizations.15 If non-state diplomatic actors are considered, nongovernmental organizations unattached to any territory (such as sports organizations like the International Olympic Committee and international federations) and transnational corporations should be mentioned.16 The new model of international relations assumes that states remain their key actors but are not the only ones.17 Their role comparing to other actors diminishes owing to globalization and growing interdependencies.18 It is connected to the concept of conventional anomalies, which refers to non-state subjects with established diplomatic standing.19
The issue relates to polylateralism—a concept of the third dimension of diplomacy besides bilateral and multilateral. It embraces relations between states (including groups of states and intergovernmental organizations) and non-state subjects. According to this approach, non-state actors develop normal diplomatic relations that include reporting, communication, negotiation, and representation without mutual recognition of sovereignty.20 Such theoretical approaches allow including activities of international sports actors into the analysis of contemporary diplomacy. Accordingly, Geoffrey Wiseman credited International Olympic Committee as an actor of transnational civil society that works for nonprofit and supports legitimate sociopolitical causes across international borders and engages in diplomatic interactions.21
Considerations concerning contemporary diplomacy include a concept of new diplomacy that assumes states giving in to non-state actors owing to fragmentation of diplomatic institutions and the tendency that diplomacy is becoming more public and dependent on grassroots mobilization. New diplomacy assumes that in some spheres, official politics remains superior, while in others “new diplomats” compete with governments and compensate their inactivity.22 It also refers to sports diplomacy pursued beyond governments’ initiative and control, although in their interest. The diplomacy of transnational sports organizations is different since their actions do not compensate states’ passivity. It stems from their position and assets that make governments want to engage in diplomatic processes with them.
The concept of corporate diplomacy is also useful in explaining the phenomenon of sports diplomacy. It assumes that in the times of neoliberal globalization even though states remained the key subjects of international relations, the influence has shifted from the public to private and from the national to transnational spheres.23 This results in attaching greater significance to non-state actors operating in the international arena, particularly transnational corporations and non-state organizations.
In the contemporary, globalized world full of interdependencies traditional diplomacy understood as a tool of managing relations between states appears to be no longer sufficient, thus creating space for new diplomatic subjects. This changing nature of diplomacy allowed sports subjects to engage. It has also resulted in updating the repertoire of states’ activities and made it possible to engage non-state actors operating in their territories.
Sport and Public Diplomacy
There is a strong tendency to regard sports diplomacy as a subcategory of public diplomacy. It is described this way by states that pursue it in an institutionalized way. Many authors also refer to the use of sport within public diplomacy. According to Beata Ociepka, sport plays a vital role in public diplomacy since it may be used to build the international position of a state.24 This part includes a conceptualization of the role of sport, or sports diplomacy, within public diplomacy.
Public diplomacy developed because of the growing diversity and the intensification of international relations, which required greater specialization of diplomacy and development of its forms. Traditional diplomacy was then accompanied by special missions, conference and parliamentary diplomacy, the diplomacy of global problems, ecologic, cultural, social, military, and public diplomacy.25 Scientific considerations over public diplomacy were pursued since the 1960s in the United States, while the term is associated with a former diplomat Edmund Gullion who established the Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy, although for the first time the term was used already in the nineteenth century, but with a different meaning.26
James Pamment described public diplomacy as the communication of international actor’s policy to citizens of foreign countries. Such communication is pursued by ministries of foreign affairs, NGOs, and organizations of civil society through tools such as media releases, conferences, events, joint endeavors, and cultural exchange or international exchange of employees and students. They are based on the assumption that it is possible to affect relations between governments by engaging citizens whose opinions, values, activities, and interests might help to adjust another government’s attitude.27
A similar approach to public diplomacy can be observed in certain state documents. The US Department of State described it as informing the foreign public and winning support for the goals of American foreign policy.28 Its primary role is to build up trust between the engaged actors.29 In general, public diplomacy is defined as an activity directed outside, but some authors also distinguish its internal dimension connected to interactions with the domestic audience.30
Public diplomacy subjects include states (governments and their agencies), public subjects (parliaments and political parties), non-state subjects (NGOs, multinational and transnational corporations, individuals).31 Recognition of the role of non-state actors in the early 1990s marked a turning point in constructing the definition of public diplomacy.32 Today authors distinguish public diplomacy pursued by states and grassroots, people-to-people or nongovernmental public diplomacy.33 This division is defined by some authors as traditional public diplomacy versus new public diplomacy.
Traditional public diplomacy has been associated with relations between mutually hostile states whose governments attempted to affect other societies to change their governments’ attitudes toward them.34 The new public diplomacy connects to new challenges in international relations, particularly in the context of the growing number of threats in the twenty-first century. One-way communication directed at the external public was supplemented with “listening to others,” dialogue replaced monologue, short-term political goals were replaced by building long-term ties.35 Today cooperation is considered as the third layer of public diplomacy.36 As Nancy Snow illustrated it, traditional diplomacy was about relations between governments, traditional public diplomacy encompassed communication between government and a global audience, while new approaches to public diplomacy assume that both governments and private individuals and groups affect directly and indirectly views and opinions which influence the foreign policy of particular states.37 Stuart Murray had similar observations concerning sports diplomacy. According to him “sports diplomacy 2.0” (later Murray referred to it as simply “sports diplomacy”) comprises its newer type comparing to (traditional) sports diplomacy dominated by governments as a tool of pursuing diplomacy between states. It is more inclusive and besides governmental engagement includes activities of non-state actors and network partnerships typical for the twenty-first-century diplomacy. Such partnerships are comprised of traditional diplomats, corporations, NGOs, civil society organizations, and athletes who employ sport to shape the positive external perception of states.38 This way, the ministry of foreign affairs acts as a sports gatekeeper which facilitates, manages, and evaluates the overall sports diplomacy of a country.39 We can assume that both in the studies on diplomacy in general, and on sports diplomacy, increasing attention has been dedicated to non-state actors. This book, despite being focused on states, fits within this trend, and the sports diplomacy of non-state actors has been dedicated significant attention, even though apart from the chapter on international sports organizations such activities have been investigated in reference to states’ interests and policies.
“Nation branding” is another relevant term. It refers to treating nations as brands and is defined as a social and governance process aimed at building the state’s image and reputation on an international scale, desirable from the perspective of the strategy of its development.40 The term is to a large extent similar to public diplomacy because both of them employ social power to affect the image of a state,41 although according to the majority of authors, they are not synonyms. Public diplomacy focuses on means through which states and other subjects communicate with citizens and societies of other countries to promote its image, which is later used as an instrument of developing international political relations. Nation branding, on the other hand, primarily addresses the global market with political agencies as a secondary concern.42 In short, public diplomacy is focused on political goals, whereas nation branding aims to reach economic objectives.
Jan Melissen observed that contrary to public diplomacy, nation branding has a much more holistic character and that both terms are complementary, particularly if new public diplomacy is concerned.43 According to Eytan Gilboa, nation branding and public diplomacy are in some aspects very similar, while in others distinct. Similarities refer to managing the image and symbols, building relations and extensive use of mass media, whereas the differences include means, types of communication, management, language, and culture.44
Sports diplomacy as a category confirms complementarity and mutual interfusion of public diplomacy and nation branding. In general, sports diplomacy is perceived as a subcategory of public diplomacy. However, some of its displays are more similar to nation branding. For example, sometimes the goals of hosting sports events are typical for public diplomacy such as deepening understanding between nations, but economic motivation can be equally important. In this context, sports diplomacy is a subcategory of public diplomacy, but at the same time it can be the tool of nation branding.
Public diplomacy is deeply connected with the concept of soft power. Some authors even define it as a tool of managing soft power resources to increase the international potential of a state, coordinate all soft power assets and use economic power assets,45 even though the economy in principle is classified within hard power. The concept of soft power is associated with Joseph Nye, who claimed that the state could sometimes achieve its objectives because other countries will want to follow its lead through admiring values it represents or following its example.46 Nye defined public diplomacy as a tool of using soft power assets by governments to communicate particular content to the public in other countries and to attract it.47
When soft power resources are considered, aspects of culture, ideology, and institutions are usually mentioned.48 Elements that are taken into account in attempts to rank states from the perspective of soft power include migrations, tourism, sport, culture, presence in the media, technology, science, education, development aid, regime, foreign policy, etc.49 Soft power is the power to attract stemming from intangible resources that are responsible for the attractiveness of a state. In the context of this research, it should be noted that sport could also be regarded as a soft power resource. For example, a high level of the sport in a state, which can be observed through a strong sports league or Olympic national team, is the factor that attracts global attention.
A significant thread in considerations relating to public diplomacy refers to the state’s engagement in coordinating it. In practice, public diplomacy often is not pursued directly by state authorities, but by various nongovernmental actors such as companies operating internationally, NGOs, or individuals. It can cause doubts about whether spontaneous and uncoordinated endeavors of such actors, which eventually lead to a change of state’s international perception or to fostering realization of foreign policy goals should also be classified as public diplomacy. This problem is subject to discourses between scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy.50 It appears that public diplomacy should be pursued in a planned and coordinated way with relevant institutions responsible. On the other hand, there are several examples of public diplomacy that cannot be assessed as coordinated or controlled by the state. It can, therefore, be assumed that in principle, public diplomacy endeavors should be coordinated by state authorities. On the other hand, activities of non-state actors such as transnational companies from a particular country or sports teams should also be classified as public diplomacy if they are beneficial for the state’s image and position in the international arena. The role of the state in such cases is to make use of them. It refers both to public diplomacy and to sports diplomacy.
Regarding sports diplomacy as a subcategory of public diplomacy is quite common. According to David Black and Byron Peacock sport has recently gained significance as a tool of public diplomacy in reference to the evolution of its goals in the post–Cold War, global world.51 Jacquie L’Etang claimed that governments use sport as a part of public diplomacy.52 Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman distinguished two categories of sports diplomacy, including one understood as a part of public diplomacy. For example, governments employ sportspeople to amplify a diplomatic message or use sports events for public diplomacy purposes.53 J. Simon Rofe noted that organizing sports mega-events, which appears to be one of the most important aspects of sports diplomacy, as a result of their transnational character and the fact that they allow states to reach plenty of people as audiences, allows for the “dissemination of public diplomacy.”54 Catherine Palmer, on the other hand, assessed sports boycotts and sanctions imposed on South Africa as examples of cultural diplomacy.55 Sports diplomacy as a subcategory of public diplomacy was also presented by Evan Potter in his analysis of Canada’s public diplomacy. Potter observed that progress of public diplomacy in Canada was held through sport, a “unique vehicle of Canadian public diplomacy.”56 Stuart Murray, even though he did not explicitly classify sports diplomacy as a category of public diplomacy, mentioned that state-led sports diplomacy’s (meaning new sports diplomacy in his quadripartite framework) strategies, experiments and policies dovetail with public diplomacy since they share the same ethos, purpose, and utility. Murray has also used the term “public sports diplomacy” in reference to the use of sports in building relations between the publics of estranged nations.57 The term was used to describe one of the forms, or types, of sports diplomacy, but it is hard not to assume that even if sports diplomacy and public diplomacy are regarded as distinct, the boundary between them is at least blurred. This book presents a view that most forms of sports diplomacy fit within the realm of public diplomacy. There are, of course, certain forms and issues which cannot be classified as public diplomacy, for example, the negotiations pursued by international sports organizations with other diplomatic actors. This type of sports diplomacy is, however, also connected to public diplomacy. In this book, actors such as the IOC or FIFA are regarded as public diplomacy external stakeholders.
Approaches to Sports Diplomacy
Ping-pong diplomacy between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the United States is one of the most often cited examples of the diplomatic significance of sport. PRC was isolated internationally as a result of its conflict with the Republic of China (Taiwan) supported by Western states, and deterioration of relations with the Soviet Union. Ping-pong diplomacy allowed both states to establish direct contacts, leading to Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing in February 1972. Diplomatic developments were preceded by a visit of nine American table tennis players, four officials, two accompanying persons, and ten journalists in China in April 1971. This and other cases of such diplomatic utilization of sport used its universality and peaceful character to establish or enhance diplomatic contacts in the situation of officially hostile or estranged relations. As Andrew Johns stated, “Sport reflects common interests shared across borders and has the capacity to bring together groups otherwise divided.”58 It is claimed that the diplomatic utility of sport stems from the fact that both fans and members of political elites can be reached through their affection to sport.59 We can also say that sport because of its subtlety and malleability adds new elements to the repertoire of tools of pursuing foreign policy goals.60
Sports diplomacy perceived this way could be defined as a “reasonably safe, benign way of making friends and managing conflicts.”61 A similar approach is presented by Jacquie L’Etang, who claims that sport is used by governments to signal the desire for closer relations between states.62 It is generally accepted that sport due to its universality and softness can help in establishing international cooperation and promoting rapprochement in situations when the use of traditional diplomatic tools is difficult or impossible. An approach narrowing the scope of sports diplomacy only to this dimension is not very popular though.
The majority of authors support the view that the scope of sports diplomacy is wider, although different elements may be emphasized in different approaches. Anurag Saxena stated that sports diplomacy covers the use of sport as a tool of improving, and sometimes worsening diplomatic relations.63 Udo Merkel defined sports diplomacy as a whole range of international contacts between athletes, teams, fans, coaches, officials, and politicians in the context of sports competition, sports events, exchanges, and cooperation, which are motivated by broader foreign policy concerns and have implications for the bilateral relations and the general political climate in the countries involved.64 These approaches to sports diplomacy include not only activities similar to ping-pong diplomacy, but also intentional use of sport to highlight dissatisfaction with the policy of a particular state. It may include sports boycott, a diplomatic boycott of a sports event when, for example, politicians resign from participation in the opening ceremony, or sports isolation like in case of measures undertaken against South Africa in response to apartheid. Such use of sport to condemn a particular state is referred to as negative sports diplomacy65 or “no sport as diplomacy.”66
A similar approach to sports diplomacy was presented by Rui Santos, Alexandre Mestre, and Francisco de Megalhāes, according to whom sports diplomacy includes activities promoting peace and cooperation, but can also be a tool of ideological confrontation and demonstration of strength and power.67 A similar view was presented by Phillip D’Agati, who claimed that sports diplomacy includes boycotts and disagreements on sports policy between nations.68 Sports diplomacy is also defined as an addition to traditional diplomatic practices aimed at strengthening governments’ position, for example, about diplomatic recognition of states or dissatisfaction with the behavior of states hosting sports events.69
Some authors claim that sports diplomacy should be considered as using sport both in respect to building international cooperation and exposing conflicts, but only in the context of direct engagement of governments. According to Martin Polley, sports diplomacy is about governments using sport to make statements about other countries, for example, Olympic boycotts in the 1970s and 1980s were statements of disapproval and condemnation, while British decision to promote sporting links with Germany in 1930 was a statement about normality and appeasement.70 This approach presents attachment to the traditional understanding of diplomacy as an attribute of states. Obviously, sports diplomacy is a tool of governments, but especially today, the scope of this category appears to be much broader and includes activities of non-state actors as well. Such an approach can be seen in the definition proposed by Stuart Murray, who claimed that sports diplomacy is a form of public diplomacy, which involves “representative and diplomatic activities undertaken by sportspeople on behalf of and in conjunction with their governments.”71
A broader approach to defining sports diplomacy can also be found in state documents. For example, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea in Diplomatic White Paper 2014 described sports diplomacy as a tool of strengthening bilateral and multilateral sports cooperation and referred to government’s engagement in bidding for sports events, assisting Korean citizens in becoming board members of sports organizations or dispatching taekwondo masters and demonstration teams overseas.72 In US Congressional Record from 2003 it is claimed that “the Secretary is authorized to expand efforts to promote United States public diplomacy interests in eligible countries and elsewhere through sports diplomacy,” which can be done through activities such as bilateral exchanges to train athletes or teams and to assist countries in establishing or improving their sports, health, or physical education programs, providing assistance to American athletic governing bodies to support their efforts to foster cooperation with counterpart organizations abroad and utilizing American professional athletes and other well-known sports personalities in support of public diplomacy goals and activities.73 This approach includes two main types of international activities within the scope of sports diplomacy: bilateral sports exchanges which include supporting development of sport in other countries, for example, sending coaches, experts, or athletes overseas for joint trainings; and the use of global recognisability of sports stars employed by Department of State in order to promote the United States. The presented approach did not refer to breaking political isolation, but once again emphasized the connection between sports diplomacy and public diplomacy.
Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman distinguished two categories of sports diplomacy. First of them refers to the international sport being consciously employed by governments as an instrument of diplomacy, while the second, described as international-sport-as-diplomacy, involves “diplomatic representation, communication, and negotiation between non-state actors (but also with governments) that take place as a result of ongoing international sporting competition.”74 Murray and Pigman present a wider approach to sports diplomacy. First of the categories offered by them is the most obvious dimension of sports diplomacy and is particularly crucial in political analyses. However, a globalizing world brought an increasing role of non-state actors in international relations, and this tendency refers to the international sport as well. Therefore, sports diplomacy, as a domain of non-state actors, should also be recognized.
In his recent book, Stuart Murray presented a framework of four theoretical subcategories: traditional sports diplomacy, sports diplomacy, the specialized diplomacy of non-state sporting actors, and sports anti-diplomacy. Traditional sports diplomacy can be defined as the use, exploitation, or abuse of elite sport, sportspeople, or sports events to advance the state’s foreign policy objectives. “New” sports diplomacy, or simply sports diplomacy, is more inclusive which also includes activities of non-state and public partnerships, while ministries of foreign affairs facilitate, manage, and evaluate sports diplomacy strategies and policies. Its objective is to enhance the state’s image, reputation, and partnership. The concept of diplomacy of non-state sporting actors refers to sports bodies that communicate, negotiate, and engage in diplomatic representation. Sports anti-diplomacy refers to the dark side of the diplomatic employment of sport. Murray describes it as “intentional abuse of sport to drive people and states apart,”75 but this concept is different from the negative sports diplomacy mentioned earlier in this book.
James Pamment identified a number of aspects in which sports diplomacy refers to diplomacy, which include summitry, celebrity, symbolism, and reputational advantages of sporting mega-events and elite sport; multilateral diplomacy and pseudo-diplomacy of non-state sporting institutions and sport as a carrier of values, norms, and standards, promoted as technical knowledge and participatory social practice.76 This approach seems to underestimate the importance of sports contacts on an amateur level that sometimes are employed by states to get closer to other countries or to shape their positive image, although these issues could probably be classified within the first of the aspects presented by Pamment. What is particularly important in this approach is that it underlines issues of image-building and diplomacy (or pseudo-diplomacy) of non-state sports organizations. Hence, it is difficult not to recognize the growing diplomatic role of actors such as the International Olympic Committee or IFs.
Judit Trunkos and Bob Heere distinguished several strategic goals of sports diplomacy. They include using sport as an unofficial opportunity for meetings between state leaders, to communicate about a state which hosts a sports event, to counteract cultural and linguistic differences between states, to create platforms for new legislation and trade agreements, to build wider awareness of particular state owing to activity of sports ambassadors, to create legacies by hosts of sports events, to boost their international image, and to legitimize new states.77 All these aspects fall into the category of sports diplomacy as a means of shaping the state’s perception and its relations with other countries. Trunkos and Heere also referred to the role of international sports governing bodies, but their list of sports diplomacy strategic goals is focused on states.
A review of approaches to sports diplomacy leads to the conclusion that there are several ways of perceiving it, which differ concerning the scope of the term. In general, sports diplomacy can be described as a diplomatic instrument, which because of its target is situated in principle within the scope of public diplomacy. Some authors connect sports diplomacy with the activity of states, at the same time noticing the role of other actors in this field, such as sports organizations, teams, individual sportspeople. In both cases, the target of sports diplomacy includes governments and citizens of another country. The broadest approach to sports diplomacy perceives international sport as a diplomatic arena, with sports organizations involved as diplomatic subjects.
In response to the observations above, particularly in reference to approaches of sports diplomacy presented by Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman and James Pamment, but with particular regard to the subjects and objectives of sports diplomacy, three types of sports diplomacy might be distinguished: (1) as a means of shaping interstate relations, (2) as a means of building international image and prestige of states, and (3) as a diplomatic activity of international sports subjects.
Sports Diplomacy as a Means of Shaping Interstate Relations
If a state-centric perspective on sports diplomacy is adopted, it is hard to deny that it is often subordinate to traditional diplomacy, or foreign policy. When defined most narrowly, sports diplomacy serves the goal of building diplomatic relations in their traditional sense. For example, the purpose of ping-pong diplomacy was in principle to arrange a “safe” meeting for the United States and the PRC. In the situation of lack of official diplomatic relations, sport, which in theory is separate from politics, could be used to avoid the risk of losing face if the attempt to establish diplomatic contact failed. What is more, the United States was allied with the Republic of China and could not have initiated a transparent dialogue with the PRC. There were several circumstances which prevented from traditional diplomatic contacts. An initiative to use sport for this sake became an answer to this problem, which proved to be successful. It was a clear example of how sport can be employed in pursuing relations between states.
In this context, sports diplomacy appears as a tool for realizing particular state interests associated with the need to affect the relations between countries. It does not mean that such sports diplomacy has to be coordinated by the government. Sports contacts might well be initiated on the grassroots level, but in the situation of strong antagonism between states, the proposition of sports exchange and its acceptance involve communication on a governmental level, at least to some extent. It may target public opinion or political elites. Therefore, sports diplomacy, despite being in principle a subcategory of public diplomacy, may also be seen as an auxiliary tool of traditional diplomacy, a substitute for secret diplomacy, which enables establishing international contacts without risking criticism in case the endeavor fails.
The issue of negative sports diplomacy is different. It includes sports boycotts and attempts to isolate particular states in international sport. Stuart Murray rightly divided such utilization of sport as “we’re not playing” or “you’re not allowed to play” and classified them as examples of the traditional sports diplomacy.78 Such activities can also be regarded as part of public diplomacy and at the same time, may directly serve foreign policy goals. Generally speaking, they might influence societies of foreign countries in a way typical for public diplomacy. For example, when the United States and its allies boycotted the Olympic Games in Moscow, Soviet citizens were supposed to receive a message about international condemnation to the Soviet Union’s policy. To some extent, this goal was achieved. One of the Soviet spectators of the Games was reported to have said that he had noticed that more than half of the world protests against the USSR and that the Olympics planted doubt whether Soviet leaders were doing the right thing.79 Measures undertaken by African states aimed at excluding South Africa from the international sport in response to apartheid policy can be perceived similarly—they were supposed to show white South Africans that their government’s policy was wrong.
At the same time, it would have been naïve for American decision-makers to expect that after sports boycott Kremlin would have changed its policy as a result of Soviet citizens’ dissatisfaction. In nondemocratic countries, the will of the people is reflected in official policy in a limited way. From this perspective, a boycott should be perceived as a form of sending a message to political leaders of another country about dissatisfaction with its political decisions. Diplomatic sports boycotts that may involve political leaders resigning from participation in opening ceremonies of sports events held in contested states are similar. Such absence is immediately noticed by public opinion, but most directly, it aims to communicate to the authorities of such country.
Sports diplomacy perceived this way can be described as a means of shaping relations with other states, in connection to attempts for political rapprochement or to communicate condemnation for other state’s policy. It is very much interconnected with Murray’s concept of traditional sports diplomacy defined as the use, exploitation, and sometimes abuse of elite sport, sportspeople, or sports events to advance foreign policy objectives,80 but limited to one goal—managing relations with other states. This type of sports diplomacy is usually pursued directly by governments, but it can also be the result of grassroots initiatives. Such sports diplomacy is a clear example of the use of sport within public diplomacy and targets both public opinion and authorities of another country.
Sports Diplomacy as a Means of Building an International Image and Prestige of States
One of the fundamental goals of sports is to create a favorable international image of a state that pursues it. It stems from the fact that public diplomacy involves coordinated use of soft power resources, while sport can be classified as such resource. Therefore, apart from shaping interstate relations, the objective of sports diplomacy is to build an international image and prestige of a state. In this context, sports diplomacy may sometimes go beyond the scope of public diplomacy and involve activities more typical for nation-branding (if considered as distinct from public diplomacy).
Nation-brand can be defined in many ways, for example, as a “unique, multi-dimensional blend of elements that provide the nation with culturally grounded differentiation and relevance for all of its target audiences.”81 People shape their opinion on a particular country based on sources such as media releases, stereotypes, contacts with its residents, stories told by people who visited it, or their observations. Their opinion can also be the result of a mixture of these elements.
The issue of an image of a state and its shaping connects with Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power. States attempt to increase their soft power to enhance their capabilities of affecting the international environment, which stems from the way the foreign public perceives them. There are several tools for shaping the external perception of a state within nation branding and public diplomacy. The most common ones include the quality of products manufactured in a country, its attractiveness concerning tourism and the possibilities of studying and working, the temperament of its citizens, shape of foreign policy, cultural aspects including sport, etc. A state can affect these factors in different ways, and sport belongs to those that governments can affect quite strongly, of course, having regard to physical limitations such as wealth or population.
Sport belongs to popular means of increasing soft power since few things attract the attention of people so strongly. About sport’s capabilities of shaping the image of a state, it is believed to be one of the essential phenomena of mass culture. It triggers powerful emotions and as a result leads to the creation of associations.82 Reaching a high level in sport and hosting sports mega-events allows to win international recognition and achieve geopolitical objectives.83 Enhancing national prestige is mentioned as one of the critical means of the political use of sport alongside securing legitimacy, compensating for other aspects of life within their boundaries, and peacefully pursuing international rivalries.84
When sport is considered as a tool of shaping the international image of a state, the most common tools include successful performance in sport, sports exchanges, sports development aid, hosting sports events, and participation in international competition—in case of small and microstates or those with limited international recognition. Other methods include intensive sports investments or having globally known athletes, although in this case, the level of state’s influence is limited. Below each of them will be described shortly.
The importance of the results athletes achieve in international sport is often raised in considerations on shaping the state’s international image. Sports victories traditionally have been used by many countries to build their prestige. This aspect connects to the issue of sportive nationalism, defined as “the use of elite athletes by governments to demonstrate national fitness and vitality for the purpose of enhancing national prestige.”85 Even though traditionally, this way of the political use of sports was associated with propaganda, it can also be assessed as a tool of public diplomacy regardless of whether democratic or nondemocratic states are concerned.
Sports victories are sometimes perceived as an indicator of the success of state authorities or the general abundance of a state. Countries that are successful in the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup are usually best scored in nation-brand rankings in the field of culture.86 Michał Kobierecki and Piotr Strożek also observed the positive association between the results achieved on the Olympic Games and the image of a state.87 Sport provides an arena for competition, in which a country can win international prestige using other means than expansionist nationalism,88 and at the same time, it can present its national identity. The use of sports victories in building a positive image of a state as a mechanism corresponds with the use of sport as a tool of national consolidation. Sports victory is in such cases similar as successfully hosting a sports event, as a “parade of national achievements.”89
Sports victories depend on many factors, and governments have viable possibilities to shape the majority of them.90 Therefore, a high sports level can provide proof of states’ vitality and power. The world’s media report sports victories, so they are a source of international publicity and present such countries in a good light. Excellent sports performance also includes a high level of sport in a country, in the form of, for example, a strong football league. Contemporary football clubs are global brands with large numbers of fans worldwide, so since they do not act in isolation from their country of origin,91 they also contribute to building positive associations with such states. It refers to individual athletes as well, who can be described as global sports celebrities. Their sports achievements and sometimes even private life generate worldwide interest, which, as a result, boosts their homeland’s publicity as well.
Sports achievements is a versatile means of affecting the way the international public perceives a state. The problem lies in the state’s capabilities of boosting the number of sports victories since various states have a different amount of necessary assets. It, on the other hand, is connected to the level of hard power. With regard to the globally known athletes, states with a high level of sport are more likely to raise such champions, although it is not entirely under their control. Interestingly, global recognition of athletes can also be considered as an individual method of image-building sports diplomacy.
Sports exchanges comprise another method of image-building sports diplomacy. They involve arranging international contacts of athletes, coaches, sports experts, and officials. Their goal is to build a more positive perception of a state among the society of another country. Sports exchanges were also used as a method of sports diplomacy perceived as a tool for shaping interstate relations. In this context, they can be classified both as an example of sports diplomacy directed at shaping international relations and at building an image of a state, since the contacts between the people engaged in such exchange lead to building mutual sympathy, rejecting stereotypes, and presenting values of respective countries. It might lead to doubt concerning the difference between the two types of sports diplomacy. It refers to the determination of the objective and directness of influence. Exchanges typical for shaping an image of a country have an overall goal of enhancing the way a country is perceived outside, what in the future may bring such country more international friends. On the other hand, sports diplomacy as a tool of shaping relations with other states is connected with particular, often more, interim and visible goals such as rapprochement between estranged countries. It must be noted though that the boundary between these two types of sports diplomacy is sometimes blurred and certain cases might have the qualities of both of them, and the assessment to which category particular case fits might have a normative character.
Providing sports development aid, to some extent, is similar to sports exchanges. In general, development aid is regarded as a typical method of public diplomacy. Rhonda Zaharna classified it within the second tier relationship-building initiatives (whereas exchanges were identified within the first tier). They are based on the assumption that aid symbolizes ties between two entities and develops relationships between the personnel of the sponsor and their counterparts among the people from the country that accepts assistance as they are both engaged in the project.92 In this context, it is similar to sports exchanges. Therefore those two methods have been described jointly. Sports development aid includes providing support in the field of sport or through sport. It encompasses providing training, donating equipment, or funding construction of sports venues.
Hosting sports events is one of the most often investigated types of the use of sport in shaping international prestige and the desired image of a state. It is often perceived as an example of employing public diplomacy and soft power.93 According to Joseph Nye, sports events fall within the second concentric circle of public diplomacy alongside everyday communication and building lasting relations with individuals in other countries, which is connected with strategic communication. It includes developing a set of simple themes concerning a particular state.94 Their usefulness stems from the fact that they are an example of a special event.95 It is also emphasized that sports events affect the perception of places in which they are held very strongly compared to other cultural events. The most important sports events in the analyzed context, according to Simon Anholt, are the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, Tour de France, and New York Marathon.96
If sports events and their role in shaping the international image of a state are considered, particular attention is paid to sports mega-events. They last a relatively short time, but their social dimension exceeds their time perspective significantly. At the same time, they offer entertainment and emotions for the mass of spectators.97 They can be distinguished by the fact that they generate tourism, media attention, prestige, and have an economic impact on local communities.98 Their social effects include a contribution to the development of infrastructure of a city or a country, enhancement of local pride, or creation of a subculture of belonging and cohesiveness.99 In the context of this research, the most important is their significance concerning image building. They are believed to provide a rare opportunity to present the image of a state in global media, thus providing international visibility.100 As a result, the initiatives to host sports mega-events are often undertaken by countries that have something to prove in the international arena101 as they allow to present to the world a particular picture. Organizing them and bidding for them often become vital factors of developing local and national strategies.102
The Olympic Games is one of the most important types of sports mega-events. According to Xin Zhong et al. they give a chance to shape a competitive identity that occurs once for a generation.103 Many regard it as one of the best marketing tools available to states and cities for various reasons. A few years before the Olympics companies begin to promote their ties with the event, while a few months before the opening ceremony reporters from around the world begin to publish articles about the states that host them. Further attention is generated by the Olympic flame relay, which starts a few weeks before the event. The opening ceremony is an exposition of the host’s culture watched by at least three billion people. The sports competition is followed by 92.5 percent of adults having access to television.104 These events are sometimes assessed concerning their value because of such intense media coverage, which is meaningful in business but can also speak in favor of their use in shaping states’ international image.
Hosting major sports events according to Jonathan Grix and Paul Brannagan for many states became an important part of their wider diplomatic armory because they generate soft power, which is connected to many states’ strategic shift from hard power to soft power.105 Hosting events such as the Olympics is an extraordinary opportunity to present a state, region, or city and its merits to global public, or to send a particular message. Hosting sports mega-events is, therefore, a clear example of shaping the international image of a state through sport.
Staging sports events has several specific goals, which include the government’s desire to improve relations with other countries, boost morale of the society and state’s image, mainly in the context of presenting the changes the country has undergone.106 Other objectives include the development of states and cities hosting sports events,107 economic benefits such as boosting tourism and tackling unemployment, enhancing national pride, and achieving political objectives.108 Sometimes it is connected with the need to counter negative stereotypes. It was the case with South Africa hosting FIFA World Cup.109 Obviously, in different situations, there are different vital motivations, but undoubtedly, the goal to influence the state’s external perception belongs to the most important motivations from the perspective of governments.
According to Jonathan Grix and Barrie Houlihan positive impact on the nation’s image or brand has recently moved from being a welcome consequence to a significant justification for hosting sports events.110 It is important to note that the image-building sports diplomacy realized through hosting sports events in various situations can be more similar to public diplomacy or nation branding, or it may have features of both of these categories if they are considered separately. It appears though that in contemporary world nation-branding aspects prevail.
The mechanism of shaping the international image of a state through hosting sports events stems mostly from their popularity. This trend is strengthened by the fact that they are available globally owing to the development of international media. Beata Ociepka employed the media event mechanism to explain why sports events may become a part of public diplomacy. They often are a turning point in developing public diplomacy strategies because they create appropriate circumstances and accelerate the whole process. The importance of hosting sports events within shaping the image of a state is also explained in reference to the country of origin effect, according to the assumption that a positive assessment of a country based on the sports event is transmitted to other areas.111 Within sports events, opening and closing ceremonies can be assessed as such media events on their merit, since they enjoy the highest television ratings and general interest.112 People responsible for preparing them must find a balance between expectations of sports organizations responsible for such event concerning unbiased reception of athletes from the whole world, and the need to present the host in the best light.113 In this respect, the artistic part of the ceremony provides an exclusive forum to communicate different contents. For example, a state hosting such event may present its past in a selective and idealized way.114 It is an opportunity to show the world a harmonized picture of national identity and to present alternative national identities and renewed national narrations.115
It should be clarified the formally it is not the states that host sports events. Appropriate organizing committees, sports federations, or municipalities are responsible. It does not mean that governments are not engaged. Their involvement can have many forms. In states such as China, governmental engagement has been straightforward, while in other countries, it might be more indirect, limited to financial support, or even less. Despite actual involvement in organizing the event state authorities usually try to use them in shaping a positive image of the country, not only indirectly as a result of the fact that sports events attract fans and journalists who visit the country, but also directly through, for example, the symbolism attached to them. Image-building sports diplomacy can, therefore, be pursued on several levels, not necessarily governmental.
When considering sports diplomacy as a tool of shaping the international image of a state, a concept of soft disempowerment proposed by Paul Brannagan and Richard Giulianotti is useful. It refers to the reputation risk that threatens the hosts of big sports events when they are not fully prepared. It is connected with the attention that global public attaches to such states.116 As Joseph Nye stated, if values, culture, or policy of a state are not attractive, then public diplomacy will not be able to strengthen its soft power, or can even lead to reversed effects.117 As a result of hosting a media event such as sports mega-events, a state or a city is in the center of the attention. On the one hand, it is their goal, but on the other hand, it also means being constantly under the public eye, with all controversies becoming known worldwide. From this perspective, hosting sports events is a great chance, but at the same time, a significant challenge.
Participating in international sport can be considered as another method of image-building sports diplomacy. According to Barrie Houlihan, a widespread goal of sports diplomacy was to seek acknowledgment of the state’s existence within the international system.118 It applies particularly to small states, whose branding motivation is to become more visible internationally. On the other hand, former colonies used this method to distinguish themselves from the former colonial powers.119 Participating in international sport is also important for states, whose international subjectivity is questioned by the international community (or at least part of it). This concerned such states, like East Germany, Republic of China (Taiwan), Kosovo, and Palestine—an example of territory without sovereignty which tries to use participation in international sport to enhance its presence on the international stage. This issue is partly connected to hosting sports events since both of them are examples of the use of sport in search of international prestige. The difference is that participation in sport refers mostly to small states with limited resources, while hosting sports mega-events is reserved almost exclusively to big and powerful countries.
Sports investments can also serve the purpose of shaping the international perception of a state. It does not refer to developing sports infrastructure or elite sport system since governments undertake these activities within sports policies aimed to increase the level of sport. Some sports investments have different character though. For example, Qatar invests in sports teams abroad,120 thus increasing its international visibility. Such activities cannot be classified within any other method of image-building sports diplomacy and in this monograph have been considered separately.
Sports Diplomacy as Diplomatic Activity of International Sports Subjects
Stuart Murray in his recent book distinguished the diplomacy of non-state sporting actors (NSSAs) as one of the four segments of his sports diplomacy framework. NSSAs include sportspeople, clubs, sports organizations, sports NGOs, businesses such as Adidas or Nike. Their diplomatic usefulness includes a possibility to provide a mediating function between states, people, or nations.121 Murray’s NSSAs include both international actors such as international sports organizations (also called international sports regimes) and subjects that could easily by attributed with “nationality” such as David Beckham or F. C. Barcelona. In this book, a different approach has been adopted. Sports actors “with nationality” have been categorized within sports diplomacy connected with states, whereas international actors which do not act on behalf of any nation or government have been regarded separately, constituting the third analytical category of sports diplomacy.
Consequently, sports diplomacy may also be considered in reference to diplomatic activities undertaken by international sports actors. As a result of the diffusion of diplomacy, non-state actors, including nongovernmental organizations such as the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations are becoming diplomatic actors. This dimension of sports diplomacy, to some extent, falls within the category of diplomacy of nongovernmental organizations. Beata Surmacz defined it as a process of representation and communication, which crosses the state borders, through which transnational organizations realize their interests, seek influence on the behavior of other international actors (states, international institutions, other non-state actors) and capability to solve international conflicts.122
Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman distinguished two categories of sports diplomacy. The first one connects to the conscious use of sport by governments—as a diplomatic tool. The second category, described as “sport as a diplomacy,” refers to diplomatic representation, communication, and negotiations between non-state actors resulting from international sports competition. Accordingly, international non-state actors such as the IOC or FIFA practice a distinct type of diplomacy. They undertake negotiations with governments, local and regional sports organizations, sponsors, media firms, and organizations of global civil society.123
Diplomatic engagement of international sports organizations stems from the fact that contemporary international sport requires specialized diplomacy and pursuing multilateral negotiations involving numerous actors. For example, the FIFA World Cup in 2002, cohosted by South Korea and Japan, required the engagement of two governments, two national football federations, FIFA, global sponsors, and media firms. The effectiveness of the negotiations between these subjects depended on FIFA’s diplomatic skills. In this context, international sports organizations become diplomatic actors,124 although their capabilities in this field have obvious limitations.125 Diplomatic activities of international sports organizations and generally their contacts with states can also be identified as sports diplomacy, although in a different context than described earlier.
It is important to indicate the subjects of sports diplomacy perceived this way. International sports governing bodies are the most important of such actors. Others include organizing committee of sports events, regional and national Olympic committees, and sports federations. These subjects can act as mediators since the aspirations of other actors might be colliding while hosting a successful sports event is their common goal.
Aaron Beacom proposed the concept of Olympism as diplomacy.126 To some extent, it overlaps with the aforementioned “sport as a diplomacy” in relation to the Olympic Games. Beacom described it as processes and diplomatic activities undertaken through sports governing institutions, although limited to the Olympic Games.
Apart from multilateral negotiations concerning organizing sports events, there is a number of other diplomatic activities that can be associated with sports subjects. Aaron Beacom indicated creating educational, developmental, and cultural programs, recognizing sports federations and NOCs of the newly emerging states.127 Some activities of sports organizations may, therefore, be classified as public diplomacy since, for example, development aid is one of its standard techniques. These activities refer to the concept of corporate diplomacy, which most commonly includes activities typical for corporate social responsibility which lead to a change of the image of a corporation owing to the greater legitimization and enhanced capability of influencing other subjects.128 Such actions at least indirectly lead to the creation of a positive image of these sports bodies and the enhancement of their international significance. At the same time, they contribute to the realization of their social missions as in the concept of diplomacy of nongovernmental organizations.
The diplomacy of international sports bodies goes beyond the scope of public diplomacy, although to some extent it remains related. A question might appear concerning the reason for the political and diplomatic status of international sports governing organizations. Most likely, this stems from the importance that governments attach to them because of their assets. It refers to the desire to host sports events and to compete in them, which are common methods of states’ public diplomacy aimed at shaping the desired international image through sport. It makes international sports organizations external stakeholders of states’ public diplomacy, while even though this type of sports diplomacy is not an explicit example of public diplomacy, there is a strong connection between both concepts.
Concluding Remarks
This chapter included an attempt to conceptualize the category of sports diplomacy, particularly in its reference to public diplomacy. This led to a proposition of three types of understanding sports diplomacy: (1) as a means of shaping interstate relations, (2) as a means of building international image and prestige of states, and (3) as diplomatic activity of international sports subjects, although the boundaries between them are sometimes blurred, and particular cases of sports diplomacy might have features of more than one type. According to the first approach, sports diplomacy aims to foster traditional diplomatic activities of states, for example, by providing additional channels for communication. It targets state authorities and the general public. Governmental engagement is often expressed in this type of sports diplomacy, although it is not necessary. Its main defining feature is the existence of a particular goal connected with the foreign policy that sports diplomacy is supposed to serve. Sports diplomacy perceived this way is, therefore, an explicit example of public diplomacy pursued with the use of sport, even though certain examples might also be assessed as serving the traditional diplomacy
Sports diplomacy as a means of building the international image of states involves such activities as supporting sports development in other countries, establishing bilateral sports contacts, hosting sports events, participating in international sport, achieving high level by national teams or sports teams from such country, having globally known athletes and sports investments. All these activities aim to improve the way the foreign public perceives a state. In this context, sport is a soft power resource (high level of sport) and provides circumstances to exploit other resources (e.g., while organizing sports events). Some of them are employed only by big and powerful states, while others, like participation in international sport, are used by small states or those with limited international recognition. This type of sports diplomacy undoubtedly can also be classified as a subcategory of public diplomacy, although some cases may also be assessed as examples of nation branding.
While considering sports diplomacy as a part of public diplomacy, it remains unclear whether activities undertaken individually by non-state actors such as sports teams or national sports federations and not coordinated by states can also be regarded as sports diplomacy. It has been assumed that if such activities are beneficial for the state’s image, then they should also be classified as sports diplomacy.
The third type of sports diplomacy, which refers to the diplomatic activities of international sports governing bodies, has been introduced as a result of the modification of approaches presented by other authors. It differs from the previous types, most of all concerning its subject since it refers to sports non-state actors which cannot be attached to any territory. The international sport requires the coordination of activities of many actors, so these subjects have to hold negotiations with numerous players. They also need to recognize national sports organizations, which resemble traditional diplomatic activities connected with international recognition. Finally, they pursue aid programs, which can be assessed as expressions of their public diplomacy.
Sports diplomacy is usually classified as a subcategory of public diplomacy. A similar approach has been adopted in this book, and public diplomacy serves as the central analytical category. The review of various approaches in defining it pursued throughout this chapter in principle confirmed this approach. Most of the forms of sports diplomacy have their public form, even if they most directly lead to traditional diplomatic contacts. Still, some of the forms of sports diplomacy also exceed the scope of public diplomacy. This is particularly visible in the context of sports diplomacy by ISOs, and to some extent, it refers to nation branding objectives of using sport to shape an image of a country. It can be concluded though, that even despite these observations sports diplomacy, in principle, fits within the realm of public diplomacy, while even in the cases when it exceeds its scope, they remain strongly interconnected.
NOTES
1. J. Simon Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: A Global Diplomacy Framework,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 214.
2. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012), 157.
3. Hans Morgenthau, Polityka między narodami: Walka o potęgę i pokój [Politics Among Nations: The Strategy for Power and Peace] (Warszawa: Difin, 2010), s. 355.
4. Hans Morgenthau, “Diplomacy,” in Diplomacy: Theory of Diplomacy, vol. 1, ed. Christer Jönsson and Richard Langhorne (London: SAGE, 2004), 63–64.
5. Ellen Huijgh, “Public Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 439. See: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Done at Vienna on April 24, 1963.
6. Costas M. Constantinou and Paul Sharp, “Theoretical Perspectives in Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 16.
7. Beata Surmacz, Ewolucja współczesnej dyplomacji: Aktorzy, struktury, funkcje [Evolution of Contemporary Diplomacy: Actors, Structures and Functions], (Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 2015), 31–32.
8. Aaron Beacom, International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement: The New Mediators (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012), 18.
9. James Der Derian, “Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies 13 (1987): 93.
10. Beacom, International Diplomacy, 19.
11. Harold Nicolson, “Diplomacy Then and Now,” in Diplomacy: Theory of Diplomacy, vol. 3, ed. Christer Jönsson and Richard Langhorne (London: SAGE, 2004), 334–342.
12. Andrew F. Cooper and Brian Hocking, “Governments, Non-Governmental Organisations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy,” Global Society 14, no. 3 (2000): 364.
13. Noé Cornago, Plural Diplomacies: Normative Predicaments and Functional Imperatives (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2013): 58–59.
14. Brian Hocking, “Diplomacy and Foreign Policy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 72.
15. Rebecca Adler-Nissen, “Diplomatic Agency,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 93.
16. Surmacz, Ewolucja, 368–369.
17. Jorge Heine, “From Club to Network Diplomacy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), 57.
18. Wolfgang Reinecke, Global Public Policy: Governing without Government? (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1998), 52.
19. Constantinou and Sharp, “Theoretical Perspectives,” 21.
20. Huijgh, “Public Diplomacy,” 442.
21. Geoffrey Wiseman, “‘Polylateralism’: Diplomacy’s Third Dimension,” Public Diplomacy Magazine 1 (2010): 27.
22. John R. Kelley, “The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 21, no. 2 (2010): 294.
23. Steve J. Jackson and Marcelle C. Dawson, “IOC-State-Corporate Nexus: Corporate Diplomacy and the Olympic Coup d’Etat,” South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation 39, nos. 1–2 (2017): 102.
24. Beata Ociepka, Miękka siła i dyplomacja publiczna Polski [Soft Power and Public Diplomacy of Poland] (Warszawa: Scholar, 2013), 13.
25. Henryk Przybylski, Historia dyplomacji [History of Diplomacy] (Katowice: GWSH, 2010), 224–225.
26. Nicholas J. Cull, “Public Diplomacy before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, ed. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2009), 19.
27. James Pamment, New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), 1.
28. J.M. Waller, The Public Diplomacy Reader (Washington: Lulu, 2007), 30.
29. J.Gregory Payne, “Reflections on Public Diplomacy: People-to-People Communication,” American Behavioral Scientist 53, np. 4 (2009): 580.
30. Huijgh, “Public Diplomacy,” 437.
31. Ociepka, Miękka siła, 71.
32. Eytan Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, no. 1 (2008): 57–58.
33. Payne, “Reflections,” 603–604.
34. Eytan Gilboa, “Dyplomacja w epoce informacji” [Diplomacy in the Era of Information], in Dyplomacja publiczna [Public Diplomacy], ed. Beata Ociepka (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2008), 39–41.
35. Jan Melissen, “Public Diplomacy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), 441.
36. Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault, “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008): 12.
37. Nancy Snow, “Rethinking Public Diplomacy,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, ed. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2009), 6.
38. Stuart Murray, “Sports Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 618–620.
39. Stuart Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge: 2018), 90.
40. Marta Hereźniak, Marka narodowa: Jak skutecznie budować wizerunek i reputację kraju [Nation Brand: How to Effectively Build Image and Reputation of a Country] (Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne: 2011), 15, 23.
41. Peter van Ham, Social Power in International Politics (London: Routledge, 2010), 136.
42. Roy Panagiotopoulou, “Hosting the Olympic Games: From Promoting the Nation to Nation-Branding,” in Sport and the Transformation of Modern Europe: States, Media and Markets 1950–2010, ed. Alan Tomlinson, Christopher Young, and Richard Holt (London: Routledge, 2011), 153.
43. Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice,” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (New York: Springer, 2005), 20–21.
44. Gilboa, “Searching,” 68
45. Ociepka, Miękka siła, 16, 62.
46. Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: PublicAffairs, 2004), 5.
47. Joseph S. Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008): 95.
48. Joseph S. Nye, “Soft Power,” Foreign Policy 80 (1990): 167.
49. Ociepka, Miękka siła, 60, 63.
50. Huijgh, “Public Diplomacy,” 442.
51. 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), 709.
52. Jacquie L’Etang, Sports Public Relations (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2013), 81.
53. Stuart Murray, Geoffrey A. Pigman, “Mapping the Relationship between International Sport and Diplomacy,” Sport in Society 17, no. 9 (2014): 1099.
54. J. Simon Rofe, “Introduction: Establishing the Field of Play,” in Sport and Diplomacy: Games within Games, ed. J. Simon Rofe (Manchester, Manchester University Press), 1-2.
55. Catherine Palmer, Global Sports Policy (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2013), 157.
56. Evan H. Potter, Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power through Public Diplomacy (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009), 90–92.
57. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 94–95, 113.
58. Andrew L. Johns, “Introduction: Competing in the Global Arena: Sport and Foreign Relations since 1945,” in Diplomatic Games: Sport, Statecraft, and International Relations since 1945, ed. Heather L. Dichter and Andrew L. Johns (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky: 2014), 3.
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), 5.
60. Barrie Houlihan, “Politics and Sport,” in Handbook of Sports Studies, ed. Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning (London: SAGE, 2004), 217.
61. David Rowe, Global Media Sport: Flows, Forms and Futures (London: Bloomsbury, 2011), 115.
62. L’Etang, Sports, 81.
63. Anurag Saxena, The Sociology of Sport and Physical Education (New Delhi: Sports Publication, 2011), 25.
64. 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), 29.
65. Houlihan, “Politics and Sport,” 219; Barrie Houlihan, “Political Involvement in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation,” in The Sociology of Sport and Physical Education: An Introductory Reader, ed. Anthony Laker (London: Routledge, 2002), 194; Aviston D. Downes, “Forging Africa-Caribbean Solidarity within the Commonwealth? Sport and Diplomacy during the Anti-Apartheid Campaign,” in Diplomatic Games: Sport, Statecraft, and International Relations since 1945, ed. Heather L. Dichter and Andrew L. Johns (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky: 2014), 72; Stuart Murray, “Moving Beyond the Ping-Pong Table: Sports Diplomacy in the Modern Diplomatic Environment,” Public Diplomacy Magazine 9 (2013): 15.
66. Rofe, “Introduction,” 6.
67. Rui B. Santos, Alexndre M. Mestre, and Francisco R. de Megalhāes, Sports Law in Portugal (Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 2011), 21.
68. Philip A. D’Agati, The Cold War and the 1984 Olympic Games: A Soviet-American Surogate War (New York: Palgrave, 2013), 13.
69. Aaron Beacom, “A Changing Discourse? British Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement,” in Sport and International Relations: An Emerging Relationship, ed. Roger Levermore and Adrian Budd (London: Routledge, 2004), 98–99.
70. Martin Polley, Sports History: A Practical Guide (New York: Palgrave, 2007), 71, 96.
71. Stuart Murray, “The Two Halves of Sports-Diplomacy,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23, no. 3 (2012): 581.
72. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea, Diplomatic White Paper 2014, 324–325.
73. United States of America Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress First Session, vol. 149—part 19, October 24 to November 4, 2003, Washington, DC, 2003, 25790.
74. Murray and Pigman, “Mapping,” 1099.
75. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 6, 61, 89–90, 135, 203.
76. James Pamment, “Rethinking Diplomatic and Development Outcomes Through Sport: Toward a Participatory Paradigm of Multi-Stakeholder Diplomacy,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 234.
77. Trunkos and Heere, “Sport Diplomacy,” 7–14.
78. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 68.
79. Wojciech Lipoński, Od Aten do Atlanty: Minihistoria nowożytnych igrzysk olimpijskich 1896–1996 [From Athens to Atlanta: Minihistory of modern Olympic Games 1896–1996] (Poznań: Atena, 1996), 63.
80. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 61.
81. Keith Dinnie, Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice (Oxford: Elsevier, 2008), 15.
82. Marta Ryniejska-Kiełdanowicz, “Rola wielkich wydarzeń sportowych i kulturowych w promowaniu wizerunku miast i państw” [The Role of Great Sports and Cultural Eventsin Promoting the Image of Cities and States], in Public Relations: Aktualne zagadnienia sztuki komunikowania w teorii i praktyce [Public Relations: Current Issues of the Art of Communication in Theory and Practive], ed. Renata Maćkowska and Henryk Przybylski (Katowice: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej, 2009), 89–90.
83. Danyel Reiche, Success and Failure of Countries at the Olympic Games (New York: Routledge, 2016), 54.
84. Alan Bairner, Sport, Nationalism, and Globalization: European and North American Perspectives (Albany: Suny, 2001), 18.
85. Dionne L. Koller, “How the United States Government Sacrifices Athlete’s Constitutional Rights in the Pursuit of National Prestige,” Bringham Young University Law Review (2008): 1469.
86. Simon Anholt, “The Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index SM 2009 Report,” 24, accessed May 24, 2017, https://www.eda.admin.ch/content/dam/eda/de/documents/topics/Switzerland_2009_NBI_Report_08-31-2009.pdf.
87. Michał M. Kobierecki and Piotr Strożek, “Sport as a Factor of Nation Branding: A Quantitative Approach,” The International Journal of the History of Sport 34, nos. 7–8 (2017): 697–712.
88. Reiche, Success, 54.
89. Houlihan, “Politics and Sport,” 216.
90. Simon Shibli, Jerry Bingham, and Ian Henry, “Measuring the Sporting Success of Nations,” in Transnational and Comparative Research in Sport: Globalization, Governance and Sport Policy, ed. Ian Henry et al. (London: Routledge, 2007), 64; Verle De Bosscher, Paul de Knop, Maarten van Bottenburg, and Simon Shibli, “A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success,” European Sport Management Quarterly 6, no. 2 (2006): 186–187.
91. Hereźniak, Marka, 77.
92. R.S. Zaharna, “Mapping out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives: Information and Relational Communication Frameworks, in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, ed. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2009), 94.
93. Suzanne Dowse, “Mega Sports Events as Political Ttools: A Case Study of South Africa’s Hosting of the 2010 FIFA Football World Cup,” in Sport and Diplomacy: Games within Games, ed. J. Simon Rofe (Manchester, Manchester University Press), 70.
94. Joseph Nye Jr., “Hard, Soft and Smart Power,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 570.
95. Laurence Chalip and Carla A. Costa, “Sport Event Tourism and the Destination Brand: Towards a General Theory,” Sport in Society 8, no. 2 (2005): 219.
96. Simon Anholt, Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007), 108–109.
97. Palmer, Global Sports, 105.
98. Marijke Taks, “The Rise and Fall of Mega Sport Events: The Future Is in Non-Mega Sport Events,” in Ethics and Governance in Sport: The Future of Sport Imagined, ed. Yves Vanden Auweele, Elaine Cook, and Jim Parry (London: Routledge, 2016), 85.
99. Choong-Ki Lee, Tracy Taylor, Yong-Ki Lee, and Bongkoo Lee, “The Impact of a Sport Mega-Event on Destination Image,” International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 6, no. 3 (2005): 28–29.
100. Agata Dembek and Renata Włoch, “The Impact of a Sports Mega-Event on the International Image of a Country: The Case of Poland Hosting UEFA Euro 2012,” Perspectives 22, no. 1 (2014): 35.
101. Marcin Widomski, “The Olympic Games in the Creation of the Image of the Host Country and City,” Historia i Polityka, 23, no. 16 (2016): 46.
102. Jonathan Grix, Paul M. Brannagan, and Barrie Houlihan, “Interrogating States’ Soft Power Strategies: A Case Study of Sports Mega-Events in Brazil and the UK,” Global Society 29, no. 3 (2015): 468.
103. Xin Zhong, Shuhua Zhou, Bin Shen, and Chao Huang, “Shining a Spotlight on Public Diplomacy: Chinese Media Coverage on the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics,” The International Journal of the History of Sport 30, no. 4 (2013): 396–397.
104. Holger Preuss, “The Olympic Games: Winners and Losers,” in Sport and Society: A Student Introduction, ed. Barrie Houlihan (Los Angeles: SAGE 2008), 424.
105. Jonathan Grix and Paul M. Brannagan, “Of Mechanisms and Myths: Conceptualising States’ “Soft Power” Strategies through Sports Mega-Events,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 252.
106. Preuss, “The Olympic,” 423–425.
107. Qinqin Dong and Geert Duysters, “Research on the Co-Branding and Match-Up of Mega-Sports Event and Host City,” The International Journal of the History of Sport 32, no. 8 (2015): 1099.
108. Guillaume Bodet and Marie-Françoise Lacassagne, “International Place Branding through Sporting Events: A British Perspective of the 2008 Beijing Olympics,” European Sport Management Quarterly 12, no. 4 (2012): 358–359.
109. Andrew Lepp and Heather Gibson, “Reimaging a Nation: South Africa and the 2010 World Cup,” in Sport, Tourism and National Identities, ed. John Harris (London: Routledge, 2014), 32.
110. 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): 573.
111. Ociepka, Miękka siła, 180.
112. Beatriz Garcia, “One Hundred Years of Cultural Programming within the Olympic Games (1912–2012): Origins, Evolution and Projections,” International Journal of Cultural Policy 14, no. 4 (2008): 365.
113. Chris Arning, “Soft Power, Ideology and Symbolic Manipulation in Summer Olympic Games Opening Ceremonies: A Semiotic Analysis,” Social Semiotics 23, no. 4 (2013): 524.
114. Panagiotopoulou, “Hosting,” 152.
115. Milena M. Parent and Sharon Smith-Swan, Managing Major Sports Events: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge, 2013), 205.
116. Paul M. Brannagan and Richard Giulianotti, “Soft Power and Soft Disempowerment: Qatar, Global Sport and Football’s 2022 World Cup Finals,” Leisure Studies 34 (2015): 706.
117. Nye, “Public Diplomacy,” 95.
118. Houlihan, “Politics and Sport,” 219.
119. Barrie Houlihan and Jinming Zheng, “Small States: Sport and Politics at the Margin,” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 7, no. 3 (2014): 334.
120. Danyel Reiche, “Investing in Sporting Success as a Domestic and Foreign Policy Tool: The Case of Qatar,” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 7, no. 4 (2015): 495.
121. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 135, 143.
122. Surmacz, Ewolucja, 375.
123. Murray and Pigman, “Mapping,” 1099.
124. Ibid., 1107–1108, 1110.
125. Bárbara S. de Almeida, Wanderley Marchi Júnior, and Elizabeth Pike, “The 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games and Brazil’s Soft Power,” Contemporary Social Science 9, no. 2 (2014): 273.
126. Beacom, International Diplomacy, 36.
127. Ibid.
128. Enric Ordeix-Rigo and João Duarte, “From Public Diplomacy to Corporate Diplomacy: Increasing Corporation’s Legitimacy and Influence,” American Behavioral Scientist 53, no. 4 (2009): 559.
