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
