Sports diplomacy: New Zealand's hardest soft power? Steve Jackson offers a cautionary note and Mark Gilbert and Sir Jim McLay provide further perspectives.

• Author: Jackson, Steve
• Position: Discussion

On 5 November a panel discussion on 'Sports Diplomacy: New Zealand's Hardest Soft Power?' was held in the Backbencher Pub, Wellington. Patrick Gower, political editor of TV3 News, chaired a lively session before an audience of 200. The panelists were Chris Laidlaw, broadcaster, author, sports commentator and former high commissioner, All Black and member of Parliament; Michalis Rokas, charge d'affaires of the embassy of the European Union Delegation to New Zealand and professional basketball player; Professor Steve Jackson of Otago University's School of Physical Education; Hon Sir Jim McLay, New Zealand's permanent representative to the United Nations (2009--15) and former deputy prime minister; and HE Mark Gilbert, US ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa and former major league baseball player.

STEVE JACKSON

Sport continues to occupy an ambiguous position within the context of politics, foreign policy and diplomatic relations. (1) While there is much speculation concerning why this is the case, one potential reason is the rather schizophrenic way in which sport, as a cultural site and practice, is viewed within society. 'The term "schizophrenic" is used to highlight the conflicting and contradictory ways in which sport is considered both serious and important but insignificant and trivial at different times, in different contexts and by people representing different interest groups.' (2) More recently, scholars across the social and political sciences have recognised the increasing role or at least potential of sport as a tool of diplomacy. This raises some immediate questions, not the least of which is: is 'sports diplomacy' New Zealand's most effective form of soft power? The answer is quite simple: yes, no, and maybe--it is all a matter of perspective. However, there is perhaps a more important set of questions that need to be asked: who is using 'sport' as an instrument of diplomacy, what type of diplomacy, in whose interests and at what risk?

Arguably, it is sports' strategic location at the intersection of key sectors of society, including health, education, culture and heritage, and increasingly tourism and economics, that highlights its potential, its limits and its risks as a form of diplomacy. In this contribution I briefly discuss the potential exploitation of sport as a form of 'corporate' diplomacy or, stated another way, how sport is increasingly being used to advance a range of neoliberal corporate and state agenda by referring to three examples:

* the All Blacks jersey sponsorship

* the economics and corporate diplomacy of sport mega-events and

* the 2014 Soccer World Cup.

Jersey issue

The All Blacks jersey is, at its core, a national team jersey. However, as one of sports' most enduring, iconic and revered team uniforms, it also represents at least four major brands: the New Zealand nation, the All Blacks, Adidas and American International Group Inc (AIG). Here I will focus on American corporate sponsor AIG. If New Zealand sport is to serve as a legitimate and effective form of soft power, should we not consider some of the risks involved in being associated with a morally/ethically questionable sponsor?

AIG is a massive global company with 64,000 employees and 88 million clients across 130 countries. In 2014 it had revenues of $68.7 billion. Clearly AIG is a highly successful company, but it is one of several American corporations that, in 2008, received a financial bailout by the US government--a total of $182 billion. Strikingly, one year later, this near bankrupt company offered its executives bonuses totalling $165 million. Moreover, in 2013, after yet another bailout, AIG's chief executive initiated a national advertising campaign called 'Thank You America', in appreciation of US taxpayer support. Only weeks later, AIG's board agreed to join a lawsuit against the United...