Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ Black Power Salute at the 1968 Olympics— sport can be a power for good.
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi propaganda at the 1936 edition— sport can be a power for evil.
Regardless of your intentions as an individual, organisation, or government, sport can help you on your way to getting what you want, if harnessed correctly.
A lot of the time, ‘What you want’, is influence. See, when you have influence, you don’t need to opt for brash military force or dishonest brown-envelopes to have things your way. Definitely not- you can be more subtle than that.
Instead, you’ll have won hearts and minds. During the Malayan Emergency that started in 1948, communist uprisings threatened British control of the colony. At the time, the standard reaction was to flood the region with troops and let their mere presence do the talking in a Machiavellian, better to be feared than loved, sort of way. Instead, British General Sir Gerald Templer appealed for the opposite.
“The answer lies not in pouring more soldiers into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the Malayan people.”
Templer had the sentiment down to a tee— military strength is all well and good, but you need to win people over.
Influence falls under the umbrella of soft power. An expert on the topic is Joseph Nye, who calls this: “The ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment.”
In non-academic words, why force someone to do something when you can make them want to do it anyway.
Admittedly, ‘military force’ and ‘coercion’ are some very substantial topics being thrown around here, and in comparison, sport seems like quite a trivial matter. After all, it’s just a pastime, right?
That very question is why it’s so effective as a tool. The global love of sport is so genuine that a nation who looks to boost it is often seen to be acting with legitimate interests. Legitimacy means trust, which, again, leads to influence.
This isn’t a recent phenomenon either, as sport has been used as a route to soft power for decades, nay, millenia- Greek city-states used to advertise their victory at the ancient Olympic Games as a symbol of their overall superiority.
Nowadays, global superpowers do much of the same. The USA, UK, and China have made countless attempts to do so, some that have worked, and some that haven’t. Proof of this is the Global Soft Power Index where these are the top three nations, but they all represent different approaches to sports-based soft power.
So before we delve into an example from each of the three nations, here’s an early recap: sport gives you influence, influence gives you soft power, and soft power gives you what you please.
An elevated view of the Temple of Olympian Zeus in the middle of Athens, Greece (Photo by: Nick Brundle Photography via Getty Images)
The UK and the Commonwealth Games: A Nod to the Empire?
“This vast empire on which the sun never sets, and whose bounds nature has not yet ascertained” - George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney
At its peak, the British Empire was the largest the world had ever seen, with the monarch ruling over 23% of
the world’s population. But as nations sought their independence, combined with the economic stress of the Second World War, the mother country saw her control diminish.
In an attempt to bring together different parts of the empire, the inaugural British Empire Games took place in 1930, where Canada hosted 10 other nations to compete across six sports. The eventual decline of the empire and the evolving relationships between the countries involved meant the games were continuously rebranded, until they eventually stuck with the title of the ‘Commonwealth Games’ in 1978.
Even today, the event is dubbed the ‘friendly games’, one that gives off the reputation of an innocent chance to get the empire-gang back together, reminisce on old times and have a foot race or two.
So where does soft power come in?
Well, earlier we mentioned the word ‘influence’, and this is exactly what the UK got, or more to the point, gets, during these games.
By continuing to take part in these events, as well as hosting them eight times, the country firstly retains cultural ties to the former colonies who compete. For instance, the very language the games are communicated in is English, reinforcing the idea that the UK is the centre of all discussion. Simple, but effective.
There are many other subtle acknowledgements of the UK’s dominance, like the Queen’s Baton Relay. This is a tradition where a baton, carrying a message from the Head of the Commonwealth (now King Charles III), is given to multiple relay runners before being handed back to him to be read out at the opening ceremony. This embodies the Commonwealth’s inherent connection to the British Royal Family, acting as a reminder of who the centrepiece of the Commonwealth really is.
These sly and subconscious gestures of dominance are part of what gets the UK that all-important influence with other nations, but what the country presents to the general public is the opposite.
Instead, the UK uses the event to convey an image of inclusivity and diversity— a progressive country that shuns its imperial past and sees the former colonies as equals. This, therefore, advertises the UK to the world as, in plain terms, a likeable country. Spokesperson to Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasises that the PM “Continues to see the Commonwealth as not only a key pathway for elite athletes, a great event for spectators but a great opportunity to bring together the Commonwealth family of nations in a positive and impactful way.”
The Organisation for World Peace (OWP) has described the Commonwealth as “A network that allows members to cooperate on common goals.”
These goals, more often than not, are British ones, with former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, saying the Commonwealth is an “amazing group of 54 countries that share values and in particular, the idea of democracy.”
The ability to use the Commonwealth Games as an opportunity to spread traditional UK culture and values is so evident that other countries, ones that weren’t even part of the empire, are being allowed to join the club. Nicely summed up by the OWP, this can be seen as “a move away from an emphasis on shared history [and] towards an emphasis on shared values.”
It is important to remember that the Commonwealth Games- a sports event- is at the forefront of this political discussion. Only recently did former Sports Minister, Nigel Huddlestone, emphasise the impact of sporting events, including the 2022 Commonwealth Games, on this influence. His speech titled: ‘Soft Power, Trade and Investment Benefits to Major Sports Events’, labelled 2022 as: “An incredible year to showcase the country and deliver on Government objectives.
“That will mean maximising all these so-called soft power, trade and investment opportunities. We should never underestimate the power of these events to generate jobs and contribute to the economy.”
While the Commonwealth Games provides opportunities for soft power to be gained, the UK did not directly create the games for this purpose. But who did?
The Chinese Super League: What Goes Up Must Come Down
“Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Xi Jinping has three wishes for his country: To qualify for another World Cup, to host a World Cup, and to win a World Cup.
Jinping, the leader of China, has a love of football that crosses over with his ambitions to further China’s place on the world stage perfectly, as countries that are good at football tend not to go under the radar.
Seeing the sport as a means of establishing power over other nations, Jinping set out (admittedly ambitious) aims for China to be a “world football superpower” by 2050. But with decades of European and South American dominance, he had some work to do.
In 2015, China launched their football reform plan which set out with the long-term goal of entering “the global forefront” and bringing the men’s national team to the highest ranks of world football.
Xi Jinping meeting a youth football team in Germany (Photo by Oliver Hardt/Bongarts/Getty Images)
The theory was that boosting the domestic league would drag the national team up with it, and it introduced a period of unprecedented spending on new players.
One of the early signings was ex-Tottenham midfielder Paulinho, who moved to Guangzhou Evergrande for just under £10 million— what the world saw as an extraordinary fee for an Asian side at the time. He was then bought by Barcelona, before being re-signed by Evergrande in 2018…for £35 million.
If that was excessive, then even the best writers would struggle to describe what happened in 2016. Over the course of the year, Chinese Super League (CSL) clubs spent over £250 million, featuring a two-week period where the national transfer record was broken four times.
Very understandably, this drew international attention, and this was part of the nation’s march on soft power. The signing of names such as Oscar, Ramires, and Carlos Tevez gave them cultural influence as China was no longer the economic superpower to be scared of, it was an upcoming football giant.
Having stolen a couple of his players, Antonio Conte, Chelsea manager at the time, considered China a serious threat to the status quo, commenting: “The Chinese market is a danger for all teams in the world, not only for Chelsea.”
Arsene Wenger, now the Chief of Global Football Development at FIFA, felt the same, adding: “China looks to have the financial power to move a whole European league to China."
This financial power carried over as part of China’s soft power campaign in Europe. A couple years before this, Chinese conglomerate Wanda Group acquired a 20% stake in Spanish giant Atletico Madrid, again giving the nation influence where previously they had none.
Throughout this period, all the talk was about China. But what was the talk in China?
The question was of contradiction or compromise, as the CSL posed a cultural dilemma for the country. Historically, China has been a communist state with collectivist values that emphasises the success of the country over that of the individual. This was reflected by the aim of Jinping to have China—not Chinese clubs— compete at the highest level. But their way of doing this (mind-boggling fees on world-famous individual talent) went directly against these values. Their behaviour did help their image overseas as a competitive, outward-facing, and overall more westernised nation, but at a cost.
Even with heavy media censorship, investing so much money in star players saw internal criticism, with the People’s Daily, official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, saying the blasé spending “far exceeded the economic value brought to the league.”
This all emphasises the esteem that soft power was held in, where regardless of the criticism, and the contradiction of historical cultural values, and the lack of sustainability of it all, the investment continued for the sake of influence.
Speaking to Newsweek, Professor Simon Chadwick, an expert in soft power and geo-politics in Asian sport, labels China’s strive for footballing success as a form of international diplomacy. On this, he said Chinese football is not “just playing football for football’s sake”, but is instead an “extended economic and industrial network linked to football.”
Investment in footballing infrastructure is another of China’s ways of gaining leverage during international negotiations. For instance, Chinese companies built or renovated half of the stadiums used in the last Africa Cup of Nations, which in turn gets them in the good books when agreeing deals over natural resources. Linking back to influence, Ivorian sinologist and Filomène Ebi says that “A stadium is one of the most eye-catching signs of China’s ability to contribute to the development of African countries.
“Most people in Ivory Coast know that China built the Ouattara stadium.”
(Photo by Issouf SANOGO / AFP) (Photo by ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP via Getty Images)
Back in China, more and more foreign players coming in meant less and less Chinese players were developed, putting a stop to any dreams of a strong national team unless they found a way to nationalise Carlos Tevez. To combat this, a rule was brought in where any money spent on foreign players had to be matched and paid to the Chinese FA. But the lack of international stars meant less quality, less attendances, and, more importantly, less income. This forced clubs like Jiangsu Suning, who won the league the year before, to lose so much money that they tried to auction the team bus before eventually folding.
But despite the bubble bursting after a few years, the amount of influence China was able to gain was impressive. A lover of football or not, for Jinping, soft power was always the endgame.
American Sports Culture: The Beauty of Unintentional Soft Power
“Sports are a microcosm of society”- Billie Jean King
American sports are extravagant, dramatic, and commercial, where individuals work hard and rise to stardom.
These descriptions could also be used to describe the USA as a nation, and with viewers all around the world, the American sports scene spreads this image.
One of the most famous sports competitions in the world, the NBA reaches over 200 countries— a perfect opportunity to gain some of that soft power we’ve been talking about.
When you tune into an NBA game, you’ll see it’s far from just basketball. Instead of the traditional sports broadcasting format of, you know, just showing the game, there’s pre-match cheerleaders, half-time light shows and ad breaks throughout. You’ll also see celebrity fan-cams and American music, and these are all examples of the advertisement of American culture.
This is not a new idea. In the 1960s, the United States Government helped fund the training of athletes from developing nations. This was done through an organisation called Sports International, which was aimed less at the actual athletes and more at enhancing America’s image in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
Nowadays, the breakthrough of independent sporting organisations such as the NBA or NFL do this instead, making the government’s job a whole lot easier.
When American companies advertise on these huge events, they’re seen as the best in the business. When elite American athletes are put on millions of screens, well then they must be good. But when those athletes have their stories of hard work, resilience and individual, world-beating talent talked about at half-time, discussed in podcasts and written in autobiographies? That shows the world the American Dream.
But what about American teams? They exacerbate this effect when they play games overseas, where the influence is tenfold. 86,651 fans showed up to a cold, October evening at Wembley stadium to see the Jacksonville Jaguars beat the New England Patriots recently, and the NBA regularly fills the O2 arena when it comes to town. Followers from all over Europe, and beyond, come to see these events, and by doing so, provide American sports with the chance to spread their, and the nation’s, appeal.
Soft power and tourism are linked, as an improved image overseas directly impacts the appeal of the nation as a travel destination. According to USTravel’s 2019 Sports Travel report, 37% of international travellers to the USA said they were interested in attending an NBA, NFL or MLB game. These visitors tend to spend around $2,500 per trip- plenty of money for the government to spend- again emphasising the impact that soft power can have in making the country cold, hard cash.
The best bit is that the state itself doesn’t have to move a muscle. Usually, it is the country who is actively behind any attempts at increasing the attraction that Joseph Nye talks about, but the very fact that the state isn’t involved serves in its favour.
Though the USA is undoubtedly a beneficiary, the lack of direct involvement makes the attraction more legitimate. Many fans are more likely to buy into a product or message that their favourite quarterback promotes than a politician.
Moreover, role model American athletes who speak out against social injustices highlight America as a beacon of free speech and equality. This, again, helps the standing of the nation when it comes to soft power as these athletes— and whatever views they may promote— are associated with the USA.
In 2016, Brian J. Hurn of the University of East Anglia published some research into the role of cultural diplomacy in nation branding and said the following: “Sport can be used to effect when individual heroes create a positive profile of a nation.”
Overall, all three cases represent very different approaches to soft power. Some chase it through overspending, others don’t chase it at all. One thing stays the same though: All global superpowers recognise that, despite their evident cultural and political differences, sport is a fantastic tool to achieve soft power, and ultimately, what you want.
Comments