strategy of its development.40 The term is to a large extent similar to public diplomacy because both of them employ social power to affect the image of a state,41 although according to the majority of authors, they are not synonyms. Public diplomacy focuses on means through which states and other subjects communicate with citizens and societies of other countries to promote its image, which is later used as an instrument of developing international political relations. Nation branding, on the other hand, primarily addresses the global market with political agencies as a secondary concern.42 In short, public diplomacy is focused on political goals, whereas nation branding aims to reach economic objectives.
Jan Melissen observed that contrary to public diplomacy, nation branding has a much more holistic character and that both terms are complementary, particularly if new public diplomacy is concerned.43 According to Eytan Gilboa, nation branding and public diplomacy are in some aspects very similar, while in others distinct. Similarities refer to managing the image and symbols, building relations and extensive use of mass media, whereas the differences include means, types of communication, management, language, and culture.44
Sports diplomacy as a category confirms complementarity and mutual interfusion of public diplomacy and nation branding. In general, sports diplomacy is perceived as a subcategory of public diplomacy. However, some of its displays are more similar to nation branding. For example, sometimes the goals of hosting sports events are typical for public diplomacy such as deepening understanding between nations, but economic motivation can be equally important. In this context, sports diplomacy is a subcategory of public diplomacy, but at the same time it can be the tool of nation branding.
Public diplomacy is deeply connected with the concept of soft power. Some authors even define it as a tool of managing soft power resources to increase the international potential of a state, coordinate all soft power assets and use economic power assets,45 even though the economy in principle is classified within hard power. The concept of soft power is associated with Joseph Nye, who claimed that the state could sometimes achieve its objectives because other countries will want to follow its lead through admiring values it represents or following its example.46 Nye defined public diplomacy as a tool of using soft power assets by governments to communicate particular content to the public in other countries and to attract it.47
When soft power resources are considered, aspects of culture, ideology, and institutions are usually mentioned.48 Elements that are taken into account in attempts to rank states from the perspective of soft power include migrations, tourism, sport, culture, presence in the media, technology, science, education, development aid, regime, foreign 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
