Paris Olympics 2024 – a “Team Europe” approach

Photo: Antonin Albert / Shutterstock

The Olympics have historically served as a platform for ideological and political competition, particularly during the Cold War. Contemporary politicians continue to view the games as a means to showcase national sporting prowess and bolster their own image. While the European Commission cannot be accused of promoting division, its focus on medal rankings contributes to a competitive atmosphere that may incentivize less ethical behaviour among other state actors. By analyzing the interplay between sports, politics and culture, we can identify some insights into the complexities of contemporary European identity and its global projection.

The politics of branding

As a prominent European capital, Paris had the unique privilege of hosting the 2024 Olympic Games. This mega sporting event presented a golden opportunity for France and its European counterparts to showcase their rich history, vibrant culture and shared values. Beyond the athletic competitions, the Olympics served as a platform for nation-branding initiatives, fostering social, economic and political goals.

Nation-branding, as defined by Ying Fan in 2006, involves strategically employing branding and marketing techniques to enhance a nation’s image. In the context of the Olympics, sports play a pivotal role in shaping national identities, symbolizing a nation’s unity, pride and aspirations. While nation-branding often focuses on external audiences, sport diplomacy, as practiced by international actors, targets both domestic and international stakeholders. The EU has been actively engaged in sport diplomacy for over a decade, organizing competitions, promoting sport development through initiatives like Erasmus+, and leveraging sport to foster a sense of European identity. The 2024 Paris Olympics offered a prime opportunity to strengthen this European spirit, both within the bloc and globally under the umbrella of the “European way of life”.

However, the effectiveness of nation-branding and sport diplomacy depends on several factors that the EU could not achieve at this particular event. First, the messaging must resonate with both domestic and international audiences. Second, the brand must be authentically embodied by the nation’s citizens and government. Third, public involvement should be genuine and meaningful, rather than merely a façade to legitimize top-down initiatives. The 2024 Paris Olympics provided a platform for Europe to showcase its unique identity, promote unity and strengthen its global standing. Despite attempts to leverage sport diplomacy and nation-branding, Europe’s enduring legacy from the 2024 Paris Olympics remains uncertain. While the games undoubtedly showcased the continent’s cultural diversity and historical significance, their long-term impact on European unity and global standing is still to be seen.

EU and sport diplomacy?

The EU’s strategic engagement with sport diplomacy emerged in 2015, following the establishment of the High Level Group on Sport Diplomacy. This initiative, under the guidance of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics, culminated in a comprehensive report outlining key recommendations. Subsequent Council Conclusions in November 2016 formalized the EU’s commitment to utilizing sport as a diplomatic tool. The European Union Work Plan for Sport (2017-2020) further underscored the importance of sport diplomacy in fostering European values and promoting cooperation with third countries. Empirical evidence unequivocally demonstrated the positive impact of international sport projects on bilateral relations. A comparative analysis of case studies revealed several salient features: high-level political engagement between member states and third countries has proven instrumental in generating local interest and participation. Sport projects that aligned with the emerging priorities of member states’ international development objectives enhanced their broader diplomatic impact.

A more in-depth examination of case studies has yielded valuable insights into the successful implementation of international sport development projects. Tailored approaches were essential to aligning EU member states’ sport expertise with the specific strategic objectives and challenges faced by third countries. Capacity-building and upskilling of local organizations were crucial to ensuring the long-term sustainability of project initiatives. Moreover, a comprehensive review of relevant EU funding sources indicated significant potential for supporting sport development projects that involved partnerships between member states and the EU as a whole.

To what extent has the EU developed a robust framework for sport diplomacy, focusing on promoting sport participation, integrity and sustainability? Through its EU Work Plan for Sport, the bloc prioritizes creating a safe, value-driven environment in sport while fostering socio-economic and sustainable dimensions. The plan also emphasized increasing sports participation and encouraging physical activity for all age groups, with special attention to vulnerable populations.

Today, by promoting grassroots sport and endorsing an active, environmentally-friendly lifestyle, the EU aims to build social cohesion and promote active citizenship across Europe. A central focus of the EU’s strategy is enhancing governance in sport. This includes encouraging good governance practices, combating issues like match-fixing and promoting gender equality and athletes’ rights. Additionally, the EU recognizes the importance of voluntary-based grassroots sport and supports their development through initiatives like the Erasmus+ programme, which allocates funding to support sport mobility, cooperation and innovation.

The EU also underscores the significance of investment in sustainable sport infrastructure, which includes developing environmentally-friendly facilities and limiting the sector’s carbon footprint. Innovation and digitalization are seen as key drivers of progress in sport, supporting health, economic development and the resilience of the sector, particularly in light of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Promoting sport tourism and cross-sectoral cooperation is also prioritized by the EU to boost the sector’s sustainable development.

On the other hand, international cooperation plays a vital role in the EU’s sport diplomacy. The EU seeks to strengthen dialogue with governments and sporting organizations both within and outside Europe, including the International Olympic Committee, aiming to exchange knowledge and address global challenges such as doping, fraud and the manipulation of competitions. Furthermore, EU policy initiatives, such as the White Paper on Sport from 2007, serve as foundational documents for ongoing efforts, guiding future policy and cooperation.

In terms of social inclusion, the EU actively promotes the integration of marginalized groups, including migrants, through sport. Initiatives like the European Week of Sport, which encourages physical activity across Europe, exemplifies the EU’s commitment to fostering a healthier, more active society. Awards such as #BeActive and #BeInclusive further highlight innovative efforts to break down social barriers and promote a sense of European identity through sport. The EU’s approach to sport diplomacy is characterized by its focus on promoting integrity, participation and sustainability. Through cross-border cooperation, innovative policies and a commitment to inclusivity, the EU aims to develop a dynamic and resilient sport sector that contributes to Europe’s social and economic growth.

What if the EU had been united in Paris 2024?

The 2024 Paris Olympics, while celebrated for its athletic achievements, was also a microcosm of the complex interplay between sport, politics and global events. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has long strived to maintain a façade of political neutrality, but the Paris Games, with its myriad challenges, exposed the inherent political nature of the event. One particularly intriguing question is: what if the EU had adopted a unified stance on the Games? While the EU is often seen as a force for unity and cooperation, its member states often have divergent interests and priorities, particularly when it comes to international affairs.

The Paris Games were marred by several geopolitical tensions. The ongoing war in Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the global threat of terrorism all cast shadows over the event. The IOC, in an attempt to balance competing interests, often found itself in a precarious position. For example, the IOC’s decision to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (AINs) was met with criticism from many, including some EU member states. While some argued that the athletes should be punished for their countries’ actions, others contended that they should not be penalized for the actions of their governments. Had the EU presented a united front on this issue, the IOC might have faced greater pressure to adopt a more consistent approach. A strong European voice could have significantly influenced the global discourse surrounding the Games and the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes.

One might think that speaking with one voice was related to the concept of aggregating European Olympic medals into a single tally. However, this is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, the EU does not currently possess a unified National Olympic Committee (NOC), meaning that individual member states compete independently. This fragmented approach allowed for a greater number of athletes to participate in the Olympic Games, ultimately increasing the potential for medal wins. Secondly, the benefits of individual national teams were particularly evident in team sports. For instance, the recent victory of Italy, France and Poland in the women’s team fencing competition was only possible due to each country fielding its own team. In contrast, the United States and China were limited to entering a single team each, restricting their medal potential even in sports where they dominate.

While the notion of a unified “Team Europe” approach might evoke feelings of unity and shared achievement, it is essential to consider the broader implications. While the EU could certainly leverage its collective influence to promote European athletes and values on the international stage, a unified team could inadvertently lead to the EU exerting undue influence over international sporting governance. Instead of pursuing a unified team, the EU could more effectively advocate for European athletes and values by strengthening national Olympic committees, promoting European sport culture, advocating for fair play and ethical standards, and supporting grassroots sport development. By focusing on these areas, the EU can play a positive role in the global sporting landscape without compromising the integrity of the Olympic movement.

Furthermore, the EU’s role in addressing human rights concerns related to the games could have been more prominent. While human rights groups raised concerns about the treatment of homeless people in Paris and the potential for human rights abuses, the EU’s response was somewhat fragmented. A unified European stance could have amplified these concerns and put pressure on the French government to take more concrete steps to protect human rights.

While the 2024 Paris Olympics were a showcase of athletic excellence, they also highlighted the challenges of maintaining political neutrality in a globalized world. A united European voice could have played a significant role in shaping the narrative surrounding the games and addressing the complex issues that arose. However, the reality is that the EU, like any international organization, is composed of diverse member states with often conflicting interests. A truly unified European stance on the games may have been a difficult, if not impossible, goal to achieve. While sport and the Olympics may have contributed to a stronger European identity, it is unlikely that EU member states would willingly relinquish their national pride and achievements in individual and team sports without direct supranational oversight. Such a significant change would require substantial institutional authority.

 The views represented herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution the author is associated with.

Erekle Iantbelidze is Third Secretary at Georgia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs working on the EU Directorate. He is a graduate from the College of Europe in Natolin.

European Union, Olympics, Paris 2024, Sport