Sporting diplomacy: analysing the legacy of the London 2012 and the Paris 2024 Olympic Games

This thesis investigates how the diplomatic legacy of Sport Mega Events (SMEs) can be understood to enhance host countries’ soft power while aligning with local and international strategies. Through an analysis of the London 2012 and Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic legacies, this research project frames legacy as a diplomatic resource that States can use to enhance their soft power. Rather than focusing on the International Olympic Committee (IOC), this study centres on how host nations, in this case, the UK and France, organise and present the Games to serve their own diplomatic agendas. It contributes to the growing field of sport and diplomacy by analysing legacies through a global diplomacy framework as defined by Rofe, which moves beyond traditional state-centric models to include non-state actors and symbolic representation. It also contributes to the academic discourse by arguing that sport diplomacy should be recognised as a field of diplomacy.
London 2012 demonstrated the UK’s use of the Games to project global leadership in business, sustainability, inclusion and green innovation. It also used the Games as a platform to promote economic growth amid an economic crisis. Paris 2024, the first Games fully aligned with Olympic Agenda 2020, introduced a series of pioneering initiatives that positioned France as a leader in sustainable and inclusive SMEs hosting.
Despite contextual differences, both case studies shared similar objectives, including enhancing national prestige through elite sport, promoting disability rights and inclusivity, stimulating economic growth, and advancing environmental innovation. These ambitions led to new frameworks and regulations that redefined sport policy and diplomacy. In this context, SMEs became instruments of strategic transformation and long-term investment for the host countries.
This thesis contributes to the literature in four key ways: (1) It offers a framework for understanding how host countries frame and mobilise diplomatic legacy; (2) It examines how positive legacies are constructed and mobilised in ways to pre‑empt or mitigate potential negative consequences associated with SME hosting; (3) It highlights the importance of aligning legacy programmes with development and national agendas; and (4) It expands the theoretical lens of sport diplomacy through the global diplomacy framework by defining each type of legacy and highlighting how it intersects with diplomacy.