These votes to be closed really dont make sense to me. Any clarification?
I agree with Pablo.
The question could have easily been edited (and eventually was) to make the implicit reference clear, and to incorporate the information gained by commentary. The examples proposed and affirmed there served as excellent comparison of what awards would suffice as satisfying the question with a "yes" answer.
Instead several people (including a moderator) voted to close from what I can only describe as laziness, while at least two people were actively trying to clarify and improve the question so it was SE-suitable.
This wasn't helped by a number of people interpreting "international" loosely if not just wrongly, to the point they were describing purely intranational competitions/awards. I end with part of my comment made after edits and before the reopening, as I think it serves well in general.
Please don't vote as "too broad" when there can be only one answer to whether a single group does a specific thing!
As the question was originally asked, and as it stood on 8/5, the question was too broad. It did not have a clear answer, because the answer depended on how it was interpreted: who would give out such an award? As the question does not specify, there is thus no one specific answer to the question but many possible, and that means it is not a good fit for Sports StackExchange.
It is not the job of the community of the site to modify the question to be answerable, and certainly not the job of community users to read the mind of the question asker. We welcome readers to make appropriate modifications when they choose to. However, if a question is too broad (or otherwise inappropriate), a vote-to-close is an entirely acceptable choice.
Suggesting that not doing so is laziness is quite rude, in my opinion. Many questions are asked on this site (and other SE sites) which are of similar nature - probably answerable given some assumptions, and thus probably salvageable - and it would be a full time job to repair such questions. Putting the obligation on the asker is acceptable, particularly as the asker is the one who requests the time of the community to answer their question.