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 Murray, who claimed that sports diplomacy is a form of public diplomacy, which involves “representative and diplomatic activities undertaken by sportspeople on behalf of and in conjunction with their governments.”71
A broader approach to defining sports diplomacy can also be found in state documents. For example, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea in Diplomatic White Paper 2014 described sports diplomacy as a tool of strengthening bilateral and multilateral sports cooperation and referred to government’s engagement in bidding for sports events, assisting Korean citizens in becoming board members of sports organizations or dispatching taekwondo masters and demonstration teams overseas.72 In US Congressional Record from 2003 it is claimed that “the Secretary is authorized to expand efforts to promote United States public diplomacy interests in eligible countries and elsewhere through sports diplomacy,” which can be done through activities such as bilateral exchanges to train athletes or teams and to assist countries in establishing or improving their sports, health, or physical education programs, providing assistance to American athletic governing bodies to support their efforts to foster cooperation with counterpart organizations abroad and utilizing American professional athletes and other well-known sports personalities in support of public diplomacy goals and activities.73 This approach includes two main types of international activities within the scope of sports diplomacy: bilateral sports exchanges which include supporting development of sport in other countries, for example, sending coaches, experts, or athletes overseas for joint trainings; and the use of global recognisability of sports stars employed by Department of State in order to promote the United States. The presented approach did not refer to breaking political isolation, but once again emphasized the connection between sports diplomacy and public diplomacy.
Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman distinguished two categories of sports diplomacy. First of them refers to the international sport being consciously employed by governments as an instrument of diplomacy, while the second, described as international-sport-as-diplomacy, involves “diplomatic representation, communication, and negotiation between non-state actors (but also with governments) that take place as a result of ongoing international sporting competition.”74 Murray and Pigman present a wider approach to sports diplomacy. First of the categories offered by them is the most obvious dimension of sports diplomacy and is particularly crucial in political analyses. However, a globalizing world brought an increasing role of non-state actors in international relations, and this tendency refers to the international sport as well. Therefore, sports diplomacy, as a domain of non-state actors, should also be recognized.
In his recent book, Stuart Murray presented a framework of four theoretical subcategories: traditional sports diplomacy, sports diplomacy, the specialized diplomacy of non-state sporting actors, and sports anti-diplomacy. Traditional sports diplomacy can be defined as the use, exploitation, or abuse of elite sport, sportspeople, or sports events to advance the state’s foreign policy objectives. “New” sports diplomacy, or simply sports diplomacy, is more inclusive which also includes activities of non-state and public partnerships, while ministries of foreign affairs facilitate, manage, and evaluate sports diplomacy strategies and policies. Its objective is to enhance the state’s image, reputation, and partnership. The concept of diplomacy of non-state sporting actors refers to sports bodies that communicate, negotiate, and engage in diplomatic representation. Sports anti-diplomacy refers to the dark side of the diplomatic employment of sport. Murray describes it as “intentional abuse of sport to drive people and states apart,”75 but this concept is different from the negative sports diplomacy mentioned earlier in this book.
James Pamment identified a number of aspects in which sports diplomacy refers to diplomacy, which include summitry, celebrity, symbolism, and reputational advantages of sporting mega-events and elite sport; multilateral diplomacy and pseudo-diplomacy of non-state sporting institutions and sport as a carrier of values, norms, and standards, promoted as technical knowledge and participatory social practice.76 This approach seems to underestimate the importance of sports contacts on an amateur level that sometimes are employed by states to get closer to other countries or to shape their positive image, although these issues could probably be classified within the first of the aspects presented by Pamment. What is particularly important in this approach is that it underlines issues of image-building and diplomacy (or pseudo-diplomacy) of non-state sports organizations. Hence, it is difficult not to recognize the growing diplomatic role of actors such as the International Olympic Committee or IFs.
Judit Trunkos and Bob Heere distinguished several strategic goals of sports diplomacy. They include using sport as an unofficial opportunity for meetings between state leaders, to communicate about a state which hosts a sports event, to counteract cultural and linguistic differences between states, to create platforms for new legislation and trade agreements, to build wider awareness of particular state owing to activity of sports ambassadors, to create legacies by hosts of sports events, to boost their international image, and to legitimize new states.77 All these aspects fall into the category of sports diplomacy as a means of shaping the state’s perception and its relations with other countries. Trunkos and Heere also referred to the role of international sports governing bodies, but their list of sports diplomacy strategic
