Skim through the government websites of the countries attending the 2023 G20 Summit, and you will come to a commonly used term: sports diplomacy. For example, it was among the “shared priorities” Lee Satterfield, the USA Assistant secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, discussed in India. The Indian government website for the event mentions how sport has “garnered worldwide inter-cultural exchanges and interests that people unite in one voice while cheering this so-called, ‘Sports Diplomacy’ tactic by the authorities.”
What is sports diplomacy?
The Oxford Research Encyclopaedia defines it as “a new term that describes an old practice: the unique power of sport to bring people, nations, and communities closer together via a shared love of physical pursuits.”
As Nelson Mandela would say, sport “has the power to unite people in a way that little else does … is more powerful than governments in breaking down racial barriers … laughs in the face of all types of discrimination.”
Governments have used sport to soften ties with other nations. It must be remembered that improving ties with one nation may hamper relations with another, so it is easier said than done.
They have also used sport to improve their own image among their own people. The definition of sports diplomacy is, thus, blurrier than national borders.
Sport diplomacy history
Of the myriad examples across history, geography, and sports, perhaps the most famous was the 1971 tour by nine USA table tennis players and accompanying media – the first delegations from the country to visit China in 22 years of “no diplomatic ties, limited trade, and few contacts” between the nations.
The roots were laid at the World Table Tennis Championship in Nagoya, Japan, when Glenn Cowan missed the American team bus and boarded the Chinese bus instead. Zhuang Zedong offered him a picture of the Huangshan Mountains on silk. When Cowan left the bus with the Chinese team, the photographs hit the headlines.
Two days later, China invited the American team over. The USA accepted. This is not as easy as it sounds, for the American passports were not valid “for travel to or in communist-controlled portions (China, Korea, Vietnam) or to be in (Albania, Cuba).”
The US Department of State consular officials crossed out ‘China’ while keeping the other entries intact. The tour – history remembers it as Ping Pong Diplomacy – went ahead. It helped establish official diplomatic relations between two nations that were not at great terms with each other.
The next year, the USA was at it again – albeit in a different way. The USSR had been the undisputed champions at chess, but now the USA had Bobby Fischer, threatening the Russian Boris Spassky at the World Chess Championship. At the peak of the Cold War, the American government celebrated Fischer’s triumph.
When Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia (now Croatia), had hosted the ninth Chess Olympiad, in 1950, the USSR boycotted it, and the East European nations followed suit. Marshal Tito seized the opportunity by providing such access that “the citizens of Dubrovnik were so close to the games they could breathe alongside the players”. Yugoslavia’s triumph was the icing on the cake.
Sportswashing vs sports diplomacy
Benito Mussolini went multiple steps ahead when Italy hosted the FIFA World Cup in 1934. He ensured propagandist radio broadcasts of capacity crowds, stood in queues “with the people” to buy tickets, attended every match by Italy, and commissioned an enormous trophy. An early instance of “Sportswash”.
Three days after the final, he met Adolf Hitler, who would use the Berlin Olympics of 1936 the same way. The Nazi government promoted the Games as a “way to weed out the weak, Jews, and other undesirables”. It famously backfired when African American Jesse Owens won four gold medals, “single-handedly crushing Hitler’s myth of Aryan supremacy”.
Cricket diplomacy
Cricket, of course, has seen both sides of it. The Bodyline series of 1932/33 stopped just short of ruining the Anglo-Australian diplomatic ties. After the Second World War ravaged England, the Australian cricketers on duty played unofficial ‘Test’ matches – the Victory Tests – against England: the series did wonders to boost the morale of the public.
A quarter of a century later, England – after much deliberation – were fine with severing ties with the apartheid government in South Africa. The domino effect led to South Africa being ostracized by the world for two decades. In the 21st century, England refused to tour Zimbabwe multiple times, even conceding two points at the 2003 World Cup.
But the most telling story has been about India and Pakistan. The national heads of both nations have used cricket to ease the mutual relationships and have attended cricket matches; and the authorities have eased visa processes to enable fans from one country to cross the border to watch the cricket.
India does not tour Pakistan anymore (only for cricket: in May 2023, the Indian team won four gold medals at the Bridge Federation of Asia and Middle-East Championships in Lahore). However, Pakistan will return to India for the 2023 World Cup.
Power of boycotts
Opting out of tours has been a constant feature in the history of sport. When FIFA denied Africa a guaranteed spot at the World Cup, the entire continent – except South Africa, of course – boycotted the 1966 edition. The amazing collective stance forced FIFA to give in to Africa’s demands by 1970.
Until 1973, only four teams – the USA, England, France, and Australia – had ever won the Davis Cup. Thus, when India and South Africa qualified for the final, the world braced for a new champion. South Africa did win it – but without a final: the Indian government’s anti-apartheid stance had prevented the Indians from touring.
In 1976, the New Zealand rugby team toured apartheid South Africa. The IOC’s decision to allow New Zealand to participate at the Montreal Olympics led to 29 nations boycotting the tournament. Next year’s Gleneagles Agreement put an official stamp on South Africa’s global ban by the Commonwealth Nations.
Four years later, 66 countries, led by the USA, boycotted the Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet-Afghan War. In response, the USSR led the 14 Eastern Bloc nations that opted out of the 1984 Games in Los Angeles.
The instances are too many to list – and are not restricted to governments alone: the corporate sector has been at it too, for few PR exercises are more efficient and impactful than involvements in sports.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
