A partnership between the British Council and the English Premier League to train football coached worldwide, for example, has reached 500,000 people in 25 countries. Among its remit are the goals of using sport to enhance development, empowering women and promoting inclusion (British Council 2015). Initiatives like this one are highly effective but they have been the exception rather than the rule. British sports diplomacy has been mostly reactive rather than proactive, coming into play to resolve or prevent conflict situations but rarely being employed in the maintenance of normal relations and as a tool of soft power. British diplomats have failed to prioritize the use of sports diplomacy in its most effective role. The characteristic of British sports diplomacy has been the fact that it suffers from a lack of investment at the administrative and policy level. The available data suggests that the word has never figured as part of the name of any Foreign Office “sport” department and sports diplomacy has rarely been politically discussed in its own right. Since the late twentieth century, at its highest point within the Foreign Office, the discussion of sport has fallen within the government’s public diplomacy strategy. Two major reviews of the government’s public diplomacy work have been so far produced: the Review” in 2003 and the subsequent review by Lord Carter of Coles in “Wilton 2005. The two focused on the role of the BBC World Service and the British Council in British public diplomacy. They expanded little beyond recommending further investment in and liaison with these two bodies and the implementation of a monitoring board which could report on the progress of these relationships. Sport is acknowledged as one of the areas into which these bodies can tap but there is no discussion of what this can entail. At the policy level, sports diplomacy has been neglected within the umbrella of public diplomacy.
A partnership between the British Council and the English Premier League to train football coached worldwide, for example, has reached 500,000 people in 25 countries. Among its remit are the goals of using sport to enhance development, empowering women and promoting inclusion (British Council 2015). Initiatives like this one are highly effective but they have been the exception rather than the rule. British sports diplomacy has been mostly reactive rather than proactive, coming into play to resolve or prevent conflict situations but rarely being employed in the maintenance of normal relations and as a tool of soft power. British diplomats have failed to prioritize the use of sports diplomacy in its most effective role. The characteristic of British sports diplomacy has been the fact that it suffers from a lack of investment at the administrative and policy level. The available data suggests that the word “sport” has never figured as part of the name of any Foreign Office department and sports diplomacy has rarely been politically discussed in its own right. Since the late twentieth century, at its highest point within the Foreign Office, the discussion of sport has fallen within the government’s public diplomacy strategy. Two major reviews of the government’s public diplomacy work have been so far produced: the “Wilton Review” in 2003 and the subsequent review by Lord Carter of Coles in 2005. The two focused on the role of the BBC World Service and the British Council in British public diplomacy. They expanded little beyond recommending further investment in and liaison with these two bodies and the implementation of a monitoring board which could report on the progress of these relationships. Sport is acknowledged as one of the areas into which these bodies can tap but there is no discussion of what this can entail. At the policy level, sports diplomacy has been neglected within the umbrella of public diplomacy.
Antonio%20Rolo%20Duarte%20-%20The%20role%20of%20sport%20in%20British%20diplomacy.docx