Sports Diplomacy. Michał Marcin Kobierecki

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