Abstract
As sport has become an integral part of society, it has also become a tool for diplomacy around the world. The purpose of this study is to introduce a sports diplomacy model and identify “the critical abilities” for converting sport soft power tools into resources for diplomatic outcomes. The data for this research comprise 30 online surveys completed by international experts in the fields of sports and public diplomacy. The responses were qualitatively analyzed using the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM). After running two rounds of fuzzy Delphi, two main strategies for sports diplomacy emerged—maintaining “official and sports diplomacy solidarity” and using sport figures as “competent cultural ambassadors.” The proposed model includes the most applicable sports diplomacy resources, the most expected diplomatic outcomes, and the major conversion tools (skillful strategies) in the viewpoint of sports and public diplomacy experts. The application of the model finds that states can expect diplomatic outcomes if appropriate sports diplomacy resources and conversion strategies are implemented in an orderly, innovative and accurate manner.
Introduction
Sport and diplomacy have gone hand in hand since their inception (Murray and Pigman, 2014). However, with only a few decades of research on the subject, the nuances of utilizing sport as an effective tool for public diplomacy have not been fully established. The use of sports as a soft power for states and governments has become obvious, repetitive, and sometime clichéd (J. Nye, 2004; Houlihan and Zheng, 2015). However, new and developing studies create a depth of knowledge in the field of sport diplomacy. Through these studies, the opportunities, barriers, and outcomes of sports diplomacy can be explored through various situations, mechanism, and processes of sport.
According to Murray (2012), the relationship between sport and politics has been discussed, however, a theory and model for it has been largely unexplored. The pure optimism of mixing sports and diplomacy will not necessarily lead to desired results for a nation. Rather, it is important to instigate further discussion between theorists and practitioners—from both diplomacy and sport—to create a more sustainable and practical relationship between the two fields. The purpose of this study is to explore this relationship and introduce a sports diplomacy model that can convert sport soft power tools into resources for diplomatic outcomes. Therefore, this study will focus on discovering skillful strategies for converting sports diplomacy resources into states’ diplomatic outcomes. In the following, conversion strategies are introduced, and studies that have implicitly or explicitly referred to these strategies are mentioned.
Sports diplomacy
As scholars have explored the relationship with sport and diplomacy, the two distinct categories have emerged. According to Murray and Pigman (2014), the first category, traditional sports diplomacy, comprises cases in which international sport is consciously employed by governments as an instrument of diplomacy. This category explores characteristics such as “dialogue between states,” using sports to amplify a diplomatic message, and exploiting sports for public diplomacy opportunities. In addition, sporting events could be used to cool tensions in flagging diplomatic relationships or to simply test the ground for a possible policy change. For example, during the 2018 winter Olympics, the People’s Republic of Korea and South Korea used it as an opportunity to unite under one flag, which reignited diplomatic relations (Snyder, 2018).
The second category—international-sport-as-diplomacy –concerns the diplomatic representation, communication, and negotiation between non-state actors that take place as a result of ongoing international sporting competition. This second category, also known as non-traditional sports diplomacy, is less well understood. It includes the effects of both international sport on diplomacy and the diplomatic activities that must occur to make international sporting competition possible (Murray and Pigman, 2014: 1102). For example, during the 2006 World Cup, Germany took major steps to ensure that they could overcome the negative stereotypes that remained from their Nazi past. The country hired translators so that visitors from around the world could have a positive experience while there for the World Cup, these steps allowed Germany to counteract any negative impressions that people around the world may have had about the nation, allowing for positive diplomacy outcomes (Grix and Houlihan, 2013).
Nygård and Gates (2013) expanded this idea by declaring that sport is not exclusively a tool of foreign policy (such as ping-pong diplomacy), but it can also address domestic conflict. For example, when race relations in the United States were at a boiling point, athletes such as Jackie Robinson and Mohammad Ali diffused cultural clashes through their talent, bravery, and sportsmanship. Within this framework, states and governments play a key role in conducting and steering sports diplomacy within a country through deliberate actions.
The soft power of sports
In order to understand and explore how sports diplomacy works, it is best to refer to concepts of how it has the ability to effect change—through soft power. In his acclaimed 2004 book, Joseph S. Nye, defined “soft power” as a nation’s “ability to shape the preference of others” through its values, culture, and institutions (J. Nye, 2004: 47). One of the major institutions that help frame this preference is sport. The soft power of sport allows for others to see comradery across dividing lines and connects people through the love of the game—regardless of race, age, religion, or nationality.
Nye also noted that popular sports can play an important role in communicating American values. According to Nye, basic resources—such as culture, values, legitimate policies, positive domestic model, successful economy, and competent military—can be converted into soft power by skillful conversion strategies. So, when resources like national intelligence services or diplomacy is utilized to its fullest extent, it can influence the minds of the people of a nation. These resources can be shaped through policy tools and strategic communication, but the context of the messages, who the target may be, and the quality of the power-conversion strategies will affect how it is interpreted.
Factors such as competence, benignity, and charisma play a significant factor in the conversion of soft power resources (JS Nye, 2011: 100). Thus, sport has the potential to act as a perfect foil for shaping the preferences of others through its soft power, as athletes are competent in their profession, generally benign, and often a charismatic icon (at least in the perception of the sports fan). The perception may be false (as in the effect of some propaganda), but what matters is whether the target believes it and responds positively or negatively.
However, there is no guarantee that the soft power can influence in the way it is intended. Sport also has the potential for turmoil and diplomatic catastrophe. According to Murray and Pigman (2014), animosity, war, and violence manifest in sport. In fact, between 1972 and 2005, 171 sport-related terrorist attacks have been logged (Jackson and Haigh, 2008: 351). The most famous instances include the 1972 Munich Olympics, and a conflict between fans of El Salvador and Honduras at the 1970 FIFA World Cup being used as a pretext for an all-out war between the nations. There are countless reasons to suggest that any kind of sport diplomacy does not necessarily lead to favorable diplomatic outcomes. However, there are just as many examples proving the opposite. Thus, the need for efficient tools and strategies to convert the raw resources of sports diplomacy into the desired diplomatic outcomes is an inevitable necessity.
Sports diplomacy strategies
To convert sports diplomacy, a variety of strategies must be applied. The first, known as Official and Sports Diplomacy Solidarity, states that in order to use diplomacy in sports, there should be official diplomatic positions confirming the general public diplomacy of the country (Giahshenas, 2013). Disparity between these two categories will lead to inefficiency. In other words, officials in sports must present the same messages as the diplomatic core of the country it is representing. As an example, Chehabi (2001) mentioned the presence of the Iranian national soccer team in the 1998 FIFA World Cup in France as a resource of diplomatic action. Chehabi pointed out that after the selection of Mohammad Khatami as Iran’s president in 1997, Iran practiced a friendlier approach toward various countries around the world. In 1997, Khatami recommended the Iranian people to call on the American people for a thaw in relations between the two countries. During the 1998 World Cup, Khatami proposed to use sport as a diplomacy tool to improve political relations between the two countries, something like Nixon’s ping-pong diplomacy. In 2000, by invitation from the American side, the Iranian national soccer team met with the US national team in California. The flags of the two countries in the hands of American and Iranian audiences helped to somewhat ease pre-existing tensions. On the other side of the story, former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, showing benevolence to and shaking hands with American wrestlers at the 2013 Tehran Games, is a clear example of inconsistency in the official and public diplomacy of the country. At the same ceremony, President Ahmadinejad ignored the Russian team. However, this purposeful behavior by the Iranian president neither made an impression in the minds of the American people nor appeased American officials (Giahshenas, 2013).
The second skillful strategy to assist the sports diplomacy endeavors in achieving the targeted diplomatic outcomes is the strategy of utilizing the Competent Cultural Ambassadors. The human capital of sports human capitals, such as the individuals and teams (club/national) fans, players, coaches, trainers, referees, managers, and officials, act as two types of value ambassadors—universal and national. Universal values are those which are respected universally. These include valuing fair play, the pursuit of pleasure, tolerance, professionalism, and non-sports values like the human rights. National values differ from country to country, but rather concentrate on specific national traditions, customs, and culture which can earn a given country respect from other nations.
Since values and norms are relative, competent cultural ambassadors must be very cautious in using national values in relations with other nations. For example, the Bush administration appointed Michelle Kwan as a public diplomacy ambassador. She was able to unify two cultures through both universal and national values. Since her parents were Chinese immigrants, she was able to bring a unique perspective that allowed her to connect with the young people of China. As the first American Public Diplomacy Envoy, she was able to use her understanding of both cultures to communicate a positive image of an American athlete (Seib, 2009: 96). This gave rise to the role of individual sportspeople as diplomats and ambassadors, including some organizations use sporting stars as “ambassadors.”
The third skillful strategy is the High-Performance strategy, which is classified into two major sub-strategies—Best Records and Best Management. High performance (Best Record) concept can be both absolute and relative at the same time. Winners will mostly remain in the minds and hearts of the people as they play at the highest level of competition (Murray and Pigman, 2014: 1119), and the media pays more attention to these groups telling their stories among people. Levels of expectations in performance also play a factor. For example, although the presence of a third world country getting knocked out of the semi-finals of FIFA World Cup can be a striking achievement, it is relative to the record of the team. A similar result for a country like Germany could be viewed as a catastrophic result.
Best Management, however, encompasses the dealing with the managerial issues, aspects, and logistics of holding sporting events. Managerial issues are considered as Best Safety/Security, Best Planning, Organization and Leadership, The Most Support from Local People, and The Most Satisfaction of Foreign People. In mega-events, like the FIFA world cup and the Olympics Games, must be managed effectively. In these national and international events, even the smallest administrative errors—especially in the area of security—can reverse all the expected results of sports diplomacy. For example, during the 1968 Olympic Games, Mexico’s policy of moving the poor out of Mexico City led to turmoil, protests, and negative press. Image building efforts can backfire (Nygård and Gates, 2013: 238).
The final strategy of converting sports diplomacy resources to the diplomatic outcomes is a strategy of Vast Media Coverage. This strategy emphasizes the conversion of sports diplomacy resources into outcomes considered favorable by diplomats will be more effective when the sports diplomacy endeavors are communicated globally through international media. According to Cull (2009), a core approach of public diplomacy is to use the tools available through international media, radio, television, and internet. Raney and Bryant (2014) point out that the vast media coverage has brought the excitement of sports to virtually everyone, and sports stars become household names like Hollywood celebrities. International sporting bodies must engage in diplomatic relationships with governments, regional and national organizing bodies of the sport, and global media firms to effectively communicate message strategies (Murray and Pigman, 2014: 1114).
In addition to coherent strategies between formal diplomacy and sports diplomacy and extensive media coverage, the research literature implicitly refers to some other conversion strategies, including the role of athletes as cultural ambassadors (Busolo, 2016; Moghadam, 2012), and athletic high performance (Marcin, 2017; Salazar-Sutil, 2008). Based on Nye’s argument about soft power, this research team attempted to identify, and present within the framework of a model, resources, skills/strategies of conversion and outcomes of sports diplomacy by surveying both public diplomacy and sports specialists. An organized summary of the findings is shown in Figure 1.
Sports Diplomacy Model, including resources and outcomes.
Research questions
Now that the process of sports diplomacy has been introduced and its resources and outcomes are circumscribed, it is necessary to identify the vital part and heart of the process of diplomacy, that is, the skills and strategies that will allow for sport to be used for diplomatic outcomes. As mentioned earlier, sport is considered a tool for acquiring soft power. According to Nye’s argument, we can reason that sports diplomacy is a shaped resource of soft power which can produce positive or negative responses (Murray, 2012) in the targets (and thus preferred outcomes) depending upon the context, the target, and the qualities of the power-conversion strategies. The main purpose of this study is to concentrate on the sports diplomacy-conversion strategies, the required critical abilities to convert the raw sports diplomacy resources into the preferred perceptions in the targets. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, the following research question is posed.
RQ1 – According to experts, what are the conversion tools, also known as skillful strategies, for sports diplomacy to diplomatic outcomes?
RQ2 – By which strategies do sports fans, sports human capital, and sport events lead to diplomatic outcomes such as cross-cultural communications, mutual understanding, trust building the development of the national brand, the reputation of the country, the attraction of nations and peace building?
Methodology
The study aims at developing a scientific model of sports diplomacy. By utilizing the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) to examine the concepts offered through soft power in sports diplomacy, a sports diplomacy model can be proposed. FDM is a more advanced version of the traditional Delphi method in that it incorporates Fuzzy Set Theory to overcome some of the ambiguities of the panelists’ responses. FDM uses triangulation statistics to determine consensus among the panel of experts (Ishikawa et al., 1993). The FDM was selected because of the exploratory nature of the study and because the Delphi method, in general, is an inexpensive research approach involving experts without physically bringing them together (Masser and Foley, 1987). The validity and reliability of findings of FDM studies come from combining expert judgments (Parente et al., 1984). In addition, the anonymity of Delphi participants allows them to interact, rethink, and compare their thoughts in a “non-threatening forum” without being influenced by each other’s opinion (Miller, 1993: 198).
The FDM technique is based on respondents’ opinions. In this way, verbal expressions are used to measure views, which can be somewhat subjective. Verbal expressions have limitations to reflect fully respondent’s mental latencies. In other words, although the experts’ competence and mental abilities are used for decision-making, the quantification of experts’ opinions cannot completely reflect the human thinking style. Using fuzzy sets is more consistent with human linguistic and sometimes vague descriptions and it is better to make decisions in the real world by applying fuzzy numbers. Therefore, applying fuzzy Delphi method is appropriate for this study due to the uncertainty about what resources of sports diplomacy have the potential to be used as a soft power tool. In this study, the authors denoted the fuzzy score of 0.7 as the threshold for consensus among experts about each component. Microsoft Excel software was used to run fuzzy analysis and draw graphs.
Instrument
The data for this study were gathered via an online survey sent to 200 scholars who had expertise in diplomacy or sports diplomacy. The researcher-constructed questionnaire consisted of 20 five-point Likert-scale questions followed by a comment box after each question for collecting the expert’s reasoning and to use to improving questions for the following rounds. The experts were asked to give their opinions, critiques, and suggestions about the various strategies and sub-strategies of conversion of sports diplomacy resources related to the diplomatic outcomes presented in Figure 2 as well as the strategies for internal connections and their external connections with the resources and the outcomes of sports diplomacy through two rounds of the fuzzy Delphi method.
Conversion strategies, their internal connections and the external connections with the resources of sport diplomacy and its outcomes.
Participant selection
The statistical population included all public diplomacy and sports scholars; however, due to language, time, and financial constraints, only those who knew English language could participate in this research. The researchers identified about 200 individuals who qualified for the sampling population because of their academic studies in the fields of public, cultural, and sports diplomacy. Using targeted sampling, the authors of the study narrowed the pool of 200 to 60 experts. These subjects were invited to participate in the Delphi rounds. Finally, 30 experts were chosen for executive phase. These sports and public diplomacy panelists were chosen because they had published books or research articles in sports, cultural, or public diplomacy.
A large portion of the respondents were 51–60 years old (43.6%) and only 6.7% were 31 years old or younger. The mean age of experts was slightly above 49 years old. Roughly two-thirds (63.3%) were male and 36.7% female. According to Table 1, the highest number of experts were from the United States (26.67%), followed by the United Kingdom (20%), Iran (13.3%), New Zealand (10%), and China (6.7%); Australia, Russia, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, and Canada were each represented with 3.3%. The majority of experts (93.3%) had a doctoral degree, and 6.7% only had a master’s degree. Finally, 53.3% were public diplomacy experts and 46.7% of them were experts in sports (based on their self-reports) (see Table 1).
Nationality of experts.
Stimulus strategy
In this study, fuzzy Delphi technique is based on Delphi technique for “screening criteria” to explore and identify skillful strategies for converting sports diplomacy resources into states’ diplomatic outcomes. To remove, modify, or stabilize the conversion strategies and sub-strategies, the fuzzy Delphi method was used through the steps laid out below. The questionnaire was designed with the aim of consulting the experts about their agreement with the conversion strategies and sub-strategies. Therefore, experts are supposed to express their consent to propositions through their verbal variables, including very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Since different characteristics of individuals affect their mental representations of qualitative variables, by defining the scope of qualitative variables, experts with the same mindset respond to questions. These variables are defined in the form of triangular fuzzy numbers, according to Table 2 and Figure 3.
Triangular fuzzy numbers of the five-point Likert scale.
Triangular fuzzy numbers for the five-point Likert scale.
In Table 2, defuzzified scores are calculated using the following formula (Habibi, Firouzi Jahantigh, and Sarafrazi, 2015):
Different criteria for achieving consensus are expressed in the fuzzy Delphi method. In this study, the authors denoted the fuzzy score of 0.7 as the threshold for consensus among experts about each component.
In the first fuzzy Delphi round, this study applied an innovative tactic called “stimulus strategy” by the researchers. The stimulus strategy aims to get the most views from experts about the components of the resources of sports diplomacy. In this regard, the first round of stimulus sentences and absolute propositions are used in order to stimulate the opposition and power of the arguments of the experts involved and encourage them to participate in the next drives. For example, consider the statement in the first round of the questionnaire: “All conversion tools (skillful strategies) can be categorized into four major components of high performance; official and sports diplomacy solidarity; competent cultural ambassadors and vast media coverage.” In this proposition, the researchers, with the knowledge that “all” conversion tools (skillful strategies) cannot be categorized into four categories, used this four-part classification out of necessity, but put the word “all” deliberately to instigate and retrieve the expertise of the experts in the beginning of the propositions. In this way, the main goal of the first round was to stimulate the experts to participate actively, provide maximum feedback and encourage further participation, and the results will not be eliminated if the threshold is less than 0.7. But in the second round, the usual fuzzy Delphi mode was used, and its results can be cited.
Model development
In an effort to identify sports diplomacy resources from the perspective of international sports and public diplomacy experts, this research team identified three categories of the most applicable sports diplomacy resources including “Sports Events,” “Sports Human Capital,” and “Sports Producers and Sports Products.” In addition, “sports players,” “hosting/participating in regional, international, continental or global events,” “coaches,” and “prestigious sports leagues” were introduced as the most important resources of sports diplomacy to be deployed by governments to extend their soft power reach. Researchers also classified the expected sports diplomacy outcomes in two categories of “explicit/ specific” and “implicit/ general” ones.
The first suite, which is the main focus of sports diplomacy efforts, relates to efforts executed by countries ministries of foreign affairs and related agencies, as major stakeholders which implement diplomatic initiatives with expectations of desired outcomes. This suite of expected outcomes is called specific and explicit outcomes. The outcomes are explicit, because they are looking for clear and targeted goals and are specific in the sense that they are designed and implemented by a special trustee: the official diplomacy system. The results of the analysis showed that outcomes such as “cross-cultural communications,” “mutual understanding,” “trust building,” “country reputation,” “nation branding,” “attraction,” and “co-option (including conflict normalization/ peace building)” are the most important explicit/specific outcomes, aimed at through the implementation of designed plans by ministries of foreign affairs and their affiliated institutions.
The second suite covers efforts outside of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and related agencies, such as when governments perceive sports as stimulus within the national economies and invest heavily through the Sports and Youth Ministries, sports federations and other institutions outside the formal diplomacy system. They are pursuing goals such as creating a sports hub and developing professional sports leagues. The development of the sports and sports industry has attracted outstanding foreign players to sports leagues and sports tourists from other countries, and the presence of foreigners in the country means the beginning of the process of diplomacy. If successful, such investments in the sports industry and the success of sport in attracting foreigners, “sports industry development,” “sport tourism development,” “socio-economic development,” “nation branding,” and “country reputation” are the most important implicit/general outcomes, aimed at through the implementation of designed plans by other institutions outside of departments of state and affiliated agencies, including the Sports and Youth Ministry, sports federations, and the private sector. According to the model, if the explicit and implicit sports diplomacy endeavors cover each other and they are supported by other kinds of cultural and public diplomacy initiatives, the diplomatic outcomes will be achievable. It is necessary to emphasize that the ultimate diplomatic outcome of sports diplomacy initiatives is considered as a co-option which can lead to conflict normalization/peace building between enemy or rival countries.
Applying the fuzzy Delphi
Table 3 displays the results of the quantitative count of the answers of experts to each proposition, fuzzified average views of the experts and the final defuzzified (crisp value) in the first phase of the fuzzy Delphi.
Results of counting the responses of the first stage of the survey (first phase of fuzzy Delphi rounds).
According to the results presented in Table 3, most of the propositions could not exceed the threshold of 0.7. Also, with the explanation of the stimulus strategy, the goal was to get the most out of the comments and feedback from the experts, and the results of this round of fuzzy Delphi would not be the yardstick for eliminating or stabilizing propositions. So, after applying some changes based on experts’ opinions and redesigning, a modified second-order questionnaire was given to the experts.
In the second round of the fuzzy Delphi, the questionnaire was refined to take the recommended strategies and valuable comments from the experts into consideration. For example, the new sub-strategy of Best Communication Strategies was added to the main strategy of High Performance. “Best Records” was expanded to include attendance in authentic international events such as the Olympics Games or World Cup, best medals/rankings in competitions, and best quality/satisfaction with the products. In addition, “Universal Values” that should be respected included Human Rights, Respect for the Environment, Tolerance, Fair Play, Doping-Free Sporting Environment, and Professionalism. The final change in the second round is about the number of the experts which decreased to 25 experts since five experts refused to continue their cooperation for some personal and professional reasons. Table 4 displays the results of the quantitative count of the answers of experts to each proposition, fuzzified average views of the experts, and the final defuzzified (crisp value) in the second phase of the fuzzy Delphi. The results of Table 4 show that all tools (skillful strategies) for the conversion of sports diplomacy have achieved a score equal to or greater than the threshold of 0.7 and are thus stabilized as tools for converting sports diplomacy into desirable outcomes.
Results of counting the responses of the second stage of the poll (second phase of fuzzy Delphi).
These manipulations have allowed the researchers to complete the Sport Diplomacy Model (see Figure 4), which includes Resources, Conversion Tools, and Outcomes, and their mutual interdependency. Then, the study was expanded to include experts in the field of public diplomacy and sports to confirm the mentioned strategies. Conversion strategies, their internal connections together and their external connections with the resources of sport diplomacy and its outcomes are shown in Figure 4.
The final model of sports diplomacy, based on the consensus amongst international public diplomacy and sports experts (includes sports diplomacy resources, conversion strategies and outcomes).
Discussion and conclusion
Undoubtedly, one of the most important findings of the present study is the consensus of international sports and public diplomacy experts on the final model of sports diplomacy, because the proposition “This model of sports diplomacy is applicable both in terms of form and content, and it could be used to explain the phenomenon of sports diplomacy” attained a crisp value of 0.76.
Another important point is that all the sports diplomacy conversion tools (skillful strategies) scored above the threshold of agreement of 0.7, demonstrating sufficient consensus amongst international public diplomacy and sports experts. Some propositions and strategies garnered a high level of agreement. For example, with a defuzzified mean of 0.80, the most strongly agreed-upon proposition was “Best Management Practices” (under the umbrella of “High Performance”), including management topics such as “best safety/security,” “best planning, organization and leadership,” “the most support from local people,” and “the most satisfaction of foreign people.” This finding shows that the mentioned managerial issues are vital, especially when a country’s officials want to make a decision about whether to host major sporting events or not. On this large scale, the smallest errors could lead to diplomatic catastrophes.
Governments can also suffer negative effects to their public diplomacy efforts when they are unable to meet basic requirements for international sporting events to be secure, free from labor disputes, and a safe and healthy environment (Pigman, 2014: 106). The trivialization of the Brazilian people’s protests against the heavy costs of hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2018 Olympic Games by the government encountered the expected sports diplomacy achievement with a serious risk. However, the Chinese government spent $44 billion, sparing no effort in producing an Olympic Games that showcased China as a country both at the leading edge of technology with the most sophisticated infrastructure and facilities and whose people are open, friendly, welcoming, and worldly. At the same time, China’s government was concerned about the potential for televising images of human rights protesters in Beijing (Pigman, 2014: 101).
With a score of 0.79, the second position was taken by this statement: “Universal values to be respected are: human rights, tolerance, fair play, doping-free sporting environment, professionalism, and respect for the environment,” pertaining to the strategy of “Competent Cultural Ambassadors” (“Universal Values Ambassadors”). Although commenting on values will always be a controversial debate, since values are relative within different communities, it is significant to achieve such a consensus on the universal sport and non-sports values. Pigman (2014) applied the phrase “goodwill ambassadors” instead of “competent cultural ambassadors.” He mentioned that another cultural channel through which governments use sport as part of their public diplomacy is the appointment and sending abroad of sports stars as “goodwill ambassadors.” On these missions, competitors often meet with their counterparts in the sport within the receiving country, compete in exhibition matches, participate in teaching the sport to local youth, and engage in charitable events and activities related to the sport. Such tours, if successful, enhance the public image of the sport and the host country at the same time. Likewise, in the story of cricket diplomacy between India and Pakistan, an enthusiastic but serious Sourav Ganguly, India’s captain, remarked “whenever we travel, we travel as ambassadors for the country” (Pigman, 2014: 98).
With a score of 0.77, “Best Communication Strategies” acquired the consensus of the experts. Best communication strategy is about how to make ways and bridges to help different genders, religions, nations, ethnicities and communities tell their unique stories and experiments to each other. This strategy is expected to lead the diplomatic outcomes such as “cross-cultural communications,” “mutual understanding,” and “trust building,” if run properly. This strategy is exactly what the Bush administration applied when appointing Michelle Kwan as the United States public diplomacy ambassador to represent American values, especially to young people and sports enthusiasts over the world, and specifically to “tell America’s story” to the Chinese people as a targeted country (Seib, 2009: 96).
“Best records” had acquired the score of 0.76. As mentioned, best records or best achievements, in other words, differ for different countries and it is relative in this regard. On the other hand, it is absolute in terms of whether you are Usain Bolt, the world and Olympic champion at the sprinter from Jamaica, or Michael Phelps, the legendary swimmer, from the United States; after a while, people in the countries do not remember the second and third ranks of sprinter and swimming; it is just the ultimate winners who are in people’s minds and hearts and their stories are quoted in different circles. This is the reason which, according to Marcin (2017), showed China’s longstanding use of sports to achieve political goals—both through athletes’ victories in a growing number of disciplines and, more recently, through hosting multiple sporting events.
The “vast media coverage” strategy had scored 0.77 in terms of respondent consensus. This strategy is explaining this undeniable fact that in the era of modern media flourishing such as satellite radio and TV, the World Wide Web, digital publishing, and so on, whatever the attention of the media giants, it will acquire a greater fortune to be seen, globally. Reversely, whatever the eyes of the international media to stay away, although it can still have a small chance, its impact scale will much reduced and it will be captured in a small geographic area. Media interviews and “player of the match” award presentations always identify the country affiliation of players in top leagues, so the global audience makes the identification. When Chinese basketballer Yao Ming played for the NBA’s Houston Rockets in the 2000s, he attracted a huge fan following in China, Houston, and around the United States amongst the worldwide Chinese diaspora and amongst basketball fans everywhere (Pigman, 2014: 105). In his research entitled “The Fusing of Sport and Politics,” Delgado (2003) highlighted the role of the media as an instrument to accelerate the success of sports diplomacy, using the case study of American media coverage of the Iran vs. US soccer match during the French World Cup in 1998 media coverage combined with special promotions to show that politicians use sports to gain their ideological goals. Also, Anholt contends that major sporting events do not themselves brand their host locations but, rather, create an opportunity that the global media spotlight can provide for the hosts to brand themselves (Pigman, 2014: 99).
The strategy of “Official and Sports Diplomacy Solidarity” had scored 0.74 in terms of experts’ consensus. This strategy states that as long as the officials in a country do not want to, sports diplomacy will not take place seriously. This statement means that all the classic examples of sports diplomacy, including US-China ping-pong diplomacy, Indian-Pakistan cricket diplomacy, US-Canada hacky diplomacy, Canada-USSR hacky diplomacy, US-Iran wrestling diplomacy, etc., as well as the modern manners of sports diplomacy including the hosting of major sports events, the use of athletes as a countries’ ambassadors etc. would not and will not be possible unless the governments and policy makers were and are writers and directors of such a scenario. This strategy reflects the key point of the inalienable ability of governments to carry out sports diplomacy initiatives, especially on a large scale. Existence of official and sports diplomacy solidarity/consistency was the principal reason for the success of Iran-US football diplomacy for President Khatami in 1998 (Chehabi, 2001) and the lack of official and sports diplomacy solidarity/consistency was the main reason for the failure of President Ahmadinejad’s wrestling diplomacy in 2013 (Giahshenas, 2013).
Finally, the proposition “After re-looking at the model, I think the connections between resources, conversion tools and outcomes are understandable and acceptable” with the score of 0.75 is a notable consensus between the experts. This finding has a basic importance since it shows us that skillful strategies for the conversion of sports diplomacy resources to the favorable diplomatic outcomes will start with the “will” of governments to implement the sport diplomacy plans, it continues by assuming the role of “competent cultural ambassador” by all sports human capitals, especially players, coaches, and fans. Then, high performance including the quality of management in all respects (best management practices), the acquisition of valuable ranks and medals (best records), and best and vast communication ways to communicate with other cultures (best communication strategy) continue to increase the chances of success in sports diplomacy; and for the ultimate success, there is no way unless the efforts mentioned are broadly displayed in the world, or at least in the targeted countries, by the international media.
It is worth noting that to avoid ambiguity about vocabulary and terminology, the definition and purpose meant by the research group has also been put to the attention of experts for terms such as “Universal Values,” “National Values,” “Best Records,” and “Best Management.” Although there are many objective samples presented for each of the strategies as well as the consensus on the proposed model of sports diplomacy, experts are still looking at this model with a mixture of approval and caution. For example, one expert has stated that this model is very interesting and desirable, but it needs to provide some evidence through its testing using historical facts, to prove that it is of value; another expert has noted that this model is interesting, but other socio-economic variables must definitely be considered.
Fundamentally, doubts about new phenomena such as patterns, models, and theories are, to some extent, natural and inevitable. However, in the case of the sports diplomacy model introduced, as historical examples are presented for each conversion strategy, there are many other examples that could not be presented just because of the limitations in the number of words and pages of the article. Otherwise, this model and “forthcoming developed models” will be able to describe and explain how sports diplomacy is occurring in different situations. The other reason for the experts’ caution about the introduced model of sports diplomacy can be referred to the puritanical, idealistic, and optimistic perspective to the sport (Allison, 1994: 6) and sports diplomacy (Murray and Pigman, 2014: 1108).
We, like Alison, Murray and Pigman, remind, first, that not all sports diplomacy efforts will necessarily lead to desirable outcomes, and for the success, strong conversion strategies are required. Second, according to Nye (2004), whether the shaped resources of soft power produce positive or negative responses in the targets (and thus preferred outcomes) depends upon the context, the target, and the qualities of the power-conversion strategies (J. Nye, 2004: 47). Thus, the power-conversion strategies make up only one of the three sides of the triangle. Therefore, the expectation for the effectiveness of sports diplomacy efforts should be logical and realistic due to the context and the target. Finally, it is easy to understand that soft power and public diplomacy are not limited to sports diplomacy endeavors and have a wide range of aspects. Therefore, in order to succeed in any aspect of public diplomacy, support and compatibility of other aspects are also required. According to this logic, the success of sport diplomacy initiatives will not be conclusive unless other instruments of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy come with the assistance of sports diplomacy.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to give special thanks to Dr. Jami Fullerton and the entire faculty of the School of Media and Strategic Communications at Oklahoma State University, which assisted in collecting the data during one of the authors’ visiting scholarship period.
Funding
This research is a part of a doctoral dissertation entitled “The Modeling of Soft Power Implementation throughout Sport Diplomacy,” which was supported by the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (June 8, 2015).
