Sports Diplomacy. Michał Marcin Kobierecki
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