INTRODUCTION

Sport is a universal language that can foster individual interface on a local level, as well as a social institution with structural power that allows it to influence broader cultural interaction.^1-3The United Nations^{4 (para.2)} acknowledged that sport “…can represent an area to experience equality, freedom and a dignified means for empowerment.”  Further, Nelson Mandela^{5 (para.1)} noted that, “Sport has the power to change the world.”  He went on to acknowledge sport’s “power to inspire,” and to “unite people.” He further noted that sports “create hope,” and “decrease barriers.”^{5 (para.1)} Right to Play International^{6 (p.3)} recognized that, “…the international use of sport, physical activity and play to attain specific development and peace objectives…” is an effective strategy.

Sport Diplomacy, as a component of Sport for Development and Peace (SDP), can enhance peace-building and development efforts; and these diplomatic initiatives have become not only more prevalent over the past decade, but also more closely investigated.^{1, 7, 8, 9,10} Giulianotti⁸ identified four categories of SDP policy: a) neo-liberal social policies in the form of commercial corporate social responsibility (CSR); b) developmental interventionist policies of non-governmental agencies (NGO); c) social justice policies associated with social movements; and d) strategic developmentalist policies associated with governments and sport federations. Government involvement in SDP has increased as sports have demonstrated efficacy in developmental and diplomatic agendas.^1,7,11,12

Theoretical Framework

Sport Diplomacy

Sanders^{13 (para.1)} observed that sport is “a gigantic and powerful medium for the international spread of information, reputations and relationships that are the essence of public diplomacy.”  Diplomatic efforts utilizing sport reflect established theoretical underpinnings. Effective diplomatic initiatives should comprise multiple arenas such as sport to address numerous societal levels.¹⁴ Accordingly, Sanders^{13 (p.1)} further advised that, “A well-conceived public diplomacy strategy could capitalize on the opportunities that sport presents.”

Change is often a long-term process, particularly in diplomatic endeavors to facilitate intercultural change through local sport programmes.¹⁵ Sports yield obligatory proximity and enables interaction among participants. Therefore, Sport Diplomacy aligns with Allport’s¹⁶ contact hypothesis, which contends that facilitating contact among diverse participants can diminish hostility, negate stereotypes, and inspire more tolerant attitudes. Authentic engagement with dissimilar people or groups promotes fresh knowledge and diminishes apprehension. Mandatory contact must be meaningful in order to foster effective stakeholder exchanges. Sport programmes often emulate the aforementioned contact hypothesis mechanisms wherein cooperative interaction enriches programme efficacy.¹⁶ Through engagement in interdependent sport experiences, diverse individuals with common interests may accept differences and increase mutual understanding, cooperation, and camaraderie. Kuriansky¹⁷ contends that interpersonal engagement in intercultural interventions is critical in achieving diplomatic ends. Sport Diplomacy agendas are myriad, including peace-building, promoting intercultural understanding, and an array of community development; sport is a worthwhile mechanism in fostering intercultural relationships.^1,7

Beer and Nohria¹⁸ posit a premise for intercultural diplomatic change through Theory E and Theory O. Theory E bases its purpose in the creation of organizational value. It involves centrally planned programmatic change pursued through formal structures and systems that are driven from the top down. Theory O is guided by the development of the organization’s human capacity. Similar to the system’s thinking, the purpose is to implement strategy and learn from experience.^18,19 Theory O depends on a high level of member commitment and the expectation that change is continuous and occurs through a participative process. Theory E, or top-down change, yield more cost-effective and immediate results. Theory O, or bottom-up changes are more costly, yet may yield more sustainable results.

In alignment with Allport,¹⁶ while Beer and Norhia’s¹⁸ top-down Theory E endeavors are common and often supported, bottom-up Theory O practices are likely to humanize stakeholders and shape mutual understanding. Beer and Nohria¹⁸ suggest that combining top-down and bottom-up change is common. Effective intercultural change often involves both high-level diplomatic initiatives and programmes that engage individual participants.

The utility of sport as a mechanism to heighten mutual understanding makes it valuable in diplomatic programming. Grassroots sport diplomacy programmes based on the concepts of Allport¹⁶ and Beer and Nohria¹⁸ afford local individual interactions, which provide for broad impacts, such as cultural change, that emanate from individuals within the culture.^16,18 The universality of sport allow for the pursuit of both global and local diplomatic goals. While sport offers a mechanism by itself, Sport for Development Theory (SFDT) posits that cultural and educational activities complement sport programming in successfully addressing the objectives of intercultural SDP initiatives.^10,20Acknowledging the global influence of sport, Sanders^{13 (para.1)} noted that “the audience’s level of interest exceeds those of any other subject matter, including political news and the movies.”

Allport’s¹⁶ contact hypothesis and Beer’s and Norhia’s¹⁸ Theory O identify the benefits of direct participant interaction in maximizing the impacts of Sport Diplomacy experiences. While grassroots programming through authentic sport interaction improves intercultural understanding, the

…effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom, or local atmosphere)… provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups.^{16 (p.281)}

Institutionally supported intercultural sport programming further promotes information exchanges in the development of qualified personnel with the capacity to effectively function in an internationalized sport environment.²¹

Chufrin and Saunders^22(p.158) concluded that, “While governments negotiate around interests and issues, citizens…” are essential in the success of diplomatic efforts. Sport Diplomacy often involves governments’ international agendas being pursued via local activities. Sport-based “glocal” tactics comprise both global and local interests and activities.²³ Glocalization merges the significance of the local in global interests and the global in local interests.²⁴ The sports industry has actively engaged in “glocal” sport opportunities and practices.²⁵ Sport Diplomacy endeavors are frequently an element of a global diplomatic agenda that is being implemented through local grassroots programming.

Globalization in Sport

Globalization compresses the world via increased interconnectedness while simultaneously increasing awareness of the world as a single entity.^24,26 Globalization is the facilitator of internationalization, wherein sport serves as a strategic stakeholder.²⁷ While many sport enterprises operate globally, most activities take place in the local environment.²⁸ In that context, globalization is based on the intersection of global and local influences.²⁹ Globalization is often framed via economic, political, and sociocultural interests. Advances in communication and transportation technologies encourage globalization in the sport enterprise. Sport crosses economics, education, government, religion, social politics, and technology on a broad scale, but serves as an arena for individual exchange on the local level.^1,30This ‘glocalized’ nature of sport makes it effective as a diplomatic tool.^1,31,32

Sport has fostered globalization through international professional leagues and competitions, including mega events, through international player migration, both professional and amateur, and through not-for-profit endeavors, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Sport Diplomacy.²⁵ Examples of sport’s role in globalization through international professional leagues and federations include Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Fédération Internationale de Basketball Association (FIBA), and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is evident. Mega events, such as the Olympics, Paralympics, World Cup, and Pan American Games also facilitate globalization through sport. Globalization is also prominent in the English Premier League (EPL), India Premier League (IPL), Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), and many other prominent sport leagues that utilize foreign talent.³³ Foreign ownership of clubs and franchises in professional leagues is also commonplace.

Sport enterprises are prominent in international corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, such as Basketball Without Borders, which aims to support the community beyond sport through community outreach initiatives addressing important social issues, including youth and community development, education, minority empowerment, conflict resolution, and health and wellness. There are numerous not-for-profit endeavors in the sport sector that contribute to globalization, such as Peace and Sport, Peace Players International, and the Fundacion Real Madrid.¹ The United Nations is engaged in global diplomatic efforts using sport through its own U.N. Office of Sport for Development and Peace.

Sport is an integral part of globalization.³⁴ On a global scale, sport is connected to social institutions and interests and, on a local level, sport is the setting of personal engagement and exchange.^1,2,25,30 Globalization in sport is based upon the linking of global and local cultural interests.²⁹ While many sport initiatives, including Sport Diplomacy, have global intentions, most are actually implemented in an internationalized local environment.²⁸

Globalization through sport can generate both benefits and concerns.³⁵ Globalization in sport has been asymmetrical in various parts of the world for a variety of reasons.³⁴ This variation in sport globalization is likely related to its local implementation and may result in the supplanting of dominant sport norms over diverse local cultures.^28,35,36 Globalized sport is often dominated by the Western world and, as a result, has generally become highly Americanized or at minimum Westernized.³⁴ Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have been fully engaged in the globalization of sport.

Sport in Latin America

The popularity of sport in LAC is undeniable. Fueled by trends as divergent as populism and imperialism, sport is ingrained in the cultures of the LAC region. Populism has proven to be a driving political and cultural force for over 100 years.³⁷ At the same time, the dissemination of specific Western sports beyond those native and traditional represents the cultural imperialism embedded in the sporting world.³⁸ From the turn of the nineteenth century until today, sport reflects a microcosm of local and national development in LAC, playing a role as a political and cultural force.³⁹

Baseball is intensely popular in such LAC nations as Venezuela, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, while cricket is the sport of choice in Guyana and the West Indies. Basketball, governed in accordance with the International Basketball Federation (FIBA), is very popular in many areas of LAC, in no small part due to the international successes, such as Argentina’s gold medal in the 2004 Olympic Games. Argentina hosted and became the first World Champion (1950) of the FIBA World Cup, and Brazil has won two World Championships in men’s basketball. The Brazilian women’s basketball team has also won the World Championship (1994). In addition, basketball is widely played in Venezuela and Uruguay, and is popular in most LAC nations. Volleyball is a popular sport in Brazil, where both male and female teams have won Olympic gold medals, as well as Peru, Argentina, and Venezuela.

Reflecting its global acceptance, football (Soccer) is the most popular sport in LAC. While emanating from Europe, its transnational nature has seen LAC, particularly Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, share supremacy with Europe in the sport by winning every Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. Brazil has won more FIFA World Cup titles (five) than any other nation. Argentina and Uruguay each have two titles. Four LAC nations have hosted the FIFA World Cup. Uruguay hosted the first FIFA World Cup event (1930), while Brazil (1950, 2014), Chile (1962), and Argentina (1978) have also hosted. Beyond the World Cup, LAC developed the Copa America, a football event regularly held since 1916. Uruguay has won this longest continuously running competition 15 times and Argentina, 14 times.

Importantly, LAC has also produced many great athletes in numerous sports. The migration of talented athletes, such as Pelé and Renaldo in football, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan in basketball, and Roberto Clemente and Miguel Cabrera in baseball, has been a mainstay in the internationalization of sport. Talent migration is commonplace and  significant element in the evolution of the global sport industry, which is often fueled by commercial interests.⁴⁰ The globalization of sport has manifested through many mechanisms, the migration of athletic talent among them. The international expansion of professional sport leagues and related businesses is also prevalent, leading to transnational ownership interests in sports.²⁵ It should also be noted that SDP entities are most often international, including those funded by commercial enterprises, such as the NBA Cares, Basketball Without Borders, or the Real Madrid Foundation. Not-for-profit SDP enterprises, such as Peace and Sport, Peace Players International, and the Sport Diplomacy Initiative, also facilitate the internationalization of sport, while governmental-based entities such as the United Nations Office of Sport for Development and Peace and the U.S. Department of State’s Division of Sports Diplomacy provide international engagement and diplomatic influence.²⁵

Murray and Pigman⁴¹ described the governmental use of sport as a mechanism to serve diplomatic ends, which involves intercultural exchanges among non-elite sport participants and/or coaches or sport-related envoys traveling with diplomatic intentionality. Murray and Pigman further identified “international-sport-as-diplomacy,” which involves diplomatic interactions between NGOs and non-state actors that facilitate international sport, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and FIFA.⁴¹ The governance of sport through international federations is, by their definition, a reflection of globalized sporting interests. The IOC and FIFA are unrivaled in global influence in sport, surpassing national boundaries.³⁴ Through such influential organizations, the expansion of international competitions and mega-events impact global and local interests; although not necessarily yielding local prosperity.⁴² Relentless globalization in sport has had extensive impacts throughout the world, including Latin American individuals, communities, and sport endeavors. Sport-based diplomatic efforts supported by governmental or intercultural interests have also impacted LAC localities. Identifying and measuring these impacts is essential to the sustainable success of SDP undertakings, including Sport Diplomacy programmes.⁷ A common concern when evaluating such international SDP programmes, because they can be driven by diverse intentions, is assessing whether each is meeting its respective objectives.⁷ Regardless of the nature of international sport programming, be it commercially, philanthropically, or government derived, its efficacy should be evaluated based upon its intended objectives.

Empowerment Evaluation

Stakeholders in international sport are seeking quantifiable data to demonstrate the efficacy of programming.^9,43-47 As this study focuses on Sport Diplomacy, reliable programme evaluation is required to document the efficacy of such programmes. Skepticism abounds, stemming from exaggerated claims of programme benefits without corresponding evidence.^9,43,47,48 Levermore^{43 (p.340)}  noted, “The lack of convincing large-scale evaluation might contribute to the doubt that some development agencies have shown for the sport-for-development movement …” It is crucial, therefore, to examine intended programme outcomes and build evidence of the level of programme effectiveness.⁷

Coalter⁴⁸ connected the dearth of programme evaluation with an absence of the requisite capital, resources and expertise. Stakeholders call for advances in the number and value of evaluations, with few recognizing the challenges and solutions in the evaluation process, particularly for developing locations and populations.⁴⁷ Sport Diplomacy programmes must document outcomes in order to demonstrate their effectiveness of achieving programme goals. This pursuit of efficacy yields improved evaluation measures and processes in order to assess the outcomes of Sport Diplomacy programmes.⁴⁹

This study examines a specific Sport Diplomacy programme evaluation grounded in underlying theories in diplomacy, change, and evaluation. Specifically, this study determines the short-term efficacy of the Sport Diplomacy Initiative relative to its established programme goals. The utilization of goal-driven evaluation procedures also informs future programming and evaluations. Programme evaluation design that acknowledges participant interests in the pursuit of the sponsoring agency’s goals can be an Empowerment Evaluation, which transfers evaluation power from the evaluator to programme participants and staff.⁵⁰

Empowerment Evaluation is suitable for Sport Diplomacy programmes promoting development and social justice goals. Participant and staff acquisition of evaluation power encourages programme investment. Empowerment Evaluation serves as the framework for the evaluation process utilized in this study. Empowerment Evaluation concepts necessitate programme staff and participant involvement in the implementation and evaluation of the programme.⁷ Programme managers, along with sponsoring agency officials and local in-country representatives, determine the sought-after goals. Participants selected in alignment with these goals engage with staff in implementing the evaluation process.

This study examines the use of Empowerment Evaluation in a Sport Diplomacy programme that yields participant input and shapes a distal follow-on evaluation. Self-determination of post-programme activities is important in the participants’ experiences, which is consistent with Empowerment Evaluation concepts. Participant affiliation with, and investment in, the programme goals results from such involvement and seen as a long-term outcome of the programme.  The Empowerment Evaluation model fosters stakeholder commitment to programme goals and enhances the sustainability of the programme.⁵⁰ While implemented over a five-year period, the current quantitative evaluation is contextually the precursor to longer-term follow-on evaluation procedures. This study examines the initial implementation of the Empowerment Evaluation model in the Sport Diplomacy Initiative, specifically focused on diplomatic and developmental efforts concentrated in the LAC region.

Programme Description

The current study examines the Sport Diplomacy Initiative (SDI), a programme stemming from a cooperative agreement between the United States Department of State’s (USDOS) Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) and the Center for Sport Management (CSM) at George Mason University. This funded programme implements the USDOS Division of Sports Diplomacy’s Sports Visitors Program, which it implements to engender cooperation and respect between the foreign visitors and their American counterparts. The SDI is grounded in the principles of the contact hypothesis in support of Theory O’s bottom-up approach to effecting change.^16,18 During the five-year scope of this study, the SDI Sports Visitors Program supported a total of 60 groups comprised of 937 foreign visitors from approximately 50 countries; however, this study focuses on the 9 groups and 150 participants from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Each LAC group engaged in a 12 to 14-day visit to the U. S., during which time participating athletes and/or coaches were exposed to educational, cultural, and sport experiences, with content addressing leadership, conflict resolution, psychology, and wellness. Described more fully by specific visiting group’s programme, varied activities were implemented in order to facilitate intercultural understanding and tolerance.

The SDI Sports Visitors Program seeks to enable participants to: 1) learn more about U.S. society and culture; 2) improve leadership skills, team building, and respect for diversity; 3) facilitate productive and positive change in their local communities through sports; and 4) build partnerships to support these goals. More specific SDI outcome objectives allow participants to: 1) learn about American culture and its people, the American sport system, diversity and inclusive sport; 2) multiply the impact of the experience upon returning home; 3) value the programme experience as a measure of satisfaction; and 4) maintain contact as programme alumni. The SDI evaluation system has been developed and implemented to measure outcomes aligned with these objectives. These outcome objectives shape the evaluation process, which is based upon Empowerment Evaluation principles.⁵⁰ This framework for the SDI programme evaluation with its quantitative pre-programme and post-programme survey is designed to engage staff and participants as the foundation for distal follow-on procedures. The focus of this study, however, examines the more immediate outcomes of programme participants’ visit to the United States. Given that programmes yield results based upon the inputs, throughputs, and outputs they generate, programme outcomes result from SDI programming and activities related to the aforementioned programme objectives.¹⁹ While the broader evaluation system of the SDI includes quantitative and qualitative components, which are directed toward assessing both short-term and long-term programme efficacy, this study examines the short-term evaluation of programme outcomes. Each visiting group in this study consisted of 14 to 24 participants, supported by interpreters provided by the USDOS, and U.S.-based Programme Coordinator, who escorts the group and facilitates their activities for roughly 12 to 14 days per visit. Approximately 16% of the total Sport Diplomacy Initiative participants have been from LAC. This study focuses on these groups.
.
SDI Groups form LAC

Each programme designed for the SDI Sports Visitors takes into account the overarching diplomatic goals outlined by the U.S. Department of State. Many of the goals remain the same with all of the groups that visit the United States but each programme is not exactly the same because each group of Sports Visitors arrives with a different focus. Examples of a few of the overarching programme goals that are consistent throughout would be to introduce the visitors to the American system of education, provide an opportunity to experience American culture, and develop an understanding of that part of the American sports industry that relates to their interests. The programmes are designed to expose the groups to ordinary Americans who are engaged in the same sport as the visiting participants. For example, LAC football coaches will meet American soccer coaches. LAC track and field athletes will meet American athletes of a similar age in their discipline, along with coaches who can expose them to American training techniques.

Participants in the SDI Sports Visitors programme are athletes, coaches, and/or sports administrators. For example, athletes comprised the two groups from Columbia (baseball and softball), and the groups from Jamaica (basketball) and Peru (girls basketball). A combined group from Ecuador, Panama, and Mexico was comprised of youth baseball participants visiting the Little League World Series. Baseball coaches visited from the countries of Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. The two groups from Brazil included youth basketball, and administrators and coaches of disability sport programmes. Venezuela also had a group of deaf sport educators. The athletes who participate in the programme are generally teenagers; therefore, two adults, who are often coaches, from their home country, usually accompany them.

A typical programme will start with the programme opening where the ground rules are established for the group and the programme schedule for the visit is released. This is also an opportunity for the members of each SDI Sports Visitors group to get to know each other, to meet the Program Coordinator, to ask questions, and to familiarize themselves with the interpreters who will be working with them during their stay in the United States. Early in the programme schedule, there is usually a team building exercise, conducted by team building professionals with the intent of enhancing the working relationship of the visiting group. Many groups who have participated in the Sports Visitors programmes have never worked together and come from different parts of their country. The team building exercise is also an opportunity for coaches, athletes, and sports administrators to observe and participate with team building professionals, and to generate ideas they can take back with them when they return to their home country. The groups from Venezuela, Jamaica, Peru, Columbia, and Brazil all participated in a team building programming.

Another staple of every programme is an introduction to the sports industry in the United States. This introduction is usually conducted by an expert and is tailored to each group of participants. For example, the Jamaican and Peruvian basketball participants learned about youth basketball, high school basketball, college basketball, and the National Basketball Association (NBA) along with how athletes in the U.S. develop in their sport. Additional activities often include a sport psychology presentation tailored to the group and is based on their sport and role (coach, athlete, sports administrator). Programming usually includes a presentation on injury prevention and injury care, focusing on the specific sport, whether it is typical for the sport, alongside treatment and prevention techniques. Nutritional information is also included. Most groups also receive information focused on improving strength and conditioning in their respective sports. Leadership and management skills are also often presented, particularly to coaches and administrator groups.

A significant part of every programme is to facilitate participant engagement with as many Americans as possible over the length of their stay. Each programme usually has a home hospitality component where the Sports Visitors will have dinner at the home of someone involved in the sports industry or associated with the administration of the programme. This is an opportunity to meet an American family, experience a meal in a ‘home’ rather than at a hotel or public restaurant, and engage in social activity with each other in an informal and relaxed setting. Many of these social opportunities also provide Americans with a chance to learn about the participants, their families, their homeland, and a little about how sports are played, coached, and administered in their home country. For example, after engaging in a softball practice with a local U.S. team, the participants from Columbia joined many parents and coaches at an outdoor picnic hosted by the local girls’ softball association.

Most of the groups have multiple cultural experiences outside of sport, which often include touring the locality and visiting museums. For example, several of the LAC groups visited the Smithsonian museum and the monuments in the U.S. capitol of Washington, D.C. LAC groups visited varied locations in the U. S. For example, the deaf sport educators from Venezuela visited New York City, touring the United Nations, the Statue of Liberty, and Ellis Island. The delegations from Venezuela and the Dominican Republic visited Phoenix, Arizona experiencing the metropolitan area’s culture and attending pre-season training for Major League Baseball (MLB) teams like the San Diego Padres, the Kansas City Royals, the Cincinnati Reds and the San Francisco Giants. They also participated in baseball and softball clinics conducted by coaches from these MLB teams.

Because the American education and competitive sports systems are linked, most groups visit academic institutions and spend time with college and high school students. Participants engage with Americans student-athletes, meet teachers and coaches, tour classrooms, and visit school sports facilities. They interact with peer athletes as they are competing and practicing in their sport. Participants are exposed to American athlete and sport development through these school-based visits. For example, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic participants visited Arizona State University and also Desert Vista High School, while Jamaican participants visited the University of Maryland, Georgetown University and George Mason University. Venezuelan deaf sport coaches and educators visited the Lexington School for the Deaf (New York) and Gallaudet University (Washington, D.C.), a prominent college for deaf students.

Participants also attend athletic events; some are at the youth school, or are college-level, while others are at the professional level. Usually after attending a professional sports event, participants receive a tour of the venue. These professional sport events provide not only the opportunity to learn, but also to engage in a social activity with Americans who share this common interest. For example, the Brazilian participants attended the NBA’s Washington Wizards game and toured the Verizon Center basketball arena, while the Columbian group toured the Camden Yards baseball stadium and watched the Baltimore Orioles (MLB) play. Jamaican basketball players participated in a clinic from a former WNBA player, attended the Washington Wizards’ practice, and attended the Wizards game with the Atlanta Hawks. In addition to pre-season baseball contests, the Venezuelan and the Dominican Republic delegations attended a National Hockey League game between the Phoenix Coyotes and the Calgary Flames.

Beyond the spectator experiences, cultural exposure and sport-specific developmental activities, an effort is made to introduce participants to a non-traditional or new sport. For example, the D.C. Breeze, a professional Ultimate Frisbee team, has conducted development clinics for many of the groups. Importantly, every group is exposed to, or participates in, an inclusive sport activity. Participants have observed and participated in wheelchair basketball games, wheelchair tennis, and numerous Special Olympics practices and competitions.