to some extent, falls within the category of diplomacy of nongovernmental organizations. Beata Surmacz defined it as a process of representation and communication, which crosses the state borders, through which transnational organizations realize their interests, seek influence on the behavior of other international actors (states, international institutions, other non-state actors) and capability to solve international conflicts.122
Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman distinguished two categories of sports diplomacy. The first one connects to the conscious use of sport by governments—as a diplomatic tool. The second category, described as “sport as a diplomacy,” refers to diplomatic representation, communication, and negotiations between non-state actors resulting from international sports competition. Accordingly, international non-state actors such as the IOC or FIFA practice a distinct type of diplomacy. They undertake negotiations with governments, local and regional sports organizations, sponsors, media firms, and organizations of global civil society.123
Diplomatic engagement of international sports organizations stems from the fact that contemporary international sport requires specialized diplomacy and pursuing multilateral negotiations involving numerous actors. For example, the FIFA World Cup in 2002, cohosted by South Korea and Japan, required the engagement of two governments, two national football federations, FIFA, global sponsors, and media firms. The effectiveness of the negotiations between these subjects depended on FIFA’s diplomatic skills. In this context, international sports organizations become diplomatic actors,124 although their capabilities in this field have obvious limitations.125 Diplomatic activities of international sports organizations and generally their contacts with states can also be identified as sports diplomacy, although in a different context than described earlier.
It is important to indicate the subjects of sports diplomacy perceived this way. International sports governing bodies are the most important of such actors. Others include organizing committee of sports events, regional and national Olympic committees, and sports federations. These subjects can act as mediators since the aspirations of other actors might be colliding while hosting a successful sports event is their common goal.
Aaron Beacom proposed the concept of Olympism as diplomacy.126 To some extent, it overlaps with the aforementioned “sport as a diplomacy” in relation to the Olympic Games. Beacom described it as processes and diplomatic activities undertaken through sports governing institutions, although limited to the Olympic Games.
Apart from multilateral negotiations concerning organizing sports events, there is a number of other diplomatic activities that can be associated with sports subjects. Aaron Beacom indicated creating educational, developmental, and cultural programs, recognizing sports federations and NOCs of the newly emerging states.127 Some activities of sports organizations may, therefore, be classified as public diplomacy since, for example, development aid is one of its standard techniques. These activities refer to the concept of corporate diplomacy, which most commonly includes activities typical for corporate social responsibility which lead to a change of the image of a corporation owing to the greater legitimization and enhanced capability of influencing other subjects.128 Such actions at least indirectly lead to the creation of a positive image of these sports bodies and the enhancement of their international significance. At the same time, they contribute to the realization of their social missions as in the concept of diplomacy of nongovernmental organizations.
The diplomacy of international sports bodies goes beyond the scope of public diplomacy, although to some extent it remains related. A question might appear concerning the reason for the political and diplomatic status of international sports governing organizations. Most likely, this stems from the importance that governments attach to them because of their assets. It refers to the desire to host sports events and to compete in them, which are common methods of states’ public diplomacy aimed at shaping the desired international image through sport. It makes international sports organizations external stakeholders of states’ public diplomacy, while even though this type of sports diplomacy is not an explicit example of public diplomacy, there is a strong connection between both concepts.
Concluding Remarks
This chapter included an attempt to conceptualize the category of sports diplomacy, particularly in its reference to public diplomacy. This led to a proposition of three types of understanding sports diplomacy: (1) as a means of shaping interstate relations, (2) as a means of building international image and prestige of states, and (3) as diplomatic activity of international sports subjects, although the boundaries between them are sometimes blurred, and particular cases of sports diplomacy might have features of more than one type. According to the first approach, sports diplomacy aims to foster traditional diplomatic activities of states, for example, by providing additional channels for communication. It targets state authorities and the general public. Governmental engagement is often expressed in this type of sports diplomacy, although it is not necessary. Its main defining feature is the existence of a particular goal connected with the foreign policy that sports diplomacy is supposed to serve. Sports diplomacy perceived this way is, therefore, an explicit example of public diplomacy pursued with the use of sport, even though certain examples might also be assessed as serving the traditional diplomacy
Sports diplomacy as a means of building the international image of states involves such activities as supporting sports development in other countries, establishing bilateral sports contacts, hosting sports events, participating in international sport, achieving high level by national teams or sports teams from such country, having globally known athletes and sports investments. All these activities aim to improve the way the foreign public perceives a state. In this context, sport is a soft power resource (high level of sport) and provides circumstances to exploit other resources (e.g., while organizing sports events). Some of them are employed only by big and powerful states, while others, like participation in international sport, are used by small states or those with limited international recognition. This type of sports diplomacy undoubtedly can also be classified as a subcategory of public diplomacy, although some cases may also be assessed as examples of nation branding.
While considering sports diplomacy as a part of public diplomacy, it remains unclear whether activities undertaken individually by non-state actors such as sports teams or national sports federations and not coordinated by states can also be regarded as sports diplomacy. It has been assumed that if such activities are beneficial for the state’s image, then they should also be classified as sports diplomacy.
The third type of sports diplomacy, which refers to the diplomatic activities of international sports governing bodies, has been introduced as a result of the modification of approaches presented by other authors. It differs from the previous types, most of all concerning its subject since it refers to sports non-state actors which cannot be attached to any territory. The international sport requires the coordination of activities of many actors, so these subjects have to hold negotiations with numerous players. They also need to recognize national sports organizations, which resemble traditional diplomatic activities connected with international recognition. Finally, they pursue aid programs, which can be assessed as expressions of their public diplomacy.
Sports diplomacy is usually classified as a subcategory of public diplomacy. A similar approach has been adopted in this book, and public diplomacy serves as the central analytical category. The review of various approaches in defining it pursued throughout this chapter in principle confirmed this approach. Most of the forms of sports diplomacy have their public form, even if they most directly lead to traditional diplomatic contacts. Still, some of the forms of sports diplomacy also exceed the scope of public diplomacy. This is particularly visible in the context of sports diplomacy by ISOs, and to some extent, it refers to nation branding objectives of using sport to shape an image of a country. It can be concluded though, that even despite these observations sports diplomacy, in principle, fits within the realm of public diplomacy, while even in the cases when it exceeds its scope, they remain strongly interconnected.
NOTES
