stimulate national pride and identity, affect public health or it can be used as a tool of propaganda.1 The connection between sport and politics is, therefore, a vast area of research, explored by representatives of numerous fields of science such as sociology, sports science, history, or political science.
The relation between sport and politics can have a domestic and international context. In the second form, it is exemplified by the category of sports diplomacy. The term lacks a clear and universally accepted definition. It is often understood as a category of public diplomacy, or at least regarded as dovetailing with public diplomacy.2 Generally though it can be understood as a means of international communication with the use of sport. It may have a positive or negative character. Positive sports diplomacy concerns the use of sport to send positive messages, for example, about the desire to improve relations with another country, while negative sports diplomacy may involve sending negative messages, for example, expressing dissatisfaction with other state’s policy. Of course, the assessment of whether an act of sports diplomacy is positive or negative has an explicitly normative character, but in most cases, the objective of particular initiative appears evident. Sports diplomacy may also be understood as using sport to improve the international image of a country. Individual authors also perceive sports diplomacy from the perspective of traditional diplomacy—in the context of diplomatic meetings held on the occasion of sports events or in regard of diplomacy pursued by sports subjects, international sports organizations in particular, whose leaderships engage in diplomatic processes involving other actors of international relations including states.
Even though sports diplomacy is often pursued on a grassroots level, certain states institutionalized their efforts in this field. For example, in the United States—one of the forerunners of sports diplomacy—a unit called Sports Diplomacy division (formerly SportsUnited) operates within the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the Department of State,3 whereas in Australia Office for Sport has been established within Department of Health.4 Australian case is particularly interesting since it is the first country in the world to develop a strategy of sports diplomacy. Sport is recognized there as a “natural fit” for public diplomacy.5 Most governments, on the other hand, pursue sports diplomacy through bodies responsible for public diplomacy. The growing role of sports diplomacy in contemporary politics could also be observed when European commissioner Tibor Navracsics appointed High Level Group on Sport Diplomacy in 2015. Its goal was to identify how sport may help the European Union to reach its external political purposes and to promote its values.6 These examples indicate the growing awareness of the need to pursue sports diplomacy.
The interdependence between sport and politics is subject to growing interest among researchers, particularly since the late twentieth century. Such authors have pursued high-quality research concerning the international dimension of this area of study as Alfred E. Senn, Richard Espy, Christopher Hill, Lincoln Allison, Jonathan Grix, Barrie Houlihan,7 and others. Still, the issue of sports diplomacy has not been enjoying similar attention of scholars. For a long time, available publications were limited to single case-study articles, out of which majority were dedicated to the American attempts to employ sport for diplomatic reasons, such as ping-pong diplomacy with China, baseball exchanges with Cuba, sports exchanges with the Soviet Union.8 Sport and Canadian Diplomacy by Donald Macintosh and Michael Hawes is one of the few monographs published at the time.9
This situation has changed though and scholars became more interested in sports diplomacy. In particular, many investigations were dedicated to how China attempted to use the Olympics in Beijing to alter the way it is perceived.10 Consecutive Olympics in London and their branding role were also subject to several publications.11 The rising interest in sports diplomacy resulted in more theoretical considerations of this subject. Articles by Stuart Murray, J. Simon Rofe, and Goeffrey Pigman are particularly worth mentioning here.12 This new trend was also reflected in theme issues of quality scientific journals dedicated to sports diplomacy: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy in 2013, Sport and Society in 2014, Diplomacy & Statecraft in 2016, and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy in 2019. Chapters on sports diplomacy published in handbooks of renown publishing houses, for example, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy,13 The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy,14 and Routledge Handbook of Sport and Politics 15 are the further evidence for the growing appreciations for this term by diplomacy scholars.
The rising interest in sports diplomacy was also reflected in the publication of more or less comprehensive books. Diplomatic Games: Sport, Statecraft, and International Relations since 1945 edited by Heather L. Dichter and Andrew L. Johns16 and Case Studies in Sport Diplomacy edited by Craig Esherick, Robert Baker, Steven Jackson, and Michael Sam17 are collections of case studies concerning widely perceived sports diplomacy which referred to aspects such as sports exchanges aimed to improve interstate relations, hosting sports events and their diplomatic objectives, etc. International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement by Aaron Beacom refers to the diplomatic roles of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Olympic Games. Beacom presented the concept of Olympism as diplomacy according to which the Olympics can be considered as a diplomatic event in itself. By employing a multistakeholder model of diplomacy, he addressed the diversified character of contemporary diplomacy. The most recent books include Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice by Stuart Murray and a collective monograph Sport and Diplomacy. Games within Games edited by J. Simon Rofe. The former is a comprehensive attempt to approach the category of sports diplomacy more theoretically, introducing a new framework of four theoretical subcategories—traditional sports diplomacy, sports diplomacy, the specialized diplomacy of non-state sporting actors, and sports anti-diplomacy.18 Sport and Diplomacy, on the other hand, is a collection of chapters dedicated to such aspects of diplomatic significance of sport as conceptual dimensions of sport and diplomacy, the use of international sports competitions as a form of public diplomacy to achieve specific aims and withholding of sports competitions, but it also refers to issues such as sport, development, and peace, widening the scope of research on sports diplomacy.19
Despite the growing number of publications on sports diplomacy, several gaps in the literature can be noted. First, there is no universally accepted definition of sports diplomacy. Different authors perceive the term in different ways. Some present more narrow approaches; others prefer to understand sports diplomacy more extensively. Different approaches not only refer to various aspects but also assume the engagement of other subjects, whether sports diplomacy is an exclusive activity of states or it can also be pursued by non-state actors. If the second answer is accepted, there is a doubt whether the international engagement of non-state sports actors with a typical bottom-up character also marks an example of sports diplomacy if the government does not coordinate it. Another problem refers to the diplomacy of transnational sports actors which cannot be defined territorially. Secondly, comprehensive studies are rare. The majority of publications concern single cases of sports diplomacy, and many of them do not refer to the term “sports diplomacy.” Accordingly, they often lack deepened theoretical reflection apart from several attempts to systemize the inconsistency in defining sports diplomacy.20 Recent book by Stuart Murray, which is more theoretically oriented, is an exception. When it comes to the state of empirical research on sports diplomacy, it can be described as patchy. A rich literature has been dedicated to negative sports diplomacy (although not necessarily called this way) or in reference to the use of sport in shaping the international image of a state, particularly in the context of hosting sports events—the Olympics in Beijing in 2008, London in 2012, and Sochi in 2014.21 Sports diplomacy as a tool of shaping interstate relations has been studied mainly in reference to ping-pong diplomacy.22 It is similarly concerning the issue of the diplomacy of international sports organizations. Researchers have been investigating these bodies from the perspective of their history and functioning, also in the political context, but there are few publications concerning their diplomatic subjectivity. The book by Aaron Beacom mentioned earlier is particularly worth mentioning here.
The aim of this book is to fill at least some of these gaps. Like the majority of the available publications, it is based on case
