#EuropeanAffairs: Can the US Harness its Sports DIplomacy Moment?

On May 18, 2026, the Sciences Po American Foundation continued its #EuropeanAffairs webinar series with a discussion examining the growing intersection of sports, diplomacy, politics, and national identity. Moderated by Anthony Saracco, the session brought together Sophie Lorant, former International Relations Director for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and Frank Guridy, Professor of History at Columbia University and author of The Stadium: An American History of Politics, Protest, and Play.

The conversation opened with a reflection on Pierre de Coubertin’s original vision for the Olympic movement as a civilizational project rooted in international understanding and shared human values. Lorant argued that while these ideals remain central to the Olympic movement, today’s Games operate in a far more complex geopolitical and commercial environment. Security concerns, political tensions, social media scrutiny, and corporate sponsorships increasingly force organizers to balance idealism with political reality.

This tension framed a broader discussion about the differing philosophies of sport in France and the United States. Lorant described Paris 2024 as a public policy project, shaped by France’s understanding of sport as a public good. The Games emphasized long-term social legacy, sustainability, public accessibility, and parity between the Olympic and Paralympic Games. By contrast, she characterized the American model as more heavily driven by entertainment, commercialization, media power, and private capital. While neither approach is inherently superior, she argued that they produce fundamentally different relationships between sport, society, and the state.

Guridy agreed, pointing to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics as a pivotal turning point in the history of mega sporting events. The privately financed Games demonstrated that the Olympics could become commercially self-sustaining, and helped usher in the modern era of corporate sponsorship, global broadcasting, and large-scale commodification of sport. Los Angeles, he noted, continues to take its Olympic legacy seriously, but the Games have increasingly become “transactional” events shaped by market forces.

The discussion then turned to the United States’ upcoming concentration of global sporting events, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, and the 2034 Salt Lake City Winter Games. Saracco posed a central question: can the United States harness this unprecedented sports diplomacy moment at a time when its federal government appears increasingly skeptical of multilateralism and international cooperation?

Guridy argued that the global ethos of events like the World Cup often runs counter to the nationalist politics associated with the Trump administration. While FIFA and international organizations may attempt to accommodate the administration politically, the tournament itself inherently celebrates multiculturalism, international exchange, and global interdependence. He suggested that the more meaningful forms of sports diplomacy may emerge not from Washington, but from local governments, fan communities, and grassroots civic engagement in cities like New York and Los Angeles.

Lorant emphasized that organizing committees often become “diplomatic buffer zones” in politically volatile environments. In practice, she argued, sports diplomacy occurs less through ceremonies than through logistics: visa systems, border access, transportation coordination, athlete mobility, and security management. The operational success or failure of these systems ultimately shapes how host nations are perceived internationally.

The webinar also explored the contrast between Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028. Lorant explained that Paris intentionally embedded legacy-building into every stage of the project, from urban redevelopment in Seine-Saint-Denis to large-scale educational initiatives and unprecedented emphasis on the Paralympics. She viewed the LA28 handover ceremony featuring Tom Cruise and Hollywood imagery as a clear statement that Los Angeles intends to lean into entertainment and spectacle as its defining global language.

At the same time, both speakers acknowledged that Los Angeles occupies a unique position within the United States. Guridy argued that the city’s diversity, immigration history, and longstanding Olympic legacy make it perhaps the best-equipped American city to host a global event centered on inclusion and internationalism. Yet he also stressed that the Games will inevitably unfold amidst intense national debates over immigration, inequality, policing, and democratic identity.

The conversation repeatedly returned to the unpredictability of sports themselves. Guridy noted that while governments and organizers attempt to carefully stage and control mega-events, sport always produces unexpected moments that transcend political narratives. These moments of collective emotion, solidarity, and cultural exchange remain one of sport’s enduring diplomatic strengths.

Commercialization emerged as another major theme. Guridy warned that rising ticket prices and corporate hospitality models increasingly transform stadiums into spaces designed primarily for affluent audiences, limiting opportunities for broader public participation. He described modern sports venues as “temples of corporate exclusion.” Lorant added that the escalating financial demands of hosting mega-events have effectively restricted hosting opportunities to wealthy nations, excluding much of the Global South from participating in this form of global soft power.

Despite these concerns, both speakers maintained that sports still retain a unique capacity to foster international understanding. Guridy argued that meaningful sports diplomacy often occurs through “people-to-people” interactions rather than formal state policy. He pointed to the global spread of sports like soccer, basketball, and baseball as examples of how local communities adapt and transform international cultural forms into something uniquely their own.

Looking ahead, both speakers agreed that the United States possesses extraordinary assets for hosting global sporting events, including world-class infrastructure, cultural influence, and diversity. However, Lorant cautioned that mega-events magnify not only national strengths but also national contradictions. The key question, she argued, is not whether the United States can organize successful events operationally, but whether it can project openness, stability, and international engagement during a period of deep political polarization.

Guridy closed on a cautiously hopeful note, arguing that the future of sports diplomacy ultimately depends less on governments than on citizens, institutions, and communities willing to use these moments to reaffirm democratic values and international connection. Simply put, “the ball is in our court”.

Watch the webinar