Introduction
Over the coming decade, the United States will host the World Cup, the Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics, and dozens of other sporting events that will draw international crowds. The attention that these events receive means that they offer a platform for diplomacy, allowing the hosts to shape global perceptions, provide a platform for high-level diplomacy between leaders, and advance commercial ties. But there are also risks. Poor infrastructure, security failures, and displays of intolerance can all negatively shape how the world views the United States. Diplomatic spats over visas, fan treatment, or team boycotts can render tournaments more of an embarrassment than a boon. For these reasons, policymakers must understand the opportunities and risks inherent in international sporting events, drawing on lessons from both the United States and abroad to best capitalize on this “mega-decade” of American sport.
The intersection of sports and diplomacy goes back centuries. Major gatherings for sporting events have long facilitated the exchange of cultures, commerce, and meetings between government officials. But only recently has sports diplomacy emerged as a discrete issue area in the study of diplomacy. Stuart Murray, an academic who has helped define this emerging field, wrote, “In the contemporary diplomatic environment, conditions are ideal for sports diplomacy.” Sports diplomacy offers tremendous promise for countries and municipalities, capturing some of the benefits inherent to the world of international sport. This issue brief aims to provide a resource for policymakers who seek to maximize the opportunities provided by upcoming international sporting events, drawing on lessons from both the history of U.S. sports diplomacy and from notable international tournaments.
Already, U.S. policymakers have shown an interest in utilizing sports for U.S. diplomacy. In 2025, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill calling on the State Department to develop a sports diplomacy strategy, which would guide the work of the department’s Sports Diplomacy Division as well as shape broader diplomatic engagement through sport. (In early 2026, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a corresponding bill). Sports diplomacy strategies have also been introduced in other countries including Australia, France, and most recently, Ireland. While these strategies offer guidance to their countries’ governments in how to leverage their sporting histories and cultures, the United States faces a somewhat different context for utilizing its athletic power for diplomatic means. The power of American sports derives largely from its commercial might, and while the U.S. government can benefit from this feature of U.S. power (and has), it may best be served by following where commercial interests go. The U.S. comprises 40% ($1.06 trillion) of the $2.65 trillion global sports industry. The outsized international role of the U.S. sports enterprise can serve as a comparative advantage for U.S. diplomacy if leveraged successfully, but that will require anticipating the opportunities to bring countries together through athletics and avoiding pitfalls that inevitably appear in this complex, international field.
A Brief History of U.S. Sports Diplomacy
The United States has long benefited from sports diplomacy, both formal and informal. While other elements of U.S. cultural power ebbed in the post-Cold War era, sports diplomacy has grown and is arguably at its strongest point yet. But the foundation for this element of U.S. power goes back to the 19th century. The first major example of U.S. engagement through sports came in 1888 when Albert Spalding, co-founder of the Spalding sporting goods empire, organized a tour of U.S. baseball teams playing exhibition games around the globe. This was intended to spread the game of baseball and, in turn, fuel Spalding’s business. But it also meant bringing America’s game to the world, along with American athletes who otherwise would be unlikely to pop up in places like Cairo, Rome, and Melbourne. Crucially, the tour allowed the type of elite gatherings that major sporting events have historically provided, dating back to the Greek Olympics. During the stop in Rome, the team played in front of Italy’s King Umberto I and other state officials, and in England, the players met with the Prince of Wales. While the tour failed to spark adoption of baseball abroad, it provided a useful opportunity for cultural exchange and facilitated diplomatic engagement. Spalding returned from the six-month tour, telling a reporter he was filled with “keen delight. . . which swelled through my breast this morning when I stepped ashore.” He added: “I am proud to be called an American . . .”
Prior to the Cold War era, most U.S. sports diplomacy was informal, and there was little thought of expressly mixing sports with diplomacy. Spalding had sought an official endorsement of the tour by President Grover Cleveland; Cleveland declined but did meet with the players prior to their tour. But the Cold War changed how policymakers saw the usefulness of culture — and sport specifically. In the early Cold War, the State Department coordinated tours of the Harlem Globetrotters throughout Europe, seeing them as an opportunity to counter Soviet propaganda about American racism and counter-program Soviet-sponsored events.
The most famous instance of U.S. sports diplomacy came in 1971 when players from the U.S. Table Tennis team traveled to China. This trip, which laid the groundwork for official diplomatic relations between the United States and China, was made possible by a connection formed between the American Glenn Cowan and Chinese champion Zhuang Zedong during the World Table Tennis Championship in Japan earlier that year. The U.S. team’s trip to China generated immense international attention and featured Chinese Premier Zhao Enlai greeting the American team. The Americans toured throughout China and experienced Chinese cultural performances, providing lasting images that helped reshape perceptions about the US-China relationship. It was this instance of sports diplomacy that opened new possibilities for the relationship between the countries.
The post-Cold War era has seen an explosion of international sporting events and their cultural relevancy, with the United States holding a significant place in the ecosystem. But with diminished ideological competition, there has been a return to informal sports diplomacy as the dominant paradigm. Instead of State Department-managed trips abroad to try to sway foreign audiences or open new diplomatic channels, the post-Cold War period saw economic interests lead the way in defining the opportunities for U.S. sports diplomacy. The decision by the United States to pursue the 1994 World Cup was seen as driven almost solely by commercial interests, which frustrated European fans in particular. While the costs of hosting the World Cup may have not been covered by the revenue generated by the games, the tournament was considered a success for how it integrated sponsors and generated massive tourism. The 1994 World Cup was the best attended in the tournament’s history and provided an opportunity for the United States to engage the world at its game at a time when globalization was ascendent. This informal sports diplomacy – which derives diplomatic benefits from international sporting events without specific government programming – has become the model for U.S. sports diplomacy.
American domestic leagues have been a primary driver of opportunities for the country to shape international perceptions in the post-Cold War era. The global phenomenon of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls drove Nike sales globally. Los Angeles Lakers’ star Kobe Bryant made his first trip to China in 1998, helping expand Nike’s reach even further while spreading the game of basketball to the point that the National Basketball Association (NBA) became far and away the most watched league in China. The NBA now has international broadcasting deals worth upwards of $76 billion and runs camps around the globe, while featuring players from more than 40 countries. These commercial relationships provide diplomatic openings and the ability to shape perceptions of the United States, although they have not been significantly leveraged for that purpose.
Other US-based leagues have continued to garner international audiences in recent years, including the National Football League (NFL) and Major League Baseball (MLB). Both have played games internationally, helping to broaden their audiences. The NFL’s international games have demonstrated economic benefit along with diplomatic opportunities. The State Department’s Sports Diplomacy Division carried out programming in Sao Paulo, Brazil prior to the league’s first game in the country in 2025. This helped lay the groundwork for a formal partnership between the NFL and the State Department that was announced in January of 2026.
MLB has experienced major international growth, which likewise presents opportunities for associated U.S. diplomatic endeavors. American baseball is widespread in Latin America (approximately 30% of MLB players are from the region) and in recent decades has experienced a surge of growth in Japan and South Korea, broadening the reach of America’s pastime. Game One of the 2025 World Series – which featured several Japan-born players, including Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto – averaged 11.8 million viewers in Japan, and live shots from Japanese sports bars were included in U.S. broadcasts throughout the series. The attention given to these sporting events provides a major opportunity to expose foreign audiences to American culture and present messages about the country’s aspirations.
U.S. women’s sports have also been a major shaper of global perceptions. The U.S. women’s soccer team has been tremendously successful on the world stage, winning four World Cups between 1991 and 2019. Women’s soccer has since seen major investment, especially in Europe, but the United States was viewed as a trailblazer in the women’s game. This has led to discussion (and lawsuits) regarding fair compensation for female athletes, who often draw larger crowds than the men’s national team, while historically receiving less pay. Women’s basketball has experienced a similar phenomenon. The sport was incubated in the United States and has since experienced global growth to the point that female players now can make significantly more playing abroad than in the United States, a stunning reality for a game that used to be largely ignored internationally. These women represent the United States on the international stage, both because of their talents but also economic incentives. By paying female athletes more than the United States does, countries like Russia, Spain, and France shape perceptions about gender equality and economic opportunity in the United States.
The heft of the U.S. sporting industry has long provided the United States with an outsized ability to bring its athletic culture to the world. This has not always been done in a strategic manner, but it has proved to be a valuable tool for more than a hundred years.
Lessons from International Tournaments
As policymakers think about the best ways to utilize sports for the benefit of the United States, they should look beyond the country’s own history to major events hosted by others. These cases illustrate both the potential and peril of major international sporting events for furthering national interests. They serve as useful studies in how tournaments can rebrand countries, provide economic growth, and advance diplomatic initiatives. But there is also risk inherent in these endeavors as failures are visible to the whole world.
Perhaps no case better illustrates the potential of intentional sports diplomacy than Germany’s hosting of the 2006 World Cup. Rather than treating the tournament as a stand-alone event, German officials integrated it into a long-term, coordinated national branding strategy that sought to shed stereotypes rooted in the country’s Nazi past and more recent perceptions of coldness and rigidity. Because Germany’s infrastructure was already strong, resources could be directed toward the visitor experience instead of last-minute construction. At the center of these efforts was a public-private campaign, “Welcome to Germany: Land of Ideas,” promoting an image of innovation, creativity, and economic strength. Though it was launched in the context of the 2006 World Cup, the Land of Ideas initiative continues today. This was paired with a parallel hospitality initiative that trained service workers in intercultural awareness. Germany also introduced the “Fan Fest” concept, turning public spaces into massive cultural gathering points rather than treating visiting supporters as a security problem to be managed. FIFA was so impressed that it trademarked the concept and made Fan Fests a permanent feature of future tournaments. Complementary cultural events ran nationwide alongside matches, showcasing Germany’s arts, music, and regional diversity to foreign visitors.
This long-term, integrated approach brought lasting benefits. Germany saw a significant and sustained boost to its “national brand” ranking. Tourism bookings rose significantly in the years following, including from countries with historically negative perceptions of Germany.
If Germany illustrates how careful planning can lead to lasting soft power gains, the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics demonstrate how sporting events can create narrow but meaningful diplomatic openings. South Korean President Moon Jae-in branded the games the “Peace Olympics,” using the country’s hosting role as a platform to restart dialogue with North Korea after a period of extreme tension, marked by missile tests and nuclear threats. North and South Korea marched under a unified flag and formed a joint women’s ice hockey team, the first unified Korean squad in Olympic history. Kim Yo Jong, the first member of the ruling Kim dynasty to visit South Korea since the Korean War, delivered an invitation for Moon to visit Pyongyang. On the last day of the Olympics, North Korea announced its willingness to hold direct talks with the United States.
The PyeongChang Olympics were followed by a flurry of diplomatic activity, including an inter-Korean summit in April 2018 and two US-North Korea summits. North Korea halted nuclear and missile testing during the dialogue period, and the sides established a leader-to-leader hotline. The diplomatic thaw, however, did not last and ultimately failed to foster sustained de-escalation or engagement. PyeongChang 2018 demonstrates that while events can create diplomatic openings, success is not guaranteed, and leaders need a clear strategy to capitalize on the moment.
The Barcelona 1992 and Los Angeles 1984 Olympics highlight the economic potential of mega events. Barcelona saw the Olympics as a way to boost an existing urban transformation plan. Spain had joined the European Community in 1986, the same year it won the bid, and, at the time, Barcelona was a congested, post-industrial city with weak infrastructure. City leaders made the critical choice to spend over half of the Olympic budget on permanent infrastructure — metro lines, highways, telecommunications, waterfront redevelopment — rather than temporary sports facilities. As Andrew Zimbalist put it, “Barcelona used the Olympics; the Olympics didn’t use Barcelona.” This approach transformed Barcelona’s infrastructure and economy. Tourism skyrocketed from 1.7 million visitors annually pre-Olympics to almost 10 million by 2019, and all 15 purpose-built venues remain in use today. The Royal Institute of British Architects awarded its 1999 gold medal to the entire city for its urban transformation.
Los Angeles, meanwhile, proved that mega-events could be financially viable without massive public spending. Chairman Peter Ueberroth’s creation of exclusive category sponsorships and reliance on existing venues generated an unprecedented surplus of over $200 million and created the private-sector model that Los Angeles is now reprising for 2028.
China’s 2008 Beijing Olympics present a more mixed legacy. Chinese officials framed the Olympics as a “century-old dream,” a chance for universal recognition of China as a modern, globally integrated power. That goal was largely achieved, and the Olympics were exceptionally well executed. The opening ceremony became one of the most-watched cultural events in history. Top-tier infrastructure showcased China’s modernization and engineering skills, and presented China as a model for developing countries to follow. The Beijing Olympics generated immense global interest in Chinese culture and expanded personal connections between foreign visitors and Chinese citizens. Chinese athletes also excelled; China had its best-ever performance, topping the gold medal count. However, the same spotlight that allowed China to present itself as a confident, modern power also illuminated the things Beijing preferred to keep hidden, including a violent crackdown in Tibet ahead of the Olympics, internet censorship, and restrictions on journalists. Notably, the Olympic torch relay was disrupted by protests against China’s human rights in cities across the globe, leading to what the IOC’s president labeled a “crisis.”
Qatar’s 2022 World Cup showed how the global spotlight can overshadow even the most lavishly funded event and messaging operation. Qatar treated the tournament as the capstone of a decade-long, soft-power push, spending over $200 billion on the event. Yet the global conversation it generated was dominated by the deaths of migrant workers who built the stadiums, the country’s criminalization of homosexuality, and allegations of corruption in the bidding process. The unusually long twelve-year buildup period to the World Cup subjected Qatar to prolonged scrutiny that no PR campaign could manage, illustrating the limits of reliance on state-led messaging. In the end, the “sportswashing” label became synonymous with Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup. Still, despite the attention drawn to domestic conditions in Qatar, the tournament did mark Doha’s re-entry into the Gulf fold following the 2017–2021 Saudi-led blockade and reinforced its positioning as a key mediator.
Russian Leader Vladimir Putin positioned the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics as a showcase of a resurgent, modern Russia. At approximately $51 billion, Sochi became the most expensive Olympics in history, funded overwhelmingly by public money. However, controversy surrounded the games before they even began. Russia’s 2013 anti-LGBTQ+ legislation prompted boycotts by the heads of state of several major powers, and a crackdown on protesters exposed repression in the country. Moreover, opposition figures framed Sochi as emblematic of regime corruption, citing allegations of graft and unfinished infrastructure along with human rights issues. Russia’s annexation of Crimea just weeks after the closing ceremony further overshadowed any soft power gains, as did the subsequent revelation of a state-sponsored doping program.
Brazil’s experience hosting the 2014 World Cup offers valuable lessons for the United States, showing what can happen when a democratic host’s own citizens reject the narrative surrounding a sporting event. Brazil was filled with optimism as an emerging power and growing economy, and hosting the World Cup was meant to showcase Brazil’s transformation. Instead, starting with the 2013 Confederations Cup, hundreds of thousands of Brazilians protested across the country, angry about billions spent on stadiums while public services deteriorated. The protests continued in the run-up to and throughout the tournament, drawing global attention to economic inequality and corruption, with protest slogans such as “FIFA Go Home” directly targeting the World Cup. But, unlike Germany’s proactive “Land of Ideas” campaign, Brazil lacked a meaningful, coordinated public diplomacy effort. Its largely reactive approach failed to quell criticism even after the matches began. Although the World Cup itself was well organized and attended, it ran directly into a highly visible political and economic crisis, ultimately squandering an opportunity to showcase Brazil’s growth.
Conclusion
As the United States enters its mega-decade of international sporting events, policymakers should carefully consider both the opportunities and the risks. These events will place the United States at the center of the global sporting calendar, bringing millions of visitors to American cities and attracting worldwide attention. They offer significant diplomatic, economic, and cultural possibilities. But, as past international sporting tournaments demonstrate, the same global spotlight that creates opportunity can also expose vulnerabilities.
The experiences of previous host countries highlight several risks. First, as the 2014 Sochi Olympics and 2022 Qatar World Cup show, domestic political conditions can undermine diplomatic goals. Global sporting events do not insulate host countries from scrutiny and can even amplify it. If domestic controversies — whether related to immigration policy, civil unrest, or other hot-button issues — dominate international coverage, they will quickly shape how the United States is perceived abroad and could lead to diplomatic blowback. As Andrew Bertoli highlights in his book “Beyond the Stadium,” major sporting events can feature political unrest or violence that can impact relationships with neighboring states and those that send athletes to participate in tournaments. The United States must remain vigilant against this threat or risk diplomatic consequences.
As Brazil’s 2014 World Cup demonstrates, national image campaigns can also backfire when domestic grievances erupt during major events. The same dynamic could emerge in a highly polarized United States. Large international events inevitably attract political attention, and if citizens view them as misaligned with domestic priorities, public discontent can become part of the story seen by the world. For American diplomats posted abroad, they may face challenges in explaining protests and political movements that receive heightened attention during the World Cup and Olympics.
At the same time, the coming decade presents major opportunities. The mega-decade should be treated as a sustained, multi-year platform for promoting the United States as a destination for commerce, investment, and tourism, not merely a series of isolated events. The NBA, MLB, and NFL have already demonstrated how international attention can be leveraged to grow a fan base, drive economic activity, and build commercial relationships, all while exposing audiences to American culture. These successes should be drawn on as part of a deliberate commercial strategy for the World Cup and Olympics.
Major tournaments also bring political leaders together informally, creating opportunities for dialogue. South Korea’s use of the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics to facilitate engagement with North Korea illustrates how hosts can leverage such moments diplomatically. The 2026 World Cup offers natural opportunities to smooth tensions with Mexico and Canada over trade, migration, and security. Trade discussions between President Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on the sidelines of the World Cup draw in 2025 demonstrated that gatherings for international sporting events can facilitate diplomacy on key issues. As the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will expire midway through the World Cup, with officials from the three countries meeting July 1 to decide whether to renew the trade deal, such high-level interactions could make or break the free trade agreement. Security coordination on drones, stadium protection, and counterterrorism offers an opportunity to deepen US-Mexico cooperation in ways that could outlast the tournament itself (or, if mishandled, to worsen mistrust and undermine cooperation with an important partner). Similarly, the mega-decade will generate thousands of athlete-to-athlete and fan-to-fan contact points. The lesson of ping-pong diplomacy — that a chance encounter between players can facilitate leaders meeting and reshaping the relationship between their countries — should be kept in mind, with a focus on facilitating genuine interactions.
Germany’s hosting of the 2006 World Cup demonstrated how a country can leverage a tournament to reshape global perceptions. Because Germany already possessed strong infrastructure, resources were directed toward improving the visitor experience, cultural programming, and hospitality initiatives that projected a welcoming national image. The United States enjoys similar advantages, needing to spend less on new infrastructure compared to other hosts, allowing it to focus more on the fan experience and broader cultural messaging. If the United States is able to maintain world class infrastructure and ensure a positive fan experience during these mega-events, the coverage could spur a virtuous cycle with international tourism that helps improve perceptions of the United States and generates sustained commercial benefits. Taken together, these examples point to several broader lessons. Mega-events can create diplomatic openings, but they do not guarantee success. Political leaders must actively seize these opportunities. Long-term planning is essential, and successful hosts treat tournaments as part of broader national strategies rather than standalone spectacles. Most importantly, international sporting events amplify existing political and social conditions rather than transform them. For the United States, the coming decade therefore presents both opportunity and exposure. If managed effectively, major tournaments can strengthen diplomatic relationships, promote American commerce, and showcase the country’s cultural dynamism. But if domestic tensions dominate the narrative or diplomatic friction spills over, the same events could just as easily backfire. The United States stands to benefit from its position as a convener of the largest sporting events in the world, but it will face global scrutiny as it does so. American policymakers should not squander this opportunity.