GJIA: Your book Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory, and Practice discusses the long-range history of the close intersection between sports and diplomacy but also recognizes that this relationship hasn’t been well studied, in contrast to extensive understandings of sports and politics. How exactly would you define the difference between “sports politics” and “sports diplomacy,” and why do you think “sports diplomacy” has fallen under the academic radar for much longer?
SM: The difference between sports politics and sports diplomacy is the same as the difference between politics and diplomacy. Politics takes place within a country and involves many parties, and anyone can play. There are few rules, and no formal training or entry exams are required. Diplomacy occurs in the international space — it is about representing one party with loads of rules, and only a select, elite few can play. Exams are required to become a professional diplomat, as is a constant training regime (in languages, climate change, and upskilling, for example). Sports politics and sports diplomacy mirror this situation.
For the second question, diplomacy is marginalized and misunderstood. People only seem to care when it fails to work. This is odd considering that — as Sir Ernest Satow noted — “diplomacy is the best means devised by civilization to ensure relations aren’t governed by force alone.” Sports diplomacy is a subfield of diplomatic studies, and I think the marginalization comes from our mother discipline. I don’t think, however, that sports diplomacy will fly under the radar for too much longer. We have a field of studies, government strategies, and a growing body of students and practitioners.
GJIA: Sports serve as a universal language that can bring out the good in participants as they strive to better themselves and their team to represent something bigger than themselves. What do you think is the exact process by which sports diplomacy takes those lessons from the sports and embeds them into the diplomacy aspect, or vice versa?
SM: There are many clichés around sports, such as “sports is a universal language.” Unfortunately, this is not so for women in Afghanistan at this moment in time. It brings out the good in people, but it also brings out the bad— the Cuban volleyball team playing a tournament in Iceland, for instance, had five players convicted of rape. These are problematic images: sport is not quite a universal language, and it does have this Janus-faced nature.
On the positive end, sports and diplomacy are remarkably similar. They are both ancient civic devices for overcoming estrangement between separate groups. Both international sports players and diplomats serve the state. Both want to win for the country and face rules, secret plays, spectators, etc. They also compete in zero-sum games played out in myriad international venues and are watched by the media and the public. Arguably, the only difference between the two is the clothes that they wear and the training they receive. Both professions are highly complementary.
GJIA: Inherent to the nature of any sport is competition, and one common way people see different nations represented on the international sports stage is through very high-level competitions. Teams are seen as representing their country well when they defeat others, almost like a form of asserting the soft power of one’s own country. How can countries ensure that their sports diplomacy does not become a form of soft power, but is rather an exchange of culture or political ideas?
SM: I’ve got problems with the term “soft power.” People we work with in the Pacific say, “What’s soft about power?” Power is about trying to move people from one point to another, whether through attraction or co-option. A colleague down at the Lowy Institute, Anna Gibert, says instead of using soft power to engage with the Pacific countries, we should “just shut up and listen.” Good diplomats prefer terms such as intuition, influence, and partnership, and they are adept at cleaning up the mess that power creates.
Sports diplomacy is much more than soft power. It is the strategic use of sports to bring people, nations, and institutions closer together via a shared love of physical pursuits. State and non-state actors as well as sports players use it to build relationships, amplify messages, and advance strategic policies or objectives.
GJIA: Your native place, Scotland, recently qualified for the 2024 UEFA European Football Championship. For a country like Scotland, which is not regarded as an independent sovereign state, how have various governments utilized sports in the past to elevate its presence?
SM: Sadly, I don’t think Scotland makes the most of its sports diplomacy assets. They have huge assets in traditional sports, but more so in Celtic indigenous sports. As you mentioned, Scotland is not a sovereign nation. We are a substate, so we are limited in what we can do in terms of foreign policy by certain treaties. That includes our sports diplomacy.
For other countries, it is just like sports: there are strong and weak teams. Currently, the Welsh Government is one of the most innovative in merging culture, sport, music, and art. Australia is incredible in their strategy for winning hearts and minds in the Indo-Pacific. China is inviting 300 Pacific athletes to train in China and also put $100 million into the Pacific Games in November. Saudi Arabia is putting in $7 million. Meanwhile, the US is not doing much.
Sport is a huge part of American culture, and diplomacy is supposed to represent that culture. However, I don’t quite feel the US government fully represents the sports industry. There’s a disconnect between government and organizations like the NBA and NFL, and perhaps it’s an operational budget question. Sports diplomacy in the US is lumped under the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, which has a small budget and small team. If the US invested more time, effort, and research, sports could be a useful tool, particularly in a very hawkish environment of trying to win friends and influence people across the Pacific. I was surprised to find that “sport” isn’t even mentioned in the US Indo-Pacific strategy.
GJIA: Where do you see the future of sports diplomacy going? How can governments better support sports diplomacy? How can sports communities also better support sports diplomacy?
SM: I see the future of sports diplomacy being closely intertwined with professional sports. If you work for the NBA and are posted in Africa, working with the local government or local stakeholders is a form of sports diplomacy, for example. Engaging with the commercial world is also important. Governments need to take the sports industry as seriously as defense, health, and wealth. At a recent event that I attended I heard the previous Australian Minister of Sport, Bridget McKenzie, say that for every dollar invested in sport, they get seven back. I encourage all states to take it seriously, fund research, and understand that the keys to the sports diplomacy universe do not lie with governments but with non-state actors, particularly sports players.
Future areas to study include bilateral relationships, such as exploring what role sports play in Australia-US relations. Gender in sports diplomacy also fascinates me, or how women and other genders can use sport to shatter glass ceilings. The influence that women have achieved through football or soccer, for example, is so impressive to see. Gender is also particularly important across the Indo-Pacific countries, like Australia, where, domestic violence has overshadowed progress. So, asking what role can sport play in addressing this problem and overcoming the awful diplomatic relationship between genders is important.
On the last question, we need to overcome this stereotype that politics is politics. It’s ugly, but there are still a lot of good people in politics and diplomacy. Sports at times is siloed, with a distrust of outsiders. Academics can support sports people. Imagine if Adam Silver of the NBA received diplomatic training before negotiating with China over the tweet in support of Hong Kong protesters. I think of Elnaz Rekabi, the very brave Iranian woman who took her hijab off at a rock-climbing festival in Singapore a couple of years ago, but upon arriving back in Iran she was arrested at the airport and her family’s houses were demolished. She was made a puppet of the state. If you want to make a difference, it’s not through activism. It’s through sports diplomacy.
There should be genuine interest among athletes to learn. As a final example, Darcy Moore, the Captain of Collingwood, an Australian football team that won the Premiership in 2023, is studying international relations with a fascination for sports diplomacy. These are the people we want to start to work with, educate, and learn from. The roles are changing, and I think the 21st century is a good laboratory to try new positive correlations.
…
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Interview conducted by Rachel Li.
Dr. Murray is an Associate Professor in International Relations and Diplomacy (Bond University, Australia), a Global Fellow at the Academy of Sport (The University of Edinburgh), an Honorary Member of the Centre for Law, Policy, and Diplomacy at the University of Rijeka (Croatia), and an Adjunct Research Fellow at Griffith University (Australia). As a consultant, he has worked with the British Council, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the International Olympic Academy, and many others. He is also a co-founder of the Sports Diplomacy Alliance. Dr. Murray has published dozens of peer-reviewed academic journals, several edited books, and a seminal monograph entitled Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice (2018).
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
