Sports Diplomacy. Michał Marcin Kobierecki
why and how ISOs become subjects of diplomacy instead of measuring the strength of this subjectivity. This part of the research had primarily qualitative character, although there were also several quantitative analyses—concerning backing candidate cities to host the Olympic Games by state representatives and meetings between political leaders and the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch during his foreign trips. They served to illustrate the scale of readiness of key state representatives to engage in contacts with representatives of a sports organization.
Three hypotheses are tested in chapter 4. The most important one assumes that international sports organizations in selected spheres obtain diplomatic subjectivity (H6), which is connected to their inclusion in the circle of public diplomacy stakeholders. The second hypothesis states that international sports organizations in certain situations may successfully exert pressure on states (H7), whereas the third hypothesis assumes that international sports organizations may comprise a forum for international diplomacy (H8). The considerations undertaken in this chapter allowed for the proposition of a model illustrating the diplomatic roles of international sports organizations that displays a set of possible diplomatic activities undertaken by sports organizations.
Chapters 2–4 comprise the central part of the research conducted during the preparation of this book. Because of its complexity, the research required the employment of a range of research methods and techniques. Generally, the research was qualitative and was based on inductive reasoning. Comparative case studies was the most critical research method used. Chapters 2 and 3 included a comparison of groups of selected cases. The acquired data were systematized in case-study protocols, which was supposed to ensure the most consistent approach to any of them. Consolidation of a higher amount of case studies within one research was enforcing a less detailed approach to any of them. The goal was to allow the formulation of generalizations concerning the investigated phenomena and such objective was easier to achieve through a comparative approach than by focusing on single cases. Afterward, based on qualitative data, the cases were compared concerning several variables.
Contrary to chapters 2 and 3, chapter 4 did not include a comparative case study even though such was the initial intention of the author. It appeared more appropriate to investigate various forms of contacts between states and ISOs on the example of one of them—the IOC. Therefore chapter 4 constitutes an extended case study of this sports organization, although the research goal was to learn the nature of diplomatic functions and roles not only of the IOC but generally of international sports organizations. The decision to focus on the IOC as the research subject stemmed from the assumption that the diplomatic roles of ISOs rise alongside the growing popularity of sports or the sports events they administer. Accordingly, the federations in niche sports are expected to be less significant diplomatically than those in charge of the most popular sports. Therefore case study concerning the IOC was supposed to allow observation of the highest number of possible means of a sports organization playing diplomatic roles.
The data needed to pursue the research were collected from various sources. The author used the available scientific literature both in the context of sports diplomacy and the history of sport and the Olympic Movement, which acted as a supplement to the aforementioned political science outlet, particularly in the areas of international relations, specifically diplomacy and public diplomacy. An important share of the materials was acquired during archival queries—in IOC’s Historical Archives in Lausanne (Switzerland), US National Archives in College Park, Swedish National Archives Riksarkivet-Marieberg in Stockholm, and archives of the FIFA Museum in Zurich (Switzerland). Olympic archives in Lausanne proved to be particularly useful in the preparation of chapter 4, whereas the research conducted in the US National Archives was necessary for the investigation of American sports diplomacy concerning gaps in the literature. Documents consulted in Sweden allowed for a better understanding of the situation connected with communist states integrating with the Olympic Movement (prominent particularly concerning the German question in international sport). Remotely the author also consulted Carl und Liselott Diem archives in Cologne (Germany). The author of this book has also conducted library queries in Poland and other countries, including the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., Library of Olympic Studies Centre in Lausanne, Library of Deutsche Sporthochschule in Cologne, Library of FIFA Museum in Zurich, and Library of FIFA International Centre for Sports Studies in Neuchâtel (Switzerland). Additionally, the research included consultation of online press reports and websites.
The research was meant to concern present-day events and developments, but the character of the research object required accepting a more extended timescale, particularly concerning sports diplomacy directed at bringing hostile or estranged states closer together. In recent years there were not enough examples of such use of sport, whereas the Cold War reality favored such attempts. The availability of the documents regarding the IOC was also problematic since researchers are only allowed to consult documents older than twenty years. As a result, the timescale of the research encompasses times since the end of World War II, although the author attempted to refer to as contemporary events as possible.
Theoretically, the research presented in the book refers, in particular, to Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power. Accordingly, a state may sometimes fulfill its objectives without resorting to coercion or payment because other states could aim to follow in its path by admiring the values it represents, emulating its example or aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. Soft power is, therefore, about “getting others to want the outcomes you want.”25 In the context of this book, sport is regarded as a soft power asset, although not exclusively. Consequently, if public diplomacy is a means of using soft power by governments to communicate particular contents to the public in other countries and to attract it,26 then sports diplomacy—part of public diplomacy—is a more specific tool of using sport as the soft power asset.
Given the character of the research, it was necessary to refer to the international relations theory, particularly in the context of subjects of diplomacy. Although states remained in the center of interest as the actors pursuing public diplomacy with the use of sport, the author’s perspective is not state-centric, both in reference to actors directly engaged in the analyzed occurrences and the context of the diplomacy of ISOs. The book refers directly to the modernist approach of the study of international relations, particularly to institutional liberalism and interdependence liberalism which have been developed by authors such as Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane, and David Mitrany. This approach is connected to broadening the field of research and taking into consideration not only states but other subjects as well, such as international organizations, stateless nations, and social movements.27 It is also assumed that states are capable of cooperation, which, according to David Mitrany, may be initiated in a technical sphere, and when both sides are satisfied spread into other areas.28 This approach refers mainly to the function of sport investigated in chapter 2 where sports exchanges played a role of such technical cooperation and to the diplomacy of ISOs developed in chapter 4. The mentioned concepts also refer to the issues of interdependence, relationships occurring in the contemporary world and the role of international institutions, which also applies to the diplomacy of international sports subjects and their role in shaping interstate relations.
The monograph also refers to the multistakeholder diplomacy (or network diplomacy) concept,29 represented, for example, by Brian Hocking. This concept assumes the complexity of processes connected with pursuing politics, the need for broader cooperation, and the engagement of many new actors in diplomatic processes.30 Accordingly, diplomacy is becoming an activity oriented at creating networks composed of state and non-state actors focused on managing matters which require assets that no single subject owns. States function as generators of diplomacy. Even though the state-centric model of diplomacy also acknowledges non-state actors, it assumes them only as consumers of diplomacy, whereas according to the multistakeholder model, they can be producers of diplomatic effects as well.31 As Rhonda Zaharna put it, they may participate in networks sponsored by states, but they can establish such networks including state subjects as well.32 The model of multistakeholder diplomacy