A review of approaches to sports diplomacy leads to the conclusion that there are several ways of perceiving it, which differ concerning the scope of the term. In general, sports diplomacy can be described as a diplomatic instrument, which because of its target is situated in principle within the scope of public diplomacy. Some authors connect sports diplomacy with the activity of states, at the same time noticing the role of other actors in this field, such as sports organizations, teams, individual sportspeople. In both cases, the target of sports diplomacy includes governments and citizens of another country. The broadest approach to sports diplomacy perceives international sport as a diplomatic arena, with sports organizations involved as diplomatic subjects.
In response to the observations above, particularly in reference to approaches of sports diplomacy presented by Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman and James Pamment, but with particular regard to the subjects and objectives of sports diplomacy, three types of sports diplomacy might be distinguished: (1) as a means of shaping interstate relations, (2) as a means of building international image and prestige of states, and (3) as a diplomatic activity of international sports subjects.
Sports Diplomacy as a Means of Shaping Interstate Relations
If a state-centric perspective on sports diplomacy is adopted, it is hard to deny that it is often subordinate to traditional diplomacy, or foreign policy. When defined most narrowly, sports diplomacy serves the goal of building diplomatic relations in their traditional sense. For example, the purpose of ping-pong diplomacy was in principle to arrange a “safe” meeting for the United States and the PRC. In the situation of lack of official diplomatic relations, sport, which in theory is separate from politics, could be used to avoid the risk of losing face if the attempt to establish diplomatic contact failed. What is more, the United States was allied with the Republic of China and could not have initiated a transparent dialogue with the PRC. There were several circumstances which prevented from traditional diplomatic contacts. An initiative to use sport for this sake became an answer to this problem, which proved to be successful. It was a clear example of how sport can be employed in pursuing relations between states.
In this context, sports diplomacy appears as a tool for realizing particular state interests associated with the need to affect the relations between countries. It does not mean that such sports diplomacy has to be coordinated by the government. Sports contacts might well be initiated on the grassroots level, but in the situation of strong antagonism between states, the proposition of sports exchange and its acceptance involve communication on a governmental level, at least to some extent. It may target public opinion or political elites. Therefore, sports diplomacy, despite being in principle a subcategory of public diplomacy, may also be seen as an auxiliary tool of traditional diplomacy, a substitute for secret diplomacy, which enables establishing international contacts without risking criticism in case the endeavor fails.
The issue of negative sports diplomacy is different. It includes sports boycotts and attempts to isolate particular states in international sport. Stuart Murray rightly divided such utilization of sport as “we’re not playing” or “you’re not allowed to play” and classified them as examples of the traditional sports diplomacy.78 Such activities can also be regarded as part of public diplomacy and at the same time, may directly serve foreign policy goals. Generally speaking, they might influence societies of foreign countries in a way typical for public diplomacy. For example, when the United States and its allies boycotted the Olympic Games in Moscow, Soviet citizens were supposed to receive a message about international condemnation to the Soviet Union’s policy. To some extent, this goal was achieved. One of the Soviet spectators of the Games was reported to have said that he had noticed that more than half of the world protests against the USSR and that the Olympics planted doubt whether Soviet leaders were doing the right thing.79 Measures undertaken by African states aimed at excluding South Africa from the international sport in response to apartheid policy can be perceived similarly—they were supposed to show white South Africans that their government’s policy was wrong.
At the same time, it would have been naïve for American decision-makers to expect that after sports boycott Kremlin would have changed its policy as a result of Soviet citizens’ dissatisfaction. In nondemocratic countries, the will of the people is reflected in official policy in a limited way. From this perspective, a boycott should be perceived as a form of sending a message to political leaders of another country about dissatisfaction with its political decisions. Diplomatic sports boycotts that may involve political leaders resigning from participation in opening ceremonies of sports events held in contested states are similar. Such absence is immediately noticed by public opinion, but most directly, it aims to communicate to the authorities of such country.
Sports diplomacy perceived this way can be described as a means of shaping relations with other states, in connection to attempts for political rapprochement or to communicate condemnation for other state’s policy. It is very much interconnected with Murray’s concept of traditional sports diplomacy defined as the use, exploitation, and sometimes abuse of elite sport, sportspeople, or sports events to advance foreign policy objectives,80 but limited to one goal—managing relations with other states. This type of sports diplomacy is usually pursued directly by governments, but it can also be the result of grassroots initiatives. Such sports diplomacy is a clear example of the use of sport within public diplomacy and targets both public opinion and authorities of another country.
Sports Diplomacy as a Means of Building an International Image and Prestige of States
One of the fundamental goals of sports is to create a favorable international image of a state that pursues it. It stems from the fact that public diplomacy involves coordinated use of soft power resources, while sport can be classified as such resource. Therefore, apart from shaping interstate relations, the objective of sports diplomacy is to build an international image and prestige of a state. In this context, sports diplomacy may sometimes go beyond the scope of public diplomacy and involve activities more typical for nation-branding (if considered as distinct from public diplomacy).
Nation-brand can be defined in many ways, for example, as a “unique, multi-dimensional blend of elements that provide the nation with culturally grounded differentiation and relevance for all of its target audiences.”81 People shape their opinion on a particular country based on sources such as media releases, stereotypes, contacts with its residents, stories told by people who visited it, or their observations. Their opinion can also be the result of a mixture of these elements.
The issue of an image of a state and its shaping connects with Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power. States attempt to increase their soft power to enhance their capabilities of affecting the international environment, which stems from the way the foreign public perceives them. There are several tools for shaping the external perception of a state within nation branding and public diplomacy. The most common ones include the quality of products manufactured in a country, its attractiveness concerning tourism and the possibilities of studying and working, the temperament of its citizens, shape of foreign policy, cultural aspects including sport, etc. A state can affect these factors in different ways, and sport belongs to those that governments can affect quite strongly, of course, having regard to physical limitations such as wealth or population.
Sport belongs to popular means of increasing soft power since few things attract the attention of people so strongly. About sport’s capabilities of shaping the image of a state, it is believed to be one of the essential phenomena of mass culture. It triggers powerful emotions and as a result leads to the creation of associations.82 Reaching a high level in sport and hosting sports mega-events allows to win international recognition and achieve geopolitical objectives.83 Enhancing national prestige is mentioned as one of the critical means of the political use of sport alongside securing legitimacy, compensating for other aspects of life within their boundaries, and peacefully pursuing international rivalries.84
When sport is considered as a tool of shaping the international
