Keynote address at Institute of Cultural Diplomacy annual conference on Cultural Diplomacy and Human Rights

2. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Mega events, soft power and
‘hijacking’ the event platform
Professor Gayle McPherson & Professor David McGillivray
School of Media, Culture & Society
@gmp01
@dgmcgillivray

3. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Mega events & the global order
• International events are increasingly important within a
globalising world, reflecting the growing levels of
interconnectedness and social consciousness of the world as a
single place (Brannagan and Giulianotti, 2014).
• Mega sports and cultural events have an increased political
saliency to a wide variety governmental and non-governmental
actors across the world.
• International expos and mega sports events, in particular, have
historically been used by political elites to project their nation’s
assets (economic and cultural) to international audiences.
• Instrumental use of major events to achieve non sporting or
cultural goals has intensified and accelerated over the last thirty
years.

4. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Events, soft power & diplomacy
• Soft power relates to the:
– ‘the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion
or payments’ (Nye, 2004, p. 256)
– ‘power achieved when people, institutions or nation states accept the
authority of others as normal by way of culture, politics or policies’
(Schausteck de Almeida et al, 2014, p.273).
• Mega sport events provide the platform for sharing cultural
values and reimaging – utilising the global spectacle of sport and
associated cultural programmes central to these events.
• D’Hooghe (2015) argues that mega sport events are increasingly
influential opportunities for public diplomacy, with cultural
diplomacy/relations a key feature – involving both state and
non-state actors.

5. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Mega events & soft power (1)
• International event bids planned and organised in a variegated
and contextual manner – nations:
“adapt, innovate and manoeuvre…to differentiate themselves from each other”
(Brannagan & Giulianotti, 2014: 3)
• Bidding intention to create new ‘brand’ identities, generating
change in international image and reputation or achieve domestic
or foreign policy objectives (Grix and Houlihan, 2014).
– Germany 2006 World Cup: projection of new, open, friendly image
– South Africa 2010 World Cup: a reward for the entire African continent –
as a symbol of unity, solidarity and peace (Cornelissen, 2011)

6. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Mega events & soft power (2)
• Host cities and nations view bidding for sporting and cultural events
as effective ways to enter the world stage and to “symbolically challenge
the traditional global order” (Schausteck de Almeida et al, 2014, p272).
• Bids for sporting and cultural events influence and are influenced by
politics and foreign policy (Jackson & Haigh, 2008).
• Securing a positive impact on the nation’s image (or brand) or
international prestige is now a significant justification for bidding for,
and winning the rights to host, mega sports events (Grix & Houlihan,
2014).
• These events are thought to provide a valuable strategic vehicle to
generate influence in the world or simply as a charm offensive to
attract the interest of desired audiences (and markets).

7. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Attracting awarding bodies
• Soft power offensives can also be directed at the awarding bodies, as
opposed to other potential governmental actors (i.e. IOC &
FIFA).
• In order to meet their stated desire to take their event assets to
new locations as part of a development, diversity or equality
agenda, Schausteck de Almeida et al (2014, p272) argue that bid
teams often try to:
“identify themselves as representatives of wider emerging territories or cultures”
• Bid cities/nations utilise sophisticated campaigns and lobbying
tactics to ‘persuade’ voting delegates of their vision and values.

8. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Case 1: Beijing 2008
• Bid for Olympics emphasised environmental improvement,
addressing human rights abuses and freedom of the press:
– but only OC (non state actor) promised human rights improvements
• The Olympics a feature of China’s ‘public diplomacy’ efforts – what
D’Hooghe (2015) calls “proactive public diplomacy”:
– Internal domestic audiences (generating public support)
– External audiences (use of PR companies to ‘translate’ messages,
to communicate the ‘New China’ to the international
community)
• Projection of ‘harmonious development’ aligning with universal
Olympic values ‘One World, One Dream’.

9. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Case 2: London 2012
• London used its bid for the 2012 Olympic Games as a means of
extending its soft power offensive and re-imagining Britain’s place in
the world order after a few decades of declining influence.
• The use of a mega sport event in this way was a departure for the
British political elites as sport had not been a principal feature of
public diplomacy up until that point.
• In both the bid, and subsequent planning and delivery, the FCO
played a significant role in using the opportunity presented by the
Games to enhance the UK’s reputation overseas.
• Thematically, they promoted British culture, the UK economy and
enhancing security by harnessing Olympic values (Grix and Houlihan,
2013).

10. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Case 3: Rio 2016
• Rio’s successful bid for the 2016 Olympic Games projected its
status as a rising economic and political power (in 2009).
• Also made an emotional appeal on behalf of the entire South
American continent which had, until then, failed to host an
Olympic Games.
• In presentations to the IOC, the Rio bid team showed maps of the
world where the modern Olympic Games have been held to
graphically illustrate the omission of South America.
• This tactic was designed to both appeal to the ‘developmental’
agenda of the IOC as well as to draw attention to the relative
bounty of awards that other part of the world have enjoyed.

11. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Case 4: Qatar 2022
• Commenting on Qatar’s successful bid for the 2022 World Cup,
Brannagan and Giulianotti (2014, p.8) argue that:
“core concepts and images emerge here, of competence, professionalism,
technological sophistication and international benevolence, as the basis for
Qatar’s soft power strategy”
• The Qatar World Cup bid inseparable from its more general
international engagement strategy:
– Direct investment into sport industry; hosting major sport events; elite
sport development; sport diplomacy
• This small state had already taken steps to be a more influential
partner in international security, global social issues and peace
building prior to its eventual bid for the World Cup.

12. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Case 4: Qatar 2022
• Qatar has been strategic in its engagement with the global public:
– enabling the participation of women in sport
– the liberalisation of some earlier shibboleths
– pursuing international sporting diplomatic relationships
• It has also sought to communicate to the world through sponsorship
of sport teams & media (e.g. Barcelona, PSG, Al Jazeera sport).
• Public diplomacy efforts undermined by sponsors pressure on
Qatari organisers to deal with issues of human rights (e.g. migrant
labour conditions, visa restrictions)
‘Qatar World Cup of Shame’ (Amnesty International, 2016)
• Danger of ‘soft disempowerment’ (Brannagan and Giulianotti,
2014): deleterious reputational damage when attention drawn to its
failings by greater media exposure (during bidding or on successful
award).

13. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
“Hijacking” (Price 2008) the platform
• Sport events are the archetypal ‘media events’ (Dayan and Katz,
1992).
• Sports rights contracts signed by awarding bodies/host
destinations/media organisations.
• Co-opting the media as a feature of cultural diplomacy,
generating consent from the populace and international public.
• Yet, all MEs of recent times have had oppositional, alternative
media and (increasingly) social media working to challenge the
communication messages of organisers and their media partners:
– e.g. Brazil 2014 World Cup, Qatar 2022 World Cup

14. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• Need for comprehensive ‘digital diplomacy’ strategies or ‘defensive public diplomacy
capabilities’ (D’Hooghe, 2015)
• Elements of geo-politics, cultural diplomacy and sporting competition come together
and are debated across media platforms as event narratives and messages contested
and uncontrollable:
“When traditional media are challenged to accommodate and compete with new media…the full
realization of technological potential is no longer solely the domain of broadcasters: activists, citizens and
spectators now have the tools to potentially sustain and/or mobilize public sentiment” (Burchell, 2015:
p661)
• Sochi 2014 enabled Russia to enact laws, restrictions and other manoeuvres to restrict
dissent and implement Olympic Charter ban on political protests
• Pussy Riot ‘seized the Olympic platform’ (Price, 2011) through infiltrating the media
event physical space and engaging in ‘asymmetrical’ hijacking’ and sousveillance using
mobile devices and the networked potential of social media
Disrupting ‘Digital Diplomacy’

15. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Conclusions
• Cities and nations are utilising mega sport events to change
perceptions of themselves – at a cost – within the wider global
order
• Mega sport events provide the urgency or necessity (Broudehoux
and Sanchez, 2015) to focus the minds of state and non-state actors
to leverage soft power assets
• Yet, there is little evidence that bidding for, or hosting, a mega sport
event provides the impetus to address concerns over human rights
and other social justice-related issues
• Public (and cultural) diplomacy efforts are contested in a disrupted
digital space whereby oppositional forces undermine intended
messages

16. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
References
• Aslan, B., Dennis, J & O’Loughlin, B (2015) Balding goes trolling? Cross-media amplification
of controversy at the 2012 Olympics, Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 12
(1)
• Brannagan, P.M & Giulianotti, R (2014) Soft power and soft disempowerment: Qatar, global
sport and football’s 2022 World Cup finals, Leisure Studies, DOI
10.1080/02614367.2014.964291
• Broudehoux, A-M & Sanchez, F (2015) The politics of mega event planning in Rio de
Janeiro: Contesting the Olympic City of Exception, In Viehoff, V and Poynter, G (eds) Mega
Event Cities: Urban Legacies of Global Sport Events, London: Routledge
• Burchell, K (2015) Infiltrating the space, hijacking the platform: Pussy riot, Sochi protests
and media events, Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 12 (1)
• Cornelissen, S. (2011). Mega event securitisation in a third world setting: Glocal processes
and ramifications during the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Urban Studies, 48, 15, pp3221-3240.
• Dayan, D., and Katz. E. (1992). Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History. Cambridge
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

17. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
References
• D’Hooghe, I (2015) China’s Public Diplomacy, Leiden: Brills Nijhoff
• Gillespie, M & O’Loughlin, B (2015) Editorial introduction: International news, social media
and soft power: The London and Sochi Olympics as global media events, Participations: Journal
of Audience and Reception Studies, 12 (1), pp388
• Grix, J & Houlihan, B (2014) Sports Mega-Events as Part of a Nation’s Soft Power Strategy:
The Cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012), BJPIR, 16, 572-596
• Jackson, S. J., and Haigh, S. (2008). Between and beyond politics: Sport and foreign policy in
a globalizing world, Sport in Society, 11, 349–358.
• Price, M. (2008). On seizing the Olympic platform. In M.E. Price and D. Dayan (eds.) Owning
the Olympics: Narratives of the new China (86-114). Michigan: Digitalculturebooks.
• Schausteck de Almeida, B., Marchi Júnior, W and Pike, E (2014) The 2016 Olympic and
Paralympic Games and Brazil's soft power, Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of
Social Sciences, 9:2, 271-283, DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2013.838291
• Whitson, D & Horne, J (2006) ‘Underestimated costs and overestimated benefits:
Comparing the outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan, Sociological Review