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 is useful in investigating interactions between numerous stakeholders, for example, in analyzing diplomacy associated with applying to host the Olympic Games.33 States in search of necessary resources establish cooperation with sports subjects and include them in the diplomatic processes. Accordingly, ISOs such as the IOC are becoming diplomatic subjects—as stakeholders of states’ diplomacy which desire to use the popularity of sport to build their external image. Similarly, domestic sports subjects such as national federations, sports leagues, or clubs can become such stakeholders.
The author faced several challenges while conducting the research, particularly in connection to few scientific elaborations on the investigated subject. The inconsistency concerning the definition of sports diplomacy was also problematic. Definitions suggested by various authors differ from each other, which made it necessary to propose own approach. Certain difficulty also referred to the part of research concerning the diplomatic activity of ISOs in reference to investigating the frequency of the meetings between the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch and representatives of states he was visiting. The documents available to the author did not include all the trips Samaranch made. Apart from that, documents concerning subsequent IOC presidents were not available. It has, therefore, been assumed that the available data were sufficient to identify the general trend, although the author is aware of the limitation of this part of the research.
This book was originally published in Polish by the publishing house of the University of Lodz, Poland. The research was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland [grant number 2015/19/D/HS5/00513].
NOTES
1. Ahn Min-Seok, “The Political Economy of the World Cup in South Korea,” in Japan, Korea and the 2002 World Cup, ed. John Horne and Wolfram Manzenreiter (London: Routledge, 2002), 166; John Kelly, “Western Militarism and the Political Utility of Sport,” in Routledge Handbook of Sport and Politics, ed. Alan Bairner and John Kelly, Jung Woo Lee (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 282; Barrie Houlihan, Sport, Policy and Politics: A Comparative Analysis (London: Routledge, 1997), 62.
2. Stuart Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge: 2018), 94-5.
3. “About Us,” Sports Diplomacy, accessed October 30, 2019, https://sportsvisitorenvoy.org/about-us-4; “Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,” United States Department of State, accessed March 23, 2018, https://eca.state.gov/programs-initiatives/initiatives/sports-diplomacy.
4. “Australian Sports Diplomacy Strategy 2015–18,” Australian Government, accessed March 23, 2018, https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/aus-sports-diplomacy-strategy-2015-18.pdf.
5. David Rowe, “Football, Diplomacy and Australia in the Asian Century,” in Sport and Diplomacy: Games within Games, ed. J. Simon Rofe (Manchester, Manchester University Press), 153.
6. High Level Group on Sport Diplomacy, Report to Commissioner Tibor Navracsis, June 2016.
7. Barrie Houlihan, Sport and International Politics (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994); Sport and Society: A Student Introduction, ed. Barrie Houlihan (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008); Alfred E. Senn, Power, Politics and the Olympic Games: A History of Power Brokers, Events, and Controversies that Shaped the Games (Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1999); Richard Espy, The Politics of the Olympic Games (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979); Christopher R. Hill, Olympic Politics: Athens to Atlanta 1896–1996 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996); The Politics of Sport, ed. Lincoln Allison (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986); Jonathan Grix, Sport Politics: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave, 2016).
8. See: Hong Zhaohui and Sun Yi, “The Butterfly Effect and the Making of ‘Ping-Pong Diplomacy,’” Journal of Contemporary China 25, no. 9 (2000): 429-448; Thomas Carter, “The Political Fallacy of Baseball Diplomacy,” Peace Review 11, no. 4 (1999): 579–584; Joseph M. Turrini, “‘It Was Communism versus the Free World’: The USA USSR Dual Track Meet Series and the Development of Track and Field in the United States, 1958–1985,” Journal of Sport History 28, no. 3 (2001): 427–471.
9. Donald Macintosh and Michael Hawes, Sport and Canadian Diplomacy (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994).
10. Guoqi Xu, Olympic Dreams: China and Sports 1895–2008 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Anne-Marie Brady, “The Beijing Olympics as a Campaign of Mass Distraction,” in China’s Thought Management, ed. Anne-Marie Brady (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), 11–35; Ying Yu, “Olympic Aspirations: Reconstructed Images, National Identity and International Integration,” The International Journal of the History of Sport 27, nos. 16–18 (2010): 2821–2841; Owning the Olympics: Narratives of the New China, ed. Monroe E. Price and Daniel Dayan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008).
11. M. R. G. Pope, “Public Diplomacy, International News Media and London 2012: CosmopolitanismTM,” Sport in Society 17, no. 9 (2014): 1119–1135; Jonathan Grix and Barrie Houlihan, “Sports Mega-Events as Part of a Nation’s Soft Power Strategy: The Cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012),” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16 (2014): 572–596; John Horne and Barrie Houlihan, “London 2012,” in Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-Events: Concepts and Cases, ed. Jonathan Grix (London: Palgrave, 2014), 107–117.
12. Stuart Murray, “The Two Halves of Sports-Diplomacy,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23, no. 3 (2012): 576–592; Stuart Murray, “Moving Beyond the Ping-Pong Table: Sports Diplomacy in the Modern Diplomatic Environment,” Public Diplomacy Magazine 9 (2013): 11–16; J. Simon Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: A Global Diplomacy Framework,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 212–230; Stuart Murray and Geoffrey A. Pigman, “Mapping the Relationship between International Sport and Diplomacy,” Sport in Society 17, no. 9 (2014): 1098–1118.
13. Stuart Murray, “Sports Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016), 617–627.
14. David Black and Byron Peacock, “Sport and Diplomacy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), 708–726.
15. Udo Merkel, “Sport as a Foreign
