Russia's Soft Power Play: Attempting to Rebrand Through Mega Sporting Events

Russia has historically been known as one of the powerhouses in the modern day.

From the Soviet Union to now, they have a global reputation that exceeds a majority of

countries in the world.

During the course of time, we’ve seen Russia begin to intertwine their country with mega

sporting events.

In the summer of 2018, as the world’s eyes fixated on the spectacle of the FIFA World Cup, Russia emerged as more than just a host nation.

Stadiums were filled with fans from every corner of the globe, enthralled by the game’s drama. For fans across the world, this sporting event meant everything to them, with passion exuding throughout the tournament.

Often, what’s not explored is the concept of soft power underneath the surface. A way to improve the nations reputation, the global image.

A carefully orchestrated play of soft power that provided an opportunity to reshape Russia’s global image.

What happened between Russia and Sports during the 2010s? Was their soft power strategy successful or was it all in vain?

Defining Soft Power

Joseph Nye best described soft power as the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.

It arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced.

The ability to shape preferences and influence others through appeal and attraction, often rooted in its culture, political values, and foreign policies, without the use of coercion or tangible rewards.

The concept has remained relevant across mega sporting events for hundreds of years. It’s a chance to distract or even uplift a country in a time where their global image may be questioned.

The bid to host the World Cup 2018: controversy?

Russia’s interest in hosting the 2018 World Cup first began in January 2009, as they joined the race along with the likes of England, Australia, Qatar, the United States and joint bids from other nations. An article from The Guardian stated that Vladimir Putin had been eager to take advantage of that boom to reassert its long-relinquished role as a world power.

The bid to host the World Cup is highly competitive and intense among nations. However, Russia’s bid for the World Cup back in 2010 didn’t come without any controversy. According to Forbes, US prosecutors had claimed that both Russia and Qatar paid bribes to members of the FIFA executive committee to gain an advantage in hosting rights. According to the prosecutors in their indictment, it highlighted that Russia paid $5 million through a number of shell companies back in 2010.

Despite this, winning the World Cup bid was crucial in the beginning of ‘winning hearts and minds.’ The phrase was created by Sir Gerald Templar in the 1950s. During the Malayan Emergency, he stressed the importance of gaining the support of the locals and not only military power. It allowed the Russian leadership to repaint their image. Hosting a globally recognised sporting event allowed Russia to strengthen its soft power by diverting attention away from political issues and projecting a more appealing image to the world. While some people saw the bid triumph as just another example of FIFA's poor ethics, Russia's achievement demonstrated its ability to use global sports as a diplomatic instrument to expand its influence on the global stage.

Russia World Cup: Significant global coverage

By looking at the statistics in viewership, it’s comfortable to say that Russia’s World Cup was a success. In December 2018, FIFA released the audit of viewership during the tournament, and it’s safe to say that it dominated media viewership.

The global in-home TV audience watching at least one minute of coverage totalled 3.262 billion, while a further estimated 309.7 million people watched no coverage in home but caught the action on digital platforms, in public viewing areas, or in bars and restaurants, boosting the total audience by 9.5 percent.

The final between France and Croatia on 15 July attracted a combined global audience of 1.12 billion, comprising 884.37 million viewers tuning in to linear TV coverage and a further 231.82 million out-of-home and digital-only viewers.

Over the 64 matches, the average live audience was 191 million; each game was a global televisual event in its own right.

Official infographic from FIFA regarding global viewership

"These figures really do support the claim that Russia 2018 was the best World Cup ever. We're particularly pleased to see an increase in the average time viewers are engaging with matches, which shows that we are giving the fans what they want. The fact that half the world’s population watched the FIFA World Cup reflects not just the high quality of our award-winning live coverage but also that fans everywhere are insatiable for world-class football," said FIFA’s Chief Commercial Officer, Philippe Le Floc’h.

For Vladimir Putin’s Russia, they definitely put on an entertaining spectacle, with memorable football moments to remember over the years. In terms of a strategy of soft power, it arguably was a way to rebrand their image away from negative connotations with the country.

Russia's relationship with Human Rights

The World Cup was definitely an entertaining affair, but at what cost?

The preparation and hosting of the World Cup did not come without issues. Russia’s human rights policies have been a subject that has been questioned and challenged. To an extent, Russia's rights to the World Cup were even doubted due to the record they had and incidents that have occurred.

The investigative magazine Josimar stated that there were at least 110 North Koreans that worked at the Zenit Arena in St. Petersburg, which was used in the 2018 World Cup. What came with this was their mistreatment. Long hours; low pay; dire living conditions; poor working conditions. That was the brutal standard set for these workers.

In 2016, it was reported by ESPN that a North Korean worker died while working on a World Cup stadium in St. Petersburg. It was also stated that three other workers died while working on the stadium within that year.

“FIFA’s promise to make human rights a centrepiece of its global operations has been put to the test in Russia, and FIFA is coming up short, said Jane Buchanan, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“Construction workers on World Cup stadiums face exploitation and abuse, and FIFA has not yet shown that it can effectively monitor, prevent, and remedy these issues.”

The director of Global Initiatives at Human Rights Watch, Minky Worden, also felt very strongly about the human rights abuse during the process of preparing for the Russia World Cup.

“The World Cup at its best is about celebrating human achievement and potential. Fans, sponsors and the public are increasingly saying that ugly human rights abuses should have no place in sport. Twenty-one dead workers is too high a price. Indeed, there is no need for even one construction worker to die to deliver FIFA’s World Cup.”

The problem with a nation having human rights issues is that it may contradict the values of sports. Factors like equality and fair play are valued by FIFA. If human rights abuses are accepted and normalised among sports, it could set a bad precedent for not only players but the audience as well. 

Russia’s track record of mega-sporting events: Sochi Winter Olympics 2014

It’s no coincidence that 18 months before Russia was announced to host the World Cup, they achieved hosting rights for the Winter Olympics that took place in Sochi. The Olympic Games and the World Cup are both associated with each other. A clear strategy formed for the nation of Russia as the year turned into the 2010s. Both these sporting events allowed Russia to enhance their global image and win the hearts and minds of the wider global public.

This soft power strategy was so important to Russia based on the economic value of them. The Guardian reported that $51 billion was spent to run the Winter Olympics, which is the most expensive ever. Even though the event was viewed as a success from a sporting aspect, Russia as a competitor in the Winter Olympics was tarnished.

The 2014 Winter Olympics doping scandal involved Russia's state-sponsored doping program, which manipulated drug tests to boost athlete performance. Russia's anti-doping lab, led by Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, swapped tainted urine samples with clean ones through a secret hole in a lab wall. This widespread cheating ultimately led to Russia's partial ban from future Olympics, with athletes only allowed to compete under a neutral flag in some events.

Suddenly, one of the biggest nations in this expertise is no longer viewed as credible. It was a massive statement by the IOC, but also a bigger action by Russia, which now has a Winter Olympic Games that did not age in a good way for them. Rather, it had a detrimental impact on the way Russia was viewed by the IOC and Olympic nations across the world.

The perception of Russia after Global Sporting Events: Russia-Ukraine conflict

In the long term, the mega sporting events hosted by Russia didn’t necessarily have the positive impact that it was looking for. Due to the conflict with Ukraine, many nations and sporting bodies have distanced themselves from Russia and have even campaigned against what they’re doing.

A ripple effect. A harsh wave of criticism was cast over the Russian nation.

In February 2022, Russia conducted an invasion in Ukraine. The conflict had been on-going since 2014, but this full-scale invasion shook not only the political world but the sporting environment as well.

A week later, governing bodies in sports distanced themselves from Russia altogether. Whatever work was done in Russia being respected as a sporting nation was ripped up and burnt.

Rather than the soft power that had been adopted throughout the 2010s, the policies of Russia switched to hard power. Using direct force to achieve foreign policy goals. In doing so, using the tool of the sporting events to put the nation in a positive light completely turned on itself.

How football reacted to the Russia-Ukraine conflict

From the Premier League website, they made a strong statement condemning the attacks in 2022.

“The Premier League and its clubs today unanimously agreed to suspend our agreement with Russian broadcast partner Rambler (Okko Sport) with immediate effect and to donate £1 million to support the people of Ukraine.

“The League strongly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We call for peace and our thoughts are with all those impacted.

“The £1 million donation will be made to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) to deliver humanitarian aid directly to those in need.”

The Premier League also took physical actions to deny Russia’s actions against Ukraine.

“All club captains wore special armbands and fans joined players, managers, match officials and club staff in a moment of reflection and solidarity before kick-off at each match.

“Big screens displayed "Football Stands Together" against the backdrop of the blue and yellow colours of the Ukrainian flag. These words were also shown on LED perimeter boards during matches.”

FIFA and UEFA also took mitigating action.

“Following the initial decisions adopted by the FIFA Council and the UEFA Executive Committee, which envisaged the adoption of additional measures, FIFA and UEFA have today decided together that all Russian teams, whether national representative teams or club teams, shall be suspended from participation in both FIFA and UEFA competitions until further notice.”

The President of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, commented on the situation during a summit ahead of the Qatar World Cup.

"Maybe the current World Cup, starting in five days, can really be that positive trigger. So my plea to all of you is to think on a temporary ceasefire, for one month, for the duration of the FIFA World Cup, or at least the implementation of humanitarian corridors, or anything that could lead to the resumption of dialogue as a first step to peace. You are the world leaders; you have the ability to influence the course of history.”

In an article by sports journalist Jonathan Wilson, he stood strongly on the idea of Russia using soft power in the past.

“Russia exploited football as a soft power tool, but it also helped forge Ukraine’s identity.

“Football has had soft-power potential since it became a mass preoccupation in the late 19th century.”

There is some validity to Wilson's statement. Ukraine's national identity has grown significantly stronger during a very difficult time. A sense of resilience and togetherness despite being overwhelmed by military force. Fear and resentment now strikes Russia, who at this point in time looked to have moved away from any soft power methods.

Switch of strategies… Hard Power?

Soft Power is viewed simply as the opposite of Hard Power. Instead of influencing the masses using appeal and attraction, hard power uses brutal means. For example, military force or economic sanctions by one entity to influence behaviour or interests of others.

Between the 2018 World Cup and the invasion of Ukraine, there was a shift. This shift underscored a move from cultural influence on direct, coercive tactics, prioritizing territorial and political objectives over the diplomatic gains achieved in 2018.

Even when they’ve tried to bid rights for another sporting event, it failed. In May 2022, Mark Ogden of ESPN reported Russia Euro 2028 and 2032 as ineligible by FIFA. The official statement read

"The UEFA Executive Committee declared the bid submitted by the Football Union of Russia (FUR) to host the UEFA EURO 2028 or the UEFA EURO 2032 as not eligible, in accordance with Article 16.02 of the Bid Regulations UEFA Finals and Final Phases which states that 'each bidder shall ensure that it does not act in a manner that could bring UEFA, the UEFA final or UEFA final phase, any other bidder (or any employee, officer or representative of any of the foregoing), the bidding procedure or European football into disrepute.”

EVN report, an online-news site stated that "Nye’s conceptualization was not a repudiation of hard power, but the opposite: soft power complimented hard power."

However, it looks like in Russia's case, soft power and hard power have not worked in conjunction at all. The action of a war that can impact innocent lives changed how they were viewed now, and for a very long time.

Conclusion: Evaluating Russia’s soft power play

Seclusion. That’s the word to use describe how Russia’s relationship with sports at the moment. To put simply, they’ve been blacklisted. All the effort that went into the World Cup in 2018 only really had short term effects.

The economy was boosted, tourism was boosted and new heights of engagement and viewership hit Russia.

Despite this, no real legacy was left behind. Winning hearts and minds was not achieved after Russia's global sporting events. The World Cup is no longer reflected on. It's the same for the Winter Olympics. Russia as a nation is no longer uplifted in many sports across the world.

When you add doping scandals and human rights abuse to all of this, it’s clear that the strategy of soft power was ineffective. No rebrand was truly accomplished. It felt more like a temporary time of cooperation and performance.

Now, as Russia grapples with regaining trust, the road back is steep; winning hearts and minds will require transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the values of fair play and inclusivity that define global sport. Only through genuine reform can Russia hope to rebuild its influence and regain the support of the international community.