E10623

SS7200 - Theories of sport and Exercise

Examine the extent to which two theories can help make sociological sense of sport. Use

research from the Sociology of Sport and Exercise to illustrate your answer.

Word Count: 5499

1

The main objective of this assignment is to examine the extent to which two theories can

help make sociological sense of sport. Different Sociological theories will make sense of

the same societal issues using different perspectives, therefore it would be prudent to

highlight which theories will be scrutinized, and why they are appropriate. The first of the

theories that will be studied is Marxism, which suggests that economic factors dominate,

with cultural factors being broadly a reflection of the underlying mode of production (Houli-

han, 2003). Furthermore, Perry, (2002) suggests that labour is like the DNA of human his-

tory; ever present, imperceptibly shaping and reshaping society. The second of the theo-

ries, Figurational Sociology; according to Murphy, Sheard and Waddington “the central or-

ganizing concept of figurational sociology is, unsurprisingly, the concept of the “figuration”

itself,” (as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000, p.92-105). A predominant theme of Figura-

tional Sociology is the power balance; it is a question of relative power balances, an indi-

vidual is never completely powerful or powerless (Elias, 1978b). Due to the contrasting

ideologies that distinguish Marxism from Figurationalism, it would be appropriate to ex-

plore both theories to examine the extent to which they can make sociological sense of

sport. However, before Figurationalism and Marxism can be examined in a sporting con-

text, each theory should be comprehensively discussed and compared in a general con-

text.

Marxism is perhaps the most influential, yet most criticized and most misunderstood of all

social theories. Karl Marx, (1818-1883) and many of his followers, have in fact stressed

Marxism is more than just a theory, it is a way of understanding the world and acting upon

it (Joseph, 2006). Marxism has been given numerous synonyms since its inception; Lenin-

ism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and more recently theorists have been called Neo-Marxists. In-

deed, according to Perry, (2002) there were three generations of Marxist history, the first

of which revolved around the writings of Marx and Engels. To fully comprehend Marxism

2

and the fundamental principles associated, any academic research must have a starting

point centered around the writings of Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, as they

are the founding fathers of Marxist Sociological theory. Marx has had, and continues to

have, a decisive influence upon the development of sociological thought; Weber and

Durkheim also contribute key ideas to contemporary configurations of social thought (Cuff,

Sharrock & Francis, 2006). Marxism, is an impossibly huge topic, if we consider all work

that has used Marx as a starting point, (Roberts, 2006) therefore, the focus of this assign-

ment will be Marx.

The following paragraphs will firstly, highlight the inspiration for Marx’ work and the main

themes of Marxism. Secondly, the Neo-Marxist perspective will be explained, preceding

how Marxism is used when applied to sport and finally, the Marxist theory will be critiqued.

When talking about Marx and his writings, we need to begin not with Marx himself, but with

G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831); his philosophy aimed to give an account of history as a whole.

Hegel argued that the history of all humanity can be considered as a single, unified and ra-

tional progress (Cuff, et al, 2006). Furthermore, Hegels dialectic as it applied to mind, spirit

and ideas, as well as the concept of the master and slave, the latter of which has been

considered as contributory factor in Marx’s understanding of the proletariat and bour-

geoisie or capital and labour (Joseph, 2006). However, Marx was skeptical of Hegel as a

political thinker, he could not accept Hegel’s contention that the key to human emancipa-

tion lay in the development of philosophy, carrying people to the level of complete under-

standing (Cuff, et al, 2006). Marx thought the history of human development could not be a

history solely of thought or ideas; it would have to incorporate the world of economic and

political being (Evans, 1975). Thus, his approach was considered to be a historical materi-

alist approach, his understanding of the present as history, with focus upon living and

3

working conditions of ordinary people and to the economic and political materiality of

power (Therborn, 2008).

Before describing Marxism comprehensively, it is beneficial to provide an oversight of the

basic principles of Marxism: Engels, (1880, p.unknown)

that the view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great

moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of

society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the conse-

quent division of society into classes and in the struggles of these classes against one

another.

It is agreed amongst sociologists that the concept of power is among their discipline’s pri-

mary concepts; furthermore power can be difficult to define, as it can take so many differ-

ent forms (Roberts, 2006). Power is conceptualized within Marxism as who controls eco-

nomic production within society. Economic production was considered as the base of soci-

ety, and ultimately determines the legal, political and ideological superstructure upon

which it stands (Joseph, 2006). Broadly speaking, those who control and direct the activi-

ties of others are exerting their economic power over those individuals. Controls over eco-

nomic production, created a class system; those who control production were one class

and those who work, another. “Class is the main form of stratification in modern society,”

(Roberts, 2009, p.35). Class, is a more extensive analysis of society then economic rela-

tions on their own; it involves analysis of society as a whole (Cuff et al, 2006). In addition,

Marx had several preconceptions about society, one such preconception was the concept

of the division of labour. Put crudely, society is divided by those who work and those who

think. Subdivision of labour can immensely improve production, however, can lead to sep-

aration of human beings, with some having power over others. Thought can prevaricate re-

ality, by placing itself as more important than physical labour. Therefore, elevating thinkers

4

above those who do physical work (Cuff et al, 2006). Another such preconception is Alien-

ation, Marx’s criticism of contemporary society was that human beings were separated

from their essence to work, it is argued that work is our natural human essence (Joseph,

2006). An influential subsidiary within the concept of alienation is the way people accept

economic climates, for example, badly paid labour. This is due to the predisposition of the

masses to accept their fate is controlled by laws over which they cannot exert any control.

In short, alienation, means we lose control over such process (Joseph, 2006). This con-

ceptualization suggests the key to understanding society was to begin by understanding

the way in which it organizes its economic activity (Cuff et al, 2006). Thus emphasizing the

importance of ownership of production to exerting power. The emergence of a class sys-

tem lead to a conflict of interest between the owning class and labour class, which per-

vades all of societies' organization as owners wish to protect their own position. The eco-

nomically dominant class, who distribute the means of production, ultimately also deter-

mine the distribution of political power (Evans, 1975). Thus aspire to become the ruling

class.

It is at this point where it is relevant to discuss theory of a Neo Marxist nature, and not that

originally written by Marx. It was argued that Ideological thinking played a major role in

achieving intellectual control of a state, or Hegemony. Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci

(1891-1937), used the term Hegemony to describe a situation where the ruling class’s ide-

ology came to be accepted as factually true, with no alternative imaginable (Roberts,

2009). Further, Gramsci believed that Cultural Hegemony, was a major contributory in gov-

erning society; he believed that a culturally diverse society can be ruled or dominated by

one of its social classes (Perry, 2002). This was achieved, as Gramsci states, by the ideas

of the ruling class becoming seen as the norm.

5

As stated previously, Marxism is an impossibly huge topic, (Roberts, 2009) therefore, this

essay will focus on one strand of Neo-Marxism pertaining to sport; Hegemony theory.

Hegemony theory becomes prevalent when explaining the institutionalization of sport, this

involves, amongst other things, the formalization of boundaries and codification of rules.

Institutionalization, thus, ensures the ascendancy of the dominant way of playing a game

over alternative ways. Further, the process of privileging one moment of sport over another

reflects the influence of certain groups whom may have a vested-interest in its continuation

and conservation (Morgan, 1994). When considered, in context, the institutionalization of

Western sports, a distinctive pattern of the structuring of sport is revealed. This structure,

according to Gruneau (1999), is one where control of players is superseded by corporate

control of select and quasi-autonomous formal organizations. It may therefore be accept-

able to speculate that the members of controlling organizations of sport are also those in

control of production, within a Capitalist Society.

When discussing a Sociological theory, critiquing the theory can be just as important as

explaining its strengths. Firstly, Hegemony theory, by its very nature, contradicts Marxian

ideology. It does this by utilizing the concept of the power of ideas, originally conceptual-

ized by Hegels, not the ownership of production. As Bero Rigauer (cited in Coakley &

Dunning, 2000) stated, authors of Hegemony theory attempt to separate the sociological

paradigm of reproduction from the Marxist base-superstructure dogma and its inherent

economic determinism in order to research capitalistically manipulated social processes.

Morgan, (1994) further compounds this argument, stating hegemonists treat the social

predicates of sport as material ones, and its material predicates as social ones. Which be-

trays a wholesale departure from the base-superstructure model of Marxist thought. Sec-

ondly, a common critique of Marxism is that it did not occur as Marx predicted it would.

Marx’s own analysis predicted that a revolution would occur in the most advanced capital-

6

ist countries, not in a society where the economy was still largely dependent upon agricul-

ture and where most people were peasants (Roberts, 2009). A further criticism of Socio-

logical theories in general, but relevant when discussing Marxism, are the views of Norbert

Elias who conceived the notion of process reduction. In essence he believed that every-

thing that is observed and experienced as dynamic and interdependent is represented in

static, isolated categories, (Murphy, Sheard & Waddington as cited in Coakley & Dunning,

2000) modes of production, with regards to Marxism.

This is an appropriate point to begin to discuss the second of the Sociological theories,

conceptualized by Norbert Elias (1897-1990), Figurationalism. Firstly, it is necessary to ex-

plain the issues Elias highlighted as a rationale for the creation of Figuration Sociology,

secondly, to explain the main concepts of Figurational Sociology. After explaining the the-

ory, reference will be made with regards to research conducted about sport and finally cri-

tiquing the figurational theory.

Further to the concept of process reduction, Elias, criticized what he termed unhelpful du-

alisms and dichotomies (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000); in the case of

Marxism, the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat or the individual and society. Additionally,

Elias was skeptical of the Homo Clausus model of human beings; the conception of the in-

dividual who acts independently of the world around them (Elias as cited in van Krieken,

1998). In lieu, Elias preferred the concept of Hominies Aperti; the image of man as an

open personality, who possesses different degrees of relative autonomy vis a vis other

people who are, indubitably oriented towards and dependent upon other people through-

out his life (Elias, 1978a). Therefore, contrary to Marxian ideology, Elias (as cited in van

Krieken, 1998) stated one must start thinking about the structure as a whole to understand

the form of individual parts, it is necessary to stop thinking in terms of single isolated sub-

7

stances, and to start thinking in terms of relationships and functions. Further, the credence

of previous Sociological theories including Marxism was questioned, as they were shot

through with all kinds of implicit value judgements and ideals (Elias, 1978b). Max Weber

(1864-1920), declared sociologists should suspend certain values in the pursuit of the

ideal of value freedom (Loyal & Quilley, 2004); whereas Marxists are constrained within

their research based upon their ideological beliefs, centered around the economy and

class struggle. Based upon this concept, Elias contrived his theory of Involvement and De-

tachment. The aim of Social Scientific analysis was to gain a credible knowledge about the

social world, with which to observe it from the outside with a measure of detachment. Elias

thus argued that sociological analysis is constantly fluctuating between these two poles of

involvement and detachment, between an articulation of the sociologist’s subjective experi-

ence of the world, and the attempt to transcend that experience in gaining and objective,

scientific perspective (van Krieken, 1998). The relationship between involvement and de-

tachment, according to Elias, should be seen as a dynamic tension balance embodied in

social activities (Loyal & Quilley, 2004). Thus, the concept of the figuration was created.

Elias argued that concepts of structure or function, the economy, or culture in the case of

Marxism, fail to acknowledge the fact that they are referring to particular figurations of peo-

ple (Elias, 1978b). Further, social life can only be understood if human beings were con-

ceptualized as interdependent rather than autonomous, characterized by socially and his-

torically specific forms of habitus, or personality structure (van Krieken, 1998). Therefore to

understand what sociology is about, one must be aware of oneself as a human being

among other human beings, and that one has to recognize that what are often conceptual-

ized as reified social forces, are infact nothing other than constraints exerted by people

over one another and themselves (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000).

Hegemony theory therefore, based upon Elias’ writings, has been reified whereas it is

8

nothing more than one class of people exerting their power over the subordinate classes.

The premise of the figuration is that people are interdependent upon each other, and the

course taken within social situations are based upon the actions of a group of interdepen-

dent individuals (Elias, 1978b). de Swaan, (2001, p.15) illustrated this point; “people it is

clear are dependent upon one another to survive, six basic conditions must be fulfilled, for

all of which people are reliant on others: food, shelter, protection, affection, knowledge and

self-control.” This process of interdependency and the interweaving of large numbers of

people continuously give rise to outcomes that no one has chosen and no one has de-

signed. Unintended, unplanned outcomes of this kind, which Elias stressed were normal

characteristics of social life, were called blind social processes (Elias, 1987). Additionally,

one of the main objectives of figurational sociology was to encourage sociologists to think

processually by always studying social relations as developing and incidental processes

(Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000). Elias thought it peremptory that figu-

rations were studied as interdependent factions in constant flux; to understand these figu-

rations a sociologist must understand their changing dispositions and how they are interre-

lated (Elias, 1978b). Unlike Marxists, who stress the importance of economic relations,

above all others, to social bonding, figurationalists suggest that the importance of eco-

nomic relations are likely to vary from one situation to another and that in some situations

political or emotional bonds may be more pertinent (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley &

Dunning, 2000). One of the central dimensions of figurations is power, Elias (1978b,

p.131) summarized

at the core of changing figurations - indeed the hub of the figurational process - is a

fluctuating, tensile equilibrium, a balance of power moving to and fro, inclining first

to one side then to the other. This kind of fluctuating balance of power is a structural

characteristic of the flow of every figuration.

9

This is true for both individuals exerting power over one another and groups within soci-

ety, power balances are not permanent, they are dynamic and constantly in flux

(Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000, ).

As with Marxism it is also necessary to discuss how figurational sociology can explain

sport. Horne and Jary, (1987) commented that the objective of a sociology of sport is now

widely recognized as the provision of a theoretically adequate, and historically grounded

analysis of the changing patterns of sport. There are several areas that have been ex-

plored with regards to sport; broadly speaking, it has been suggested that they fall into four

categories: early sportization processes and the control of violence; increasing serious-

ness of involvement and the growth of professional sport; football hooliganism; and the re-

lationship between globalization processes and sport. Coakley, (2009) has highlighted

three key characteristics to explain the four previously highlighted topics: The first of which

is the Culture at the time, this consists of the shared ways of life and shared understand-

ings that people develop as they live together. Secondly, Social interaction, this consists of

people taking into account, and in the process influencing, each other’s feelings, thoughts

and actions. Thirdly, Social structure, which consists of the established patterns of relation-

ships and social arrangements that take shape as people live, work and play with each

other. To put this in practical terms, a professional sport team is a social world, comprising

of players, coaching staff and team administrators (Coakley, 2009). Over time, a sports

team will create a particular culture or way of life that embodies the club. Everyone associ-

ated with that club will engage in social interaction, as they take into account one another

both on and off the field. In addition, the recurring actions, relationships and social ar-

rangements that become apparent represent the social structure of the team. The amalga-

mation of culture, social interaction and social structure constitutes the team as a social

world.

10

As with Marxism, Figurational sociology is not void of criticism within the academic world.

Firstly, Curtis (1986) suggests that Elias is merely suggesting some new terms for social

phenomena known previously under different labels. Horne and Jary, (1987) support this

argument, stating there is little difference between the concept of the figuration and the

more traditional sociological concepts of pattern and situation. Secondly, a general criti-

cism is the figurational approach relates to its alleged functionalism. The concept of human

figurations refers to the nexus of interdependencies between people, and the chain of

functions (Horne & Jary, 1987). Thirdly, Marxists Adorno and Horkheimer, who worked in

the Frankfurt School, emphatically rejected the idea of value freedom. They viewed value

freedom as a positivistic ideology in social science that excluded partisanship on behalf of

the underprivileged (Kilminster, as cited in Loyal & Quilley, 2004). Writers have also cri-

tiqued figurational sociologies contribution towards explaining the development of sport.

Stovkis, (as cited in Dunning & Rojek, 1992) commented on the limitations of Elias and

Dunning’s work on the development of sport, suggesting that too often they focus upon

matters of violence for an explanation. Further, Stovkis, (as cited in Dunning & Rojek,

1992) argued that areas such as the formal organization of sport and standardization, its

diffusion into national societies and throughout the world, and its professionalization and

commercialization, are more important areas for research that cannot be fully understood

using violence as a starting point. The final criticism of Figurational Sociology is that writ-

ers have neglected gender issues. Hargreaves, (as cited in Dunning & Rojek, 1992) ad-

duces that Elias when comprising The Civilizing Process, provides a paradigm for socio-

logical analysis that focuses on males experiences, marginalizes females and makes little

reference to gender relations. Compounding the problem of gender issues, Elias and oth-

ers authors who use the Figurational perspective as a framework for research, have fo-

11

cused on male sports or male bonding surrounding these sports (Hargreaves, as cited in

Dunning & Rojek, 1992).

As stated at the outset of this essay, the main objective is to examine the extent to which

two theories can help make sociological sense of sport. Explaining each Sociological the-

ory in a general context, will allow for a more competent, sociological analysis of a sporting

issue. Sport is probably the most universal aspect of popular culture, it crosses languages

and borders to captivate fans and performers, as both a professional business and a pas-

time (Miller, 2001). Therefore, it is appropriate to scrutinize the globalization of sport. “The

broad field of ‘global studies’ has mushroomed enormously since the mid-1980s, engen-

dering diverse transdisciplinary and transnational networks of scholars,” (Giulianotti &

Robertson, 2007). Further, globalization has established itself in the social sciences to

such an extent that it can can be considered the central thematic for social theory (Feath-

erstone & Lash, as cited in Houlihan, 2003). Before defining what globalization of sport

comprehends, it would be pragmatic to first define sport. Official matches and informal

games are important social phenomena, however, it is important for Sociologists to distin-

guish between them because they have few sociological similarities (Mindegaard, 2007;

Peterson, 2008 as cited in Coakley, 2009). According to Coakley, (2009, p.5) “sport is de-

fined as well established, officially governed competitive physical activities in which partici-

pants are motivated by internal and external rewards.” Globalization defined in broad

terms is the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of

commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around the world (Britannica Concise

Encyclopedia, 2006). In addition, Therefore, it would be reasonable to state that the global-

ization of sport is a process that has, to some extent, standardized everyday experiences

and culture throughout the sporting world. Further, many components of globalization are

common across sites, leading to the acknowledgment of certain governing laws, media

12

norms and economic tendencies (Miller, 2001). Based upon these predications globaliza-

tion in sport will first be examined from a Marxist/Neo-Marxist perspective and secondly a

Figurational perspective.

Marxism is heavily entrenched with the importance of economic ownership and the impact

class has upon society. Globalization will be answered from a Marxist/Neo-MArxist stand-

point, it should be stated that Hegemony theory has achieved intellectual dominion within

English and North American academia (Morgan, 1994). As such this template can be

transposed upon the sporting world, broadly speaking, the dominant class would impose

their sporting ideology upon the subordinate classes. This Historical process can be traced

back to the institutionalization of sport, as it was the bourgeoisie who graduated from pub-

lic schools in England, who decided upon codified rules of the sports in which they partici-

pated. Thus, imposing upon the predominantly working class of the mid nineteenth cen-

tury, what they believed were the correct laws with which sport should henceforth be gov-

erned. It is reasonable to speculate that the institutionalization of sport is a key starting

block for the professionalization and subsequent globalization of sport. To what extent can

Hegemony theory explain globalization of sport?

According to Guttmann, (1995) and Mangan, (1987) the globalization of sport ‘took off’

from the 1870s onwards, as the games revolution colonized british imperial outposts, the

pandemic game of football underwent mass dispersion; leading to the assumption that this

was the high point for setting in place the global governance of sport (Miller, 2001). During

this period, the British empire was the dominant world economic power, therefore, could

impose its ideological beliefs about sport upon subordinate societies whom it governed.

Creating a global brand of specific English past times, in particular the emergence of

cricket in Asia and Australasia and the inception of the first significant international tourna-

13

ment, the Ashes. Soccer gained its world governing body in 1904, with equivalents estab-

lished for cricket (1909), athletics (1912) and tennis (1913) (Horne, Tomlinson & Whannel,

1999). Miller, (2001) commented that what began as a cultural exchange based upon em-

pire turned into one based upon capital.

Global governance of sport created a financially lucrative opportunity for both the media

and those who directed sport. The origins of which can be traced to 1950‘s America,

where two millionaire businessmen, created eight franchises that comprised the American

football league (AFL). To turn this venture into an economic success, they subsequently

sold the television rights of the league to an American television Network (Smart,

2005).This concept accelerated at pace, by the mid 1980’s, the now National Football

League (NFL) had expanded significantly and received $430 million for transmission of

games on television (Eastman & Meyer, 1989, as cited in Smart, 2005). The successful re-

lationship that American professional football established with television is one that other

sports would consequently seek to emulate to increase their revenue (Smart, 2005). Fur-

ther, since the 1950’s, commercialization, professionalization, and the business orientated

tendency within the power bloc became hegemonic, as sport became firmly integrated into

national culture (Hargreaves, 1986). It is this manipulation by the mass media and the sub-

sequent development of sport as a commodity, cult of athletic stars and celebrity that has

lead to the degradation of sport (Morgan, 1994). Further, it has been argued from the left

that the ‘horrors of globalism’ are one more nail driven into the coffin of cultural nationalism

(Blake, 1995, as cited in Miller, 2001). Additionally, it has been suggested that the concept

of the national team will be superseded by the club ethos with which fans associate them-

selves (Maguire, 1994). No sport exudes this characteristic better than American football,

which is a franchise based sport, where a national team has never and continues not to

exist. It is reasonable therefore to suggest that American Football, has diffused into Ameri-

14

can and indeed world popular culture, over which a Bourgeoisie Hegemony has been

achieved. Thus, Globalization of sport manifests itself firstly, as an irrefutable economic

power, where sports stars are a ruthlessly exploited commodity, sold to the consumer for

financial gain (Darby, 2001; Dunning, 1999). Secondly, a world wide reinforcement of a

Bourgeoisie Hegemony, deigned to alienate the subordinate classes from a national cul-

ture or identity and exaggerates what Hargreaves, (1986) termed a divisive non-class

identity. To what extent can Figurational Sociology explain the Globalization of sport?

Figurationalism, unlike Marxism, will not necessarily perceive economic relations to be the

most important factor when explaining a sociological issue. As Murphy et al, (2000, ac

cited in Coakley & Dunning) stated, figurationalists suggest the importance of economic re-

lations may vary dependent upon the situation, political or emotional bonds may infact take

precedence. Further, sociologists who adopt figurationalism are encouraged to think pro-

cessually and not examine situations as static, isolated events (Murphy et al, as cited in

Coakley & Dunning, 2000). Therefore, when explaining the globalization of sport, it is im-

portant to examine the influence interdependent factors may have upon shaping this

process.

There several subsidiaries of globalizism, each of which offer a different theoretical expla-

nation of how the process has occurred, the method adopted in this case is termed West-

ernization/Americanization (Scholte, 2000). This concept reflects the interdependencies of

economic, political and cultural factors (Houlihan, 2003). Due to the limitations of this as-

signment, any figurational analysis will be based around the aforementioned factors. It

should be noted at this point that adopting a long-term perspective may yield many bene-

fits (Maguire, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000). Firstly, the element of culture is impor-

tant to consider, globalization of sport has lead to the conceptualization of cross-cultural

15

modernization of sport and leisure and the subsequent diminishing contrasts and increas-

ing varieties between sporting culture (Jarvie & Maguire, 1994; Maguire 1994). Diminishing

contrasts between nations has been affiliated with the media sport production complex,

which has achieved success in globally marketing virtually identical sporting products

(Maguire, 1993). Those who attempt to homogenize sport in the global market also strive

to promote difference, for example, the spread of Japanese martial arts to Britain (Jarvie &

Maguire, 1994; Maguire, 1994). Therefore, this process can be seen as being molded by

the interlocking processes of diminishing contrasts and increasing varieties (Murphy et al,

as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000). The the root of global marketing is the Capitalist na-

ture of Western civilisation, that is designed to boost economic productivity.

Economic significance is at the forefront of globalization, particularly in sport. Such is the

interconnection between economic power and sport, the countries who dominate the eco-

nomic world also have dominion in the sporting world (Houlihan, 2003). Literature draws

upon the commodification of sport, creation and management of global markets for sports

products and the increasing integration between the media and sports broadcasting (Houli-

han, 2003). Since the 1970‘s global economic factors have exacerbated the interdepen-

dence between commercial sports and the media (Coakley, 2009). The interdependence

between sport and the media is based around revenue streams and profit margins, with

sports organizations becoming increasingly business-like (Houlihan, 2003). Sport gener-

ates an identifiable audience that can be sold to capitalists seeking consumers for prod-

ucts and services, the media provide the vehicle with which to advertise those products to

captive audiences (Coakley, 2009). Consequently, sport and the media possess both a

constraining and enabling element in their ongoing interdependency. One of the central

themes of Commodification of sport, a subsiduary of globalization, is the trend that has

emerged over recent years towards to sport spectating. Stewart, (1987) suggests that this

16

process has lead to the degradation of sport, an argument supported by Moor, (2007). The

increasing value of spectator sport is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the rising cost

of television rights for the Olympic games. In 1960, the US television rights cost $231,000

in 2000 for the Sydney Olympics, the television rights cost $415m, an inflation of 18000%

(Park, Zanger & Quarterman, as cited in Houlihan, 2003). The shift towards spectator ori-

ented sport has, in part, transformed social geography marked by the growth of supra-terri-

torial forces (Scholte, 2000).

The social geography has been altered considerably, affecting both national identity and

culture globally, something Bale and Maguire, (as cited in Coakley and Dunning, 2000)

term time-space compression. Current history, of which sport is included, has witnesses a

proliferation of social connections, detached from a territorial logic (Scholte, 2000). Specta-

tor sport has contributed heavily to the emergence of this phenomena, satellite broadcast-

ing of sports events allows consumers to ‘be at’ any sport venue across the globe (Murphy

et al, as cited in Coakley and Dunning, 2000). This has a distinct effect upon sporting cul-

ture, as new varieties of sports subcultures emerge within existing national cultures. Politi-

cal factors have to be considered at this point, as both an enabling and constraining ele-

ment of cultural, economic and geographical factors.

The residual strength of national cultures and identities may undermine the integration of

regions on a political level (Jarvie & Maguire, 1994). To put this into context, the 1980 and

1984 Olympic games were held in Moscow and Los Angeles, respectively, with the US re-

fusing to attend the Moscow games and vice versa. This agenda was not conceived be-

cause of a cultural, economic or geographical difference but a political one. However, polit-

ical institutions can also be viewed as an enabling medium, the Adonino report (Report on

a People's Europe), (1985) highlighted a potential method for the creation of a European

17

cultural identity. There is evidence of a European cultural identity, with the creation of eu-

ropean flag and the Euro in circulation across Europe. Jarvie and Maguire, (1994) sup-

ported this argument, recognizing the creation of a European sports identity.

In conclusion, both Marxism and the Figurational approach offer an adequate interpreta-

tion of the globalization of sport, the methods they employ however are vastly different.

The strength of the Marxist argument is the irrefutable evidence that economic factors are

of critical significance in the globalization of sport. Sport has become a commodity, where

the performance of an athlete has become a product that is for sale to the consumer (Dun-

ning, 1999). Further, the bourgeoisie view of modern sport is that sporting organizations

should be run like a business, pursuing operational strategies designed to maximize profit

or revenue while being sensitive to the needs of the consumer (Houlihan, 2003). However,

the Marxist approach has its limitations in explaining the globalization of sport, as it cannot

highlight the significance of any other factors that may influence the globalization of sport.

The figurational approach will reject the idea of sport being reified, instead conceptualizing

that sport is a socially constructed activity, created by people who interact under the social,

political, economic and geographical conditions that exist in their society (Coakley & Pike,

2009). As such, the strength of the figurational approach offers a combination of these fac-

tors that determine the process globalization has taken and will continue to take. Power is

an important facet within the figurational approach, where more powerful and less con-

strained groups can privilege their preferred views of sport (Coakley & Pike, 2009). Within

globalization of modern sport, it would be reasonable to suggest that power is determined

by economic strength, as their is incontrovertible evidence that sport continues to become

more business like centered around generating a profit.

18

Therefore, both Sociological theories to the globalization of sport provide an adequate ex-

planation, modern sport is heavily contoured by the underlying economic desires of the

owning class within sport to generate capital. It should be noted however that all Sociologi-

cal theory cannot escape critique, Weber declared creating one Sociological theory to

comprehensively describe society and history is an enterprise that is assumed insurmount-

able (Roberts, 2009). Finally, a Sociologist should gain an understanding of multiple Socio-

logical theories, as the dominance of one Sociological theory over all others would be to

the detriment of Sociology and all Scientific development could come to a standstill

(Rigauer, 2000)

References

Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

19

Coakley, J. & Pike, E. (2009). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. Maidenhead,

United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.

Committee on a People Europe, (1985) Report on a People's Europe. Bulletin of the

European Economic Community, 3, 111-117.

Cuff, E.C., Sharrock, W.W., & Francis, D.W. (2006). Perspectives in Sociology. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Darby, P. (2001). Africa and Football’s global order. London, United KIngdom: Frank Cass.

de Swaan, A. (B. Jackson, Trans.) (2001). Human Societies an Introduction. Cambridge,

United Kingdom: Polity.

Dunning, E. (1999). Sport Matters: Sociological studies of sport, violence and civilization.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Elias, N. (E.Jephcott, Trans.) (1978a). The Civilizing Process, Vol. 1: The History of

Manners. Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell. (Original work published in

1939).

Elias, N. (1978b). What is Sociology? London, United Kingdom: Hutchinson.

Elias, N. (1987). Involvement and Detachment. Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2006). Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Revised and

Expanded Edition. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Engels, F. (E. Aveling, Trans.) (1970). Socialism Utopian and Scientific. Moscow, Russia:

Progress Publishers. (Original work published in 1880).

Giulianotti, R., & Robertson, R. (2007) Sport and globalization: transnational dimensions.

Global Networks, 7(2), 107-112. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00159.x

Gruneau, R.S. (1999). Class, sports, and social development. Champaign, IL : Human

Kinetics.

Guttmann, A. (1995). Games and empires. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

20

Hargreaves, J. (1986). Sport, Power and Culture: A Social and Historical Analysis of

Popular Sports in Britain. London, United Kingdom: Polity Press

Hargreaves, J. (1992). Sex, Gender and the body in sport and leisure: Has there been a

Civilizing Process? In E. Dunning, & C. Rojek (Ed.), Sport and Leisure in the

civilizing process: Critique and Counter critique (pp. 161-182). Basingstoke, United

Kingdom: Macmillan.

Horne, J., Jary, D., & Tomlinson, A. (1987). Sport, Leisure and Social Relations. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Horne, J., Tomlinson, A. & Whannel, G. (1999). Understanding Sport: An Introduction to

the Sociological and Cultural Analysis of Sport. London, United Kingdom: E & FN

Spon.

Houlihan, B. (2003). Sport & Society: A student Introduction. London, United Kingdom:

Sage.

Jarvie, G., & Maguire, J.A. (1994). Sport and Leisure in Social thought. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Joseph, J. (2006). Marxism and Social theory. New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan.

Loyal, S., & Quilley, S. (2004). The Sociology of Norbert Elias. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge.

Maguire, J. (1993). Globalization, sport development and the media-sport production

complex. Sport Sciences Review, 2, 29-47.

Maguire, J. (1994). Sport, Identity politics and globalization: Diminishing contrasts and in-

creasing varieties. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(4), 398-427.

Maguire, J. (2000). Sport and Globalization. In J. Coakley, & E. Dunning (Ed.), Handbook

of sports Studies (pp. 356-369). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Mangan, J. A. (1987). The games ethic and imperialism. London, United Kingdom: Viking.

Miller, T. (2001) Globalization and Sport. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

21

Moor, L. (2007). Sport and Commodification: A reflection on key concepts. Journal of sport

and Social issues, 31(2), 128-142.

Morgan, W.J. (1994). Leftist Theories of Sport. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Murphy, P., Sheard, K., & Waddington, I. (2000) Figurational Sociology and its application

to sport. In J. Coakley, & E. Dunning (Ed.), Handbook of sports Studies (pp.

92-105). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Perry, M. (2002). Marxism and History. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Rigauer, B. (2000). Marxist Theories. In J. Coakley, & E. Dunning (Ed.), Handbook of

sports Studies (pp. 28-47). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Roberts, K. (2009). Key concepts in Sociology. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Scholte, J.A. (2000). Globalization: A critical introduction. London, United Kingdom:

Macmillan Press.

Smart, B. (2005). The sport star: modern sport and the cultural economy of sporting

celebrity. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Stewart, J.J. (1987). The Commodification of Sport. International review of the Sociology

of Sport, 22(3), 171-192.

Stovkis, R. (1992). Sport and Civilization: Is violence the central problem? In E. Dunning, &

C. Rojek (Ed.), Sport and Leisure in the civilizing process: Critique and Counter

critique (pp. 121-136). Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Therborn, G. (2008). From Marxism to Post-Marxism? London, United Kingdom: Verso.

van Krieken, R. (1998). Norbert Elias. New York, NY: Routledge.

22