Re: Football's Magic Money Tree
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:07 am
The us a long and dense academic article fro, Simon Chadwick that effectively serves as a condensed overview of all the content I have posted from him on this thread - It argues that there is a an urgent need for a different approach to understanding sport and it's role,
From utilitarianism and neoclassical sport management to a new geopolitical economy of sport
Simon ChadwickORCID Icon
Received 24 May 2021, Accepted 18 Jan 2022, Published online: 11 Feb 2022
ABSTRACT
Research question
In a fast-changing world, this study poses a simple question: is it time to start looking at sport in a different way? Thus far, utilitarian and neoclassical economic thinking has dominated sport management scholarship; however, here it is asked: should scholars now be thinking in terms of a new geopolitical economy of sport?
Research methods
This is a commentary paper based upon pieces of literature drawn from sport management, geography, politics and economics.
Results and findings
The submission contends that scholarly activity in sport needs to be reoriented towards a new perspective – the geopolitical economy of sport. Whilst not dismissing the relevance of existing utilitarian or neoclassical perspectives, it is argued in this study that how scholars conventionally view sport must change to maintain the relevance of their research and scholarship.
Implications
In addition to exploring the implications of conceiving sport as a geopolitical economy, the following five areas are identified in which there are significant implications (hence further research is needed):
Sport as an outcome of geography;
Sport as a focus for soft power, diplomacy and trade;
Sport as a networked geopolitically economic activity;
Sport as the basis for achieving national competitive advantage;
Sport as a means of acquiring resources.
Introduction
The world today is encountering profound, epochal giga-changes, especially rapid developments in digital technology (Rindfleisch, 2020); globalisation and shifts in global economic power (Schulenkorf & Frawley, 2016); challenges to the established international political order (Balaam & Dillman, 2018); and environmental concerns and degradation of the natural environment (McCullough et al., 2020). The effects of these giga-changes can be observed in the ways that markets are functioning (Schutz, 2016), governments are creating policy (Fels et al., 2012), and consumers are living their lives (Jones et al., 2017). In turn, new types of organisations are emerging, new leadership and management practices are being established, and the orthodoxies of many industries are now being challenged. No human existence is being left untouched by a time that will be viewed in retrospect as one of the most important periods in human history (Simon, 2019).
These giga-changes inevitably impact sport, including how it is broadcast (Hutchins et al., 2019), who invests in it and why (Koba, 2021), and the convergence of sport with other sectors (such as entertainment) (Carter, 2010). As such, this paper contends that sport is now much changed and continuing to change, from, as we have known it over the last one hundred and fifty years. This renders impotent existing ways of theorising about and researching in sport, especially among those in the academic community who have identified themselves as working in ‘sport management’, over the last four decades,. This paper will highlight that such impotence is most commonly observed in work focused on global aspects of sport and elite professional sport. However, there have also been, for example, changes in sport consumer attitudes and behaviours, sport policies and industrial strategy in sport, and investments made in grassroots and amateur sports. It also extends to athletes, participants, fans and other human involvement in sport, all of whom are embedded within and reflect the contexts within which they are located. This necessitates that scholars and researchers, at the very least, broaden their view of what sport is, what it can achieve, and how it is deployed. Readers need to note that what is advocated here is essentially an ideological standpoint that challenges the prevailing ideological hegemony that is commonly observed in the sport management literature.
Established notions of sport management are thus increasingly challenged indeed one argues that they are no longer fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. This necessitates that how to conceive of sport better must be developed to better reflect our changing world. The main purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative view of sport, which will provide the platform upon which a new body of work can be built. Hence, the question underpinning this paper is, at one level: is it time to start looking at sport in a different way? At another level, a second question is posed: should scholars now be thinking in terms of a new geopolitical economy of sport?
Utilitarianism and sport
Although sport has been evident across human history, the foundations of the modern sport were established (Vamplew, 2017) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The origins and global popularity of football were forged during this time, the industrial revolution prompting the foundation of many clubs that remain popular today (Lanfranchi & Roach, 2017). This resulted in the formal codification of football, resulting in league structures and cup competitions being created (Collins, 2015). Ultimately, it led to the constitution of the Federation Internationale de Football Association in 1904, followed in 1930 by the staging of football’s first World Cup. Yet it was not just the development of football that characterised this period in sport’s history. The International Olympic Committee was set up in 1894, the first Tour de France was staged in 1903, and the inaugural Wimbledon tennis tournament was staged in 1877. Many of the teams, clubs, leagues, events and associated organisations from this period exist even today. It is also important to note that many of these entities were set up in Europe; indeed, countries, such as Switzerland, retain their global prominence, in this case as the location for many of world sport’s governing bodies. European sporting pre-eminence during this period reflected the continent’s economic and political influence. The industrial revolution emerged from technological developments in Germany, Italy and Great Britain. At the same time, others, including Spain, Belgium and Portugal, were building colonial empires. These expansionary acts were driven by geographic and strategic motives, which resulted in such countries establishing social and cultural influence. For example, in India – a former British colony – cricket has become embedded in the country’s psyche.
Sport, as many people worldwide now know it, which forms the basis upon which research in the field commonly referred to as ‘sport management’ is undertaken, emerged during this period. Papers published on events, such as the Olympic Games or football’s World Cup, and those that focus on competition design, governance and fandom, typically have their origins in the prevailing ideology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gold & Gold, 2011). This was a period during which utilitarian views of the world prevailed. The central tenet of this is that we should bring about a world in which every individual has the highest possible level of well-being. Alternatively stated, Bentham, Malthus and Mill see utilitarianism as entailing the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number (Cremaschi, 2004; Crimmins, 2017; Viner, 1949). At the heart of framing the world in this way is the notion that collectivism rather than individualism should underpin decisions and actions (Chandler, 1973). Health, lifestyle and community are fundamental to human activity (Crisp, 1992). One interpretation is that utilitarianism is concomitant with Christianity and muscularity (Parker & Watson, 2014), which emphasises the significance of citizenship, responsibility and physical fitness. Sports studies, such as sociology, policy and development, and history, appear to have their roots in the proselytising of utilitarianism. One could make the same claim about certain strands within the field of what subsequently became ‘sport management’. For instance, work emphasising matters pertaining to governance, corporate social responsibility, and notions of collective fandom, all have utilitarian DNA. There are even studies in contemporary sport management – such as Schneider (2010) - which explicitly reference the on-going significance of utilitarian views of sport. Whilst this provides some evidence of its continuing reach, utilitarianism’s European foundations must also be noted. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the continent’s significant influence in shaping modern sport was obvious. However, more than a century has passed since then, raising fundamental questions about the contemporary relevance of work built upon utilitarian principles. As the United States ascended and Europe’s economic and political power diminished, an alternative ideology emerged and ultimately began to dominate, whilst new technologies (perhaps most notably in sports broadcasting) were developed. This rendered utilitarianism impotent in explaining an ideology that came to emphasise individual, private interests and gain alongside the importance of business and profit.
Neoclassicism and sport
It was not until 1949 that the National Basketball Association merged with the Basketball Association of America and the National Basketball League to form what is now known as the NBA. Significantly, the competition was instigated, unlike clubs and leagues in Europe, to ensure financial viability and commercial success. Whilst the development of European sport had been socially democratic and largely unregulated, corporate involvement in US sport resulted in closed leagues, salary caps and a draft system is employed as a means through which to govern the sport and ensure financial sustainability. The US neoclassical model became firmly established by the middle part of the twentieth century. At the same time, the allied victory in World War 2 and subsequent post-war settlements (for example, Bretton Woods in 1944 and foundation of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation in 1948 – later to become the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) were instrumental in enabling a new world order in which liberal, free market capitalism came to the fore and began to impose itself globally. As business and markets flourished, a commercial focus developed across US sport, stimulating the growth of activities including sponsorships, merchandising, naming rights, and broadcasting deals. By the last quarter of the twentieth century, these activities had become so pervasive and such a powerful influence upon the global sport that teams, clubs, leagues, competitions and events across the world we’re operating in a way that has drawn heavily from the North American neoclassical model of the sport.
Whilst European economic and political influence endured through to the late twentieth century, the United States’ growing economic, political and ideological strength during the first quarter of the century was striking. The country’s growing influence became pervasive, driven by new technology, inventiveness, an entrepreneurial spirit and a strong business focus. This resulted in developments including radio, television and the mass production of motor vehicles. Such dynamism ultimately came to dominate world affairs for the remainder of the century, boosted by the country’s economic performance and political strength and the ultimate fall of communism in the 1990s. At that time, commentators observed how, in essence, capitalism and liberal Western ideology had triumphed (Macey & Miller, 1992). This supposed victory was instigated then sustained by adhering to neoclassical economic principles (Henry, 2012), which was founded upon classical economics (Aspromourgos, 1999). The classicism of this nature emerged from the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism and was centred upon the importance of production, trade and growth (Hennings & Samuels, 2012). In turn, income generation and its management became an inevitable outcome of their interconnections (Hunt, 2000). The twentieth century re-imagining classicism as neoclassicism emphasised the role that free market capitalism should play in making choices – economic, societal, environmental and otherwise (Bowles, 1991). Central to the effective operations of markets are buyers and sellers – demand and supply; and for markets to function effectively, perfect competition demands that they are unencumbered by regulatory interventions (Swanson, 2007). In such circumstances, proponents of this ideological stance argue that efficient resource allocation can only occur when it is driven by private interest (collective interests being thought to hinder and distort the functioning of markets) and rewarded by profit (Scapens, 1978). Capitalism promoted the development of business and changed patterns of industrial development across a multiplicity of sectors. It also prompted the rise of managerialism; for markets to function effectively, the production needed to be organised efficiently, whilst consumer demands needed to be anticipated, met or deliberately shaped by businesses and their managers (Epstein, 2007). Unlike utilitarianism, the development of neoclassicism was founded upon individual units of production and consumption – in essence, it is a micro-level discipline with macro-level considerations (such as the government) seen as it is of secondary importance.
The overwhelming majority of sport management research and publication with which many working in sport are now familiar was the result of this period in history. Studies in this field, no matter how they are conceived of or framed, betray their neoclassical origins. The oldest journals in sport management were largely instigated in North America. The Journal of Sport Management was established by American and Canadian scholars, who were prominent contributors to JSM when it was first established and later embraced by others – initially Europeans and Australians, then others worldwide. Neoclassical papers in sport management have typically focused upon topics ranging from sponsorship and public relations to financial accounting, fan engagement, managing consumer experiences and more. This subsequently spawned a profusion of journals, conferences and other publishing outlets in numerous countries, underpinning neoclassical principles that emphasised managerialism, commercialisation and industrialisation. The remnants of utilitarianism have doggedly remained attached to sport management research, especially in contexts such as studies of European football (see Parker et al., 2019, as an illustration of this), but the reality is that for half a century the sport management community has been labouring on behalf of neoclassical, capitalist ideology. This has served many scholars well, establishing and embedding the field as an important one at many different levels. University research centres academic journals (including European Sport Management Quarterly), conferences, and undergraduate and postgraduate programmes have flourished during the period. Not only has the scholarly community responded to the needs of neoclassical orthodoxy and ideology, it has also prepared students well for the world of neoclassical sport, and has firmly embedded itself as a legitimate member of the academic and industrial communities.
However, there is something distinctly late twentieth century about the established conceptualisation of sport management, as it continues under the illusion that the Western capitalist, free-market model remains the dominant global paradigm (in sport and more generally). Although advocates of sport management will point to the ever-proliferating number of publication outlets and the discipline’s ability to adapt and respond (for instance, explaining the digitalisation of sport), an argument could be that sport management is past its prime, and no longer adequately explains sport in the twenty-first century. Some who have prospered under sport management’s fifty-year dominance, especially those in certain geographic locations who believe that free, unfettered markets really exist (and are a good thing), will no doubt recoil from such an assessment, indeed they may feel affronted and even outright reject it. However, one seeks to clarify this statement in several ways. Piketty (2018) has questioned the assumptions about the essentialness and positive outcomes from the competition. The world has profoundly changed even in just the last twenty years; indeed advocates of a victory for capitalism observed in the 1990s by those such as Francis Fukuyama (2006) have been widely condemned as being wrong (for example, see Williams et al., 2016). Recent global change has challenged all aspects of the liberal order imposed upon global institutions by the West following World War 2; for instance, the rules-based order, which even in sport is being replaced by deals (Chomsky, 1999) and the emergence of new global institutions (Ikenberr, 2014).
To further illustrate one’s scepticism about sport management’s capacity to cope with the world’s new reality, the reader is asked to consider Russia’s Gazprom (Chadwick, 2015a). Its origins are as a Russian state-owned oil and gas producer, which in the early nineties was privatised under the programme of Perestroika (Rosner, 2006). For a while, oil and gas markets in the former Soviet Union were liberalised though once Vladimir Putin became president of Russia, Gazprom (as it is now known) was essentially renationalised and now serves the needs of the state. Subsequently, Gazprom became a sponsor of the UEFA Champions League (and the German Bundesliga’s FC Schalke 04); the corporation’s president Alexander Dyukov even sits on UEFA’s Executive Committee. Unlike other sponsors – such as McDonalds, Coca Cola or Mastercard – Gazprom’s relationship with UEFA is neither a B2C (business-to-consumer) nor a B2B (business-to-business) deal. Instead, it is best characterised as a G2G (government-to-government) deal, enabled by the diplomatic and networking opportunities that the Champions League matches (Chadwick, 2021). To some, this could seem trivial; however, it needs to be set in the context of United States sanctions against Gazprom amid warnings from Washington that Germany’s dependence upon Russian gas constitutes a major strategic threat to European security (Krickovic, 2015). Such is the network of economic, political and strategic factors within which Gazprom’s sponsorships are embedded (Jirušek & Kuchyňková, 2018) that the existing sport management literature (in this case, specifically in sponsorship) is ill-equipped to explain such contemporary developments.
A new geopolitical economy of sport
In observing sport during the first quarter of the twenty-first century, one can still see the contemporary intersection of utilitarianism and neoclassicism, that is of sport which is influenced by different ideologies and competing perspectives. For instance, during the early part of 2021, twelve European football clubs revealed proposals to break away from UEFA’s existing Champions League structure and its attendant system of governance by establishing a Super League (The Economist, 2021). The clubs’ motives were underpinned by the principles of free-market capitalism, whereby profitability is the ultimate arbiter of an organisation’s operations, indeed its existence. Nevertheless, the proposal caused a huge outcry amongst Europeans, particularly fans, who were driven by a sense of community and identity, underpinned by notions of history and heritage, and resentment about the ideological dominance of North America and its sport. Nevertheless, in this episode were some significant stakeholders. One of the clubs, Italy’s Internazionale of Milan, was then owned by a Chinese high street electrical retailer. Another, the English Premier League’s Chelsea, was owned by a Russian oligarch from Siberia. In a further instance, Manchester City of England was owned by an Abu Dhabi state investment vehicle which had used the club as the basis for opening multiple franchises across countries, including India, China and Japan. Rumours have circulated that the Super League itself was planning to use funding from Saudi Arabia to establish the league and award prize money to the participants. Elsewhere, the Chinese government has envisioned itself becoming the world’s largest domestic sport economy by 2025. Hence, the country has enacted policy and created a programme of investments that has embraced everything from event hosting and stadium construction to the acquisition of overseas sports assets and the development of new broadcasting services (Chadwick, 2015b).
On this basis (and in the context of the giga-changes noted above), this paper advocates the necessity for the sport community to change its utilitarian-neoclassical framing of sport. Moving forward from here, one contends that sport must be viewed and researched in terms of a geopolitical economy. To begin with, it is worthwhile deconstructing this notion into its constituent parts: geography, politics and economics. Geography, in broad terms, can be viewed as essentially being composed of two elements: human geography and physical geography (Goudie, 1986). Throughout this paper, repeated references have been made to countries, places and people, commonly associated with human geography (Marston et al., 2005). For this analysis, physical geography is conceived of as country features and natural resource endowments, and the environmental challenges the planet faces (which one might alternatively label ‘sustainability’) (Petersen et al., 2016). With globalisation, the rise of Asia and the democratising effects of digital technology, sport is facing new and intriguing human challenges – such as the sport and entertainment convergence we are witnessing worldwide (Carter, 2010). Yet the physical environment poses some equally interesting, at times urgent, challenges (not least environmental change and the need to eliminate carbon dependence). For instance, nations in the Gulf region (Qatar and Abu Dhabi being two notable examples) have sought to address their geographic insecurities by engaging natural resource endowments (specifically oil and gas deposits and their attendant revenues), which they have sought to achieve by investments in sport (Reiche, 2015). For example, three of the Gulf Cooperation Council members now host F1 Grand Prix, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates run professional cycling teams, and European football clubs, such as Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain, are owned by state entities from the region. Geography plays an important role across many aspects of the sport; as such, there is evidence of a growing interest in the role the discipline plays in examining sport at various levels (Ilieș et al., 2014).
Popular interpretations of politics are typically associated with how countries and areas are governed (Leftwich, 2015). Such interpretations are typically laden with notions of power, control and contesting (Barnett & Duvall, 2005), which are associated with the role that states, governments and private institutions play in battling for dominance (Migdal, 2018). Dominance can manifest in many ways, including over territories, resources, economic activity, narrative and discourse and, also sport (Sparke, 2004). There is an oft-stated view that politics and sport don’t mix; however, especially given the contemporary global environment, this is an impossibly naïve and simplistic view. Indeed, sport is increasingly being employed and deployed as a means to pursue other ends and assert power and achieve dominance in the sport itself (Burnett, 2001). Over the last decade, China has used a policy of stadium diplomacy in Africa to secure preferential access to natural resources (Dubinsky, 2021; Will, 2012). Initiated and led by the Chinese government, stadiums are gifted or funded through soft loans (provided at significantly below market interest rates). China’s goal is to secure the natural resources needed to sustain its long-term economic development. Equally, the United States government’s use of basketball diplomacy has become a feature of the international relations landscape in Africa, India and elsewhere in the world. Ideologically, one can also see that the geopolitical economy of the sport becoming manifest in human resources. For instance, how Colin Kaepernick, taking a knee and links to sponsorships have been enabled by and reflect Western values stands in stark contrast to how female tennis player Peng Shuai’s social media post about sexual indiscretions perpetrated by a state official were handled.
Contrary to popular opinion, the essence of economics is not about understanding how to make money; it focuses on the choices that people, organisations, governments and states all make (Backhouse & Medema, 2009). As such, economics examines how resources are allocated, and how production, distribution and consumption decisions are made (Cohen & Cyert, 1965). Fundamentally, economics consists of two strands: micro and macro. Microeconomics is associated with neoclassicism (through its analysis of individuals, households and firms) (Dopfer et al., 2004). Macroeconomics alternatively focuses on economic systems and how production, consumption, savings and investment interact. Therefore, it emphasises the importance of resource deployment and utilisation, economic growth, and the impact that public policy has upon economic systems and those entities that are actors within them. Macroeconomics is omnipotent; hence, this paper asserts that an understanding of work in this field will help the sport community better understand the industry, its challenges, and the decisions that need to be made. For instance, in Israel, the government seeks to establish the country as an important global hub for the development of sports technology, which, it anticipates, will help the country build competitive advantage and help generate productive capacity, employment, trade opportunities, fiscal benefits and political influence (Dubinsky, 2020). Another illustration of the economic importance of sport as an economic choice is evident among rentier states, which generate rents externally by manipulating global political and/or economic environments. Saudi Arabia is an example of a rentier state (Baumann, 2019). Its current sport investment programme is a conscious attempt to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependence by incentivising international sporting events to be staged in the kingdom (Chadwick & Widdop, 2018).
In combination, the elements of geography, politics and economy accentuate the importance of and interplay between territory, power and choices. As has been emphasised across this paper, this interplay is becoming pervasive in sport, demanding that scholarly analysis needs to move on from its increasingly misplaced obsession with neoclassicism. Further justification for such a shift is provided by an established body of work in geopolitics, which is centred upon the struggle over the control of geographical entities with an international and global dimensionand the use of such geographical entities for political advantage (Flint, 2016). Betraying economic dimensions of choice, geopolitics asks several key questions, including: How should countries interact with one another? How are countries made through the politics of nationalism? How is the geographical extent of countries defined? How do state and non-state actors operate through territorial and network strategies? How should state and non-state actors make decisions in the context of environmental changes? (Flint, 2016) Significantly, geopolitics advocates the need for network analyses as the basis for understanding geopolitical realities, something far removed from micro-level neoclassical approaches to understanding the world. Alongside the literature on geopolitics, there is extant literature in political economy, which addresses interactions between political and economic processes within society. In particular, the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and individuals and the processes that create, sustain and transform these relationships over time are seen as key challenges for the discipline (Woodley, 2015). Collinson (2003) highlights the challenge facing political economy, which addresses real-world problems in ways that emphasise the connections between economic problems, social structures and political processes. In particular, by answering the following questions: What is happening? Why? Who gains and who loses? Does it matter? And, if so, what can be done and by whom? In emergent work on the geopolitical economy, Desai (2013) identifies that it signifies the politico-economic actions of states, dominant and contender states, particularly at the international and global levels.
There is great resonance for sport in the twenty-first century among these questions. States, governments and related entities are engaged in using their geographies, resource endowments and politico-economic characteristics to build power and exert control within and out with sport (for instance, see Chadwick’s, 2019a, assessment of Japan’s pivot towards sport). This means that the desire to win on the field is increasingly paralleled by a desire to win off it. Equally, winning in sport and winning through sport is also connected. China’s government has stated that it wants the country to become a leading FIFA nation by 2050 (Chadwick, 2015c). Many observers have characterised this as an intention on China’s part to win the men’s World Cup, which is potentially beneficial to the nation in many ways. However, the country’s vision, when framed in geopolitical terms, can be interpreted in a different way. For instance, Chinese corporations are an increasingly dominant presence in FIFA’s portfolio of sponsors. Indeed, the FIFA president has publicly acknowledged the financial stability that money from China has brought to the organisation (Press Association, 2016). Strategically, this has created a resource-dependent relationship between FIFA and China, enabling the latter to exert a degree of power and control over the former. It seems likely that this will be used as the foundation for a future Chinese World Cup hosting bid and to promote the politico-economic benefits that the government in Beijing is seeking to derive from being a host.
Drawing from the analysis provided in this paper, it is proposed that a new field of research is established – the geopolitical economy of sport – which is defined as
The way in which nations, states and other entities engage in, with, or through sport for geographic and politico-economic reasons in order to build and exert power, and secure strategic advantages through the control of resources within and via networks of which sport is a constituent part.
The domain of sport’s geopolitical economy is all-pervasive, encompassing sport at all levels and impacting policy, strategy, governance, marketing. Furthermore, on matters pertaining to, for example, transgender athletes, decolonisation and racism, analysing such phenomena in terms of geopolitical economy is important. For instance, China has recently sought to suppress LGBTQ+ rights, in terms of event staging and event sponsorship, have significant consequences, especially for Western sponsors engaged in China, whilst promote brand values globally that emphasise a commitment to LGBTQ+ rights. It seems inevitable that some will point to, say, Saudi Arabia’s aspiration to become an established mega-event destination or Qatar’s ownership of multiple sport assets as embodying the essence of this paper’s central proposition. However, China’s funding of community sports facilities in Africa or Great Britain’s spending on grassroots sport in other countries is manifestation of sport’s geopolitical economy. It is also important for readers to note that although one proposes here that geopolitical economy should displace neoclassicism and utilitarianism as the dominant paradigm in sport research, this does not negate the significance of management, governance, strategy, organisational behaviour, leadership and so forth. Sport as a geopolitical economy still requires good management. However, rather than being guided by neoclassical principles, the contention here is that managers exist within the environment of,and engage in activity driven by inter-related considerations of geography, politics and economics.
Implications for sport research
It would be rather presumptuous to suggest that sport in the twenty-first century has become entirely and exclusively geopolitically economic. However, today’s world is one in which 19th and 20th hegemonies have dissipated, meaning they are, thus, far less dominant. Rival ideologies now gain traction, which means that decisions to engage in sport management research (or, for that matter, research ingeopolitical economy and sport) requires that scholars and researchers are fully conversant with their choices and the effects this may have in terms of generating insights into the phenomena are explored. For instance, sponsorship research as it has been undertaken in the existing sport management literature remains relevant in many twentieth century, Western settings. However, it is much less robust in accounting for the sponsorship practices displayed by the twenty-first century, state-owned entities engaging in it. One hopes this paper provides some impetus for the emergence of a new body of work, identified as the geopolitical economy of sport. However, for those who continue to self-identify as sport management scholars, it is important that they engage with, understand and embrace the causes and effects of the giga-changes mentioned in their work. To help illustrate: the Gulf region’s three largest airlines – Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways – are all state-owned and annually receive considerable state subsidies, partly because their goals are often non-commercial in nature. Yet each of them retains an extensive sport sponsorship portfolio, characterised by rights acquisitions made at above-market rates and funded by what some see as illegal state aid. The sport management literature does not have an armoury that will enable it to convincingly or effectively address the challenges this illustration poses for sport.
As for sport, human contesting, playing games and engaging in physical activities are part of our DNA, which manifest themselves in various ways, including how people self-identify, one’s sense of place and belonging, and a person’s attitudes towards health and well-being. As such, the framing of sport as utilitarian by sport management researchers will continue to be of some relevance. Indeed, the field will no doubt still prompt studies in a diversity of areas ranging from attitudes towards fitness to the reasons why sports fans engage with a team, club or franchise. Even in a range of specific twenty-first century contexts and cultures, the residue of utilitarianism will endure. It is worth noting that of fewer countries staging annual national sports days, all are in Asia (for example, in Iran and Malaysia). These territories, with systems and policies, have helped give rise to the arguments presented here that sport research needs to switch from a neoclassical perspective towards a more geopolitical view of the world.
Equally, it is not the purpose of this paper nor the intention of its author to herald the death of the neoclassical foundations upon which much of the contemporary sport management literature is built. A large proportion of the studies being submitted to and published by journals in the field remain firmly rooted in liberal, free-market ideology, with a clear focus on matters on management and business. This closely aligns with the positioning and content of many university sport programmes worldwide, especially in the West. Although it reflects the nature of some developments in contemporary sport, which continues to accentuate a market-driven, commercially focused framing of research and publication. Yet utilitarianism and neoclassicism face an ideological challenge. This paper stops short of making such assertions, the author preferring instead to see sport as being connected to society, culture and business, though as a part of much wider networks of interconnecting relationships. These include important dimensions of geography, politics and economic activity – the new geopolitical economy of sport as it is expressed here throughout. In this context, and as a result, researchers and scholars in the field of what is known as ‘sport management’ are challenged to reframe their understanding of sport in a way that accounts for globalisation, the rise of Asia, digital technology, the use of sport as a means through which to pursue supra national goals, and competing global ideologies. In general terms, this implies a need for sport researchers to relinquish their micro-level fixation with sport favouring a new, macro-level view of sport. For those who are unclear about the difference between the two, such differences can also be observed in disciplines such as economics where micro-level studies focus on individuals and firms whereas macro-level studies examine economies, countries and global trade. There is already evidence that researchers in the field are embracing the notions of inter-country competitiveness (De Bosscher et al., 2015) and the networked nature of global sport (Babiak et al., 2018). Yet the intention is for this paper to serve as a clarion call for work of this nature to be more widely embraced. A simplified view of this might be that sport management scholars need to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to their work. However, the geopolitical economy of sport demands that new world views are developedto develop an understanding of the connections between sport, music, fashion and politics (Chadwick & Widdop, 2021). There is also a need to bring business and management to politics, diplomacy and international relations (and vice versa).
More specifically (though not exhaustively), it is proposed that the following should provide a basis for those seeking to engage in research that can be labelled as sport’s geopolitical economy:
Sport as an outcome of geography
In examining literature pertaining to sport and geography, one is struck by the paucity of research connecting the two. This is surprising, as the sport is inextricably bound up with geography, whether in terms of consumption and production or notions of fandom, nationality and event staging. Some interesting developments take place in this field in environmental studies and sport, which have their origins in an understanding of geography (McCullough & Kellison, 2017). However, geography, as it is conceived of here, embodies fundamental elements of physical and human geographies. It is contended that each of these, separately and together, establish/es the parameters for sport in countries worldwide. Alternatively stated, sport is a response to the advantages and disadvantages faced by a country. To illustrate, consider the influx of investment into the global sport industry from the Gulf region over the last two decades. Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) are all endowed with significant oil and gas deposits, which has conferred significant wealth upon them. Accordingly, we have seen considerable investments being made by these nations in sports infrastructure, event hosting, team formation and overseas sports assets (from horse racing and powerboat racing to cycle teams and football clubs) (Chadwick, 2019b). Other geographies that underpin and help explain some countries’ prominent roles in sport are Britain’s island status, colonial ambitions and the consequent impact this has had upon world sports, such as cricket and rugby; and Japan’s strategic position in the Pacific, which led to the United States’ influence upon the country and the resultant popularisation of baseball. However, it is Qatar’s vulnerable geographic position and the way that the government in Doha has used sport as means by which to boost its profile, presence, legitimacy and security, whilst serving to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependence that epitomise the significance of geography for this paper (as background and to fully understand this point, it is recommended that readers familiarise themselves with Qatar’s position on a map) (Kamrava, 2015). Based on the above, the following research questions are presented as opportunities for further development of research in this sphere:
− In what ways does geography impact sport, and with what implications for organisations, leadership, management and decision-making?
− What geographic features of a country give rise to sport becoming an important element in a country’s policy, strategy and thinking in general?
− How will changes in the natural environment, notably climate change, shape and influence sport?
Sport as a focus for soft power, diplomacy and trade
Notions of soft power and diplomacy through sport have become ubiquitous over the last decade (the likes of Koch, 2018; Rofe, 2016), with the former term now routinely used in popular discourse about sport. For instance, Chinese sport policy since 2015 has sometimes been framed by some Western commentators as an exercise in soft power projection (Liu, 2020). Similar statements have also been made about countries like Saudi Arabia, which raises an interesting point for debate. Whilst the government in Riyadh is actively seeking to leverage the effects of soft power, some critics label this as sports washing – a means by which a country can deflect audiences’ attention away from less favourable perceptions of a country via a programme of investment in sport. The significant dearth of studies in sport examining sports washing is particularly notable, especially as many countries are accused without proof. Furthermore, views of sport washing appear to be culturally prescribed, with nations in the West using such conceptions as the basis for casting judgement upon countries that are sometimes ideologically and morally opposed to them. Nevertheless, if one examines rankings of soft power, it is clear that nations, such as Britain, France and Germany, have become particularly adept at boosting their global soft power through sport. France’s victory in the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final is even specified as a factor contributing to the country’s soft power ascent (Portland Communications, 2019). Soft power is sometimes viewed as somewhat nebulous and intangible, yet there is often a bottom-line underpinning it. Indeed, the British government uses sport to drive diplomatic and trade relationships, using football as the basis for constructing a British national brand. Inbound investment, overseas sales and the consequent economic benefits associated with them are at the heart of this (Chadwick, 2016). Diplomacy has long been part of the sport landscape, with ping-pong and basketball diplomacy being two obvious instances. More recently, China has used policies of the stadium and sponsorship diplomacy as the means through which to achieve many outcomes. One of these is influence over sports governing bodies, with sponsorship contracts seemingly being used to create a financial dependence, something then closely linked to the power and influence China has sought to exert inside these governing bodies. To further illustrate this point, it is worth noting the consequences that a military skirmish (in which numerous soldiers were killed) on the India/China border in mid-2020 had for Premier League cricket in India. At that time, the competition had several Chinese sponsors, which subsequently withdrew from their deals as diplomatic tensions rose and Indian consumer sentiment began to turn against the Chinese brands in question (Chadwick, 2020a; Chadwick et al., 2020). In the sport management literature to date, there has been no concerted attempt to build a sustained or coherent body of work focused on this convergence of geographic, economic and political matters. Overall, this paper, therefore, proposes another set of research questions for sport scholars to contemplate:
– How does the soft power role of sport impact its economic and political roles, and should the effects be measured?
− In extending existing studies of sport and diplomacy, where are the opportunities to position the role of diplomacy as being an economic, industrial and commercial phenomenon?
− What role does sport play in international trade, and what are the consequences of changes in the global trade environment for the geopolitical economy of sport?
Sport as a networked geopolitically economic activity
In literature pertaining to networks, sport has appeared regularly, including in studies of sponsorship (such as Chanavat et al., 2016), and digital technology (like Naraine, 2019). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that a section of sport’s scholarly community is familiar with network-based research. Existing research seems to be largely located within domestic or micro-level contexts, with little attention paid to the transnational or global reach of such networks. Furthermore, network studies in sport have typically been unidimensional in nature, focusing on exchanges between dyads and nodes in these networks (for example, sponsor and sponsee). The world is, however, much more complex than existing network studies acknowledge or embrace which, during a time of international financial flows, transnational resource exchanges and globalised sport, means that it has been somewhat remiss of sport researchers not to have developed more elaborate studies in this sphere. Perhaps the embodiment of twenty-first century networked sport, City Football Group now owns or licences its name to football clubs in a double-digit number of territories. At one level, this network is intended to enable the timely identification, acquisition, development and disposal of playing talent and other human resources. At another level, CFG’s network enables the organisation’s Abu Dhabi state owners to engage in geopolitical and economic relationships. In one instance, CFG acquired a franchise club in Chengdu, China, which served as the basis for enhancing the state airline’s (Etihad) presence in East Asia (where Chengdu Airport is an important transit hub for the airline). At the same time, CFG’s ownership brings together organisations from China (China Media Capital) and the United States (Silver Lake) that have served to further the strategic interests of the organisation’s owners from the small Gulf State. In another instance, CFG acquired an Indian franchise club in Mumbai, not uncoincidentally the home of India’s film industry – commonly referred to as Bollywood at the same time as Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund (Mubadala) acquired a stake in a tech company, Reliance Jio, which is headquartered in Mumbai. Almost simultaneously, Silver Lake also purchased a stake in Reliance Jio, creating a network of interconnected investments linking the sport, entertainment and the digital technology sectors, and the strategic interests of an oil and gas-dependent Gulf state, private equity investment from the United States, and investments drawn from opaque Chinese sources (Chadwick, 2020b). The dense, transnational and scale of such networks, of which this is only one example, poses the following questions for researchers:
− What is the nature, characteristics and scale of the networks that underpin global sport, and how should these be visualised and explained?
− What factors determine the nature, size and shape of networks, and what significance do these factors have for sport on-the-field and off it?
− Do different types of such networks in sport exist, and what does this mean for researching sport and for leading and managing within the sport?
Sport as the basis for achieving national and geopolitical competitive advantage
Sport and national competitive advantages have commonly and historically been framed in understanding how countries can secure an on-field advantage. Indeed, pieces of literature on managing performance and, more recently, on areas such as athlete analytics form the basis for understanding how to build the athletic, competitive advantage of nations. However, as Porter (2011) indicates, competitive advantage in sport can also be built off-field. In one sense, this remains a distinctly neoclassical notion, as annual league tables (published by outlets such as Forbes) of financial performance and brand value highlight. Nevertheless, the politico-economic impacts a country’s team, club, league and event successes can have should not be underestimated; after all, the National Basketball Association, English Premier League and Ferrari Formula One team are all acknowledged as having soft power and nation branding effects for their respective countries (Freeman, 2012). However, in the way that countries envision sport, the policies and strategies they pursue, and the outcomes they seek broader, contemporary notions of national competitive advantage in sport need to be established. For instance, esports, countries, including South Korea and Denmark, have implemented state policies to establish themselves as global leaders in this fast-emerging industrial sector (Chadwick, 2020c). Similarly, Saudi Arabian government policy is currently focused upon positioning the country as a sport event destination, which is particularly manifesting itself in motorsport and combat sports. Similarly, reports published by the English Premier League in conjunction with consulting business EY (2019) highlight the importance of the competitive advantage built through football. In this context, the following questions are proposed as the basis for stimulating contributions to the geopolitical economy:
− In geographic, political and economic terms, what constitutes national competitive advantage?
− On what basis can a national competitive advantage in sport be created and sustained?
− What challenges does establishing a national competitive advantage in sport pose for leaders, managers, and other decision-makers?
Sport as a means of acquiring resources
Two perspectives have had the potential to contribute to the development of sport management research, although neither has attracted the sustained attention of researchers. These perspectives are resource-based theory and the competitive advantage of nations (a notion addressed above). Resource-based theory (for example, see Franco & Haase, 2017) addresses how valuable, rare resources, which cannot be imitated and substituted, can be acquired and deployed in ways that enable firms to achieve superior performance and establish a competitive advantage. The competitive advantage of nations (Porter, 2011) asserts that national prosperity is created, not inherited, concluding that nations have become more, not less, important. This perspective emphasises the importance of national values, culture, economic structures, political institutions, and histories, highlighting that successful countries are forward-looking and dynamic. However, neither of these two perspectives has ever gained traction in the collective imagination of sport researchers, even though both could have helped explain the strength of nations and businesses engaged in sport. In sport’s geopolitical economy, the relevance of both may nevertheless become more apparent and potentially more pressing. In traditional economic terms, there are essentially four types of resource: land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. Identifying, acquiring and deploying resources are fundamental to economic systems, countries, governments, businesses and other organisations (Le Billon, 2017). Whether it is sporting success or other types of sporting performance success, such as employment creation or generation of export earnings, building strategic and competitive advantage in and through sport is increasingly important. Several nations are engaged in athlete harvesting (otherwise sometimes referred to as athlete naturalisation), one being Qatar, as the basis for populating and enhancing their national teams. With this in mind, a final set of research questions is offered for researchers to reflect upon:
− To what extent can resource theories and/or theories of national competitive advantage be utilised as the basis for understanding sport’s twenty-first century geopolitical economy?
− What issues and challenges do the transnational acquisition and deployment of resources pose for global sport?
− Given the role being played by states in acquiring resources in or through sport, what are the ramifications of this for the likes of clubs, sponsors, naming rights partners and other commercial organisations?
Conclusions
The world, and more specifically sport, in the twenty-first century, is encountering profound changes, which will shape human existence for at least the next fifty years if not to the end of the century. Global economic and political shifts are challenging the established Western order, power has begun to move beyond centres such as New York and London to Mumbai, Riyadh and Beijing. Other nations are also growing and becoming increasingly influential; Nigeria is now labelled as Africa’s first superpower, whilst Indonesia will soon become the world’s fifth-largest economy. With such shifts have come a challenge in prevailing ideologies, systems of government and institutions, and the rules-based order established by Western nations after the Second World War. At the same time, a digital revolution is building global interconnectivity while creating new production and consumption opportunities. After two decades of this revolution, digital technology has given globalisation a boost and driven some profound changes to economic systems, political relationships and how individuals, organisations and states engage with one another. The ever-present dangers of climate change and environmental degradation must not be forgotten either. Measures to address these problems will inevitably have to be collaborative and consensual, implying that networks, of which sport is part, will need to be engaged. Gone are the days of the zero environmental cost production and consumption models of sport, something that the new geopolitical economy of sport proposed here actually addresses. It is also worth remembering that the wealth of countries like Qatar is threatened by the pivot away from carbon fuels, which has prompted investments in sport as such countries look to diversify their economies.
With the world thus having changed significantly since the emergence of research and publication in sport management, academia needs to respond with some alacrity. The utilitarian and neoclassical foundations of studies in sport management are not dismissed here as now being outdated; indeed the extensive body of knowledge built over the last four decades will continue to form the basis for researchers and others to understand micro-level phenomena in sport. However, with the advent of a new geopolitical economy of sport, sport management needs to reposition, refocus, rename and move on from its European and North American origins. This is not meant to imply that an Asian conception of sport will necessarily come to dominate the field in coming years. Rather, one of this paper’s main takeaways is that global sport in its entirety is, to a greater or lesser extent, now impacted by the geopolitical economy – this is not about the disintegration of one country or ideology and the rise of another. However, it does necessitate that scholars, researchers and others in the field of sport should change how they see a discipline that has thus far broadly been framed as ‘sport management’. Issues and questions pertaining to the geopolitical economy of sport have been proposed in this paper, and one anticipates that further questions will emerge as a sport (and our understanding of it) develops in the second quarter of the twenty-first century. At the same time, in posing then answering such questions, scholars will also need to address how programmes of study are created and delivered. This is vital if students and future researchers are to be appropriately and robustly prepared for a new way of looking at sport and the environments in which they will be working. Whilst some people may feel threatened or disconcerted by the profound changes our sport community is now facing, one prefers to see this period as one of the most exciting in the field’s history. It allows the discipline to extend and move on from its origins and old certainties into new ways of seeing the world. Sport management – in neoclassical and utilitarian forms – is not dead although a new life is being breathed into our community and its work by a new geopolitical economy of sport.
From utilitarianism and neoclassical sport management to a new geopolitical economy of sport
Simon ChadwickORCID Icon
Received 24 May 2021, Accepted 18 Jan 2022, Published online: 11 Feb 2022
ABSTRACT
Research question
In a fast-changing world, this study poses a simple question: is it time to start looking at sport in a different way? Thus far, utilitarian and neoclassical economic thinking has dominated sport management scholarship; however, here it is asked: should scholars now be thinking in terms of a new geopolitical economy of sport?
Research methods
This is a commentary paper based upon pieces of literature drawn from sport management, geography, politics and economics.
Results and findings
The submission contends that scholarly activity in sport needs to be reoriented towards a new perspective – the geopolitical economy of sport. Whilst not dismissing the relevance of existing utilitarian or neoclassical perspectives, it is argued in this study that how scholars conventionally view sport must change to maintain the relevance of their research and scholarship.
Implications
In addition to exploring the implications of conceiving sport as a geopolitical economy, the following five areas are identified in which there are significant implications (hence further research is needed):
Sport as an outcome of geography;
Sport as a focus for soft power, diplomacy and trade;
Sport as a networked geopolitically economic activity;
Sport as the basis for achieving national competitive advantage;
Sport as a means of acquiring resources.
Introduction
The world today is encountering profound, epochal giga-changes, especially rapid developments in digital technology (Rindfleisch, 2020); globalisation and shifts in global economic power (Schulenkorf & Frawley, 2016); challenges to the established international political order (Balaam & Dillman, 2018); and environmental concerns and degradation of the natural environment (McCullough et al., 2020). The effects of these giga-changes can be observed in the ways that markets are functioning (Schutz, 2016), governments are creating policy (Fels et al., 2012), and consumers are living their lives (Jones et al., 2017). In turn, new types of organisations are emerging, new leadership and management practices are being established, and the orthodoxies of many industries are now being challenged. No human existence is being left untouched by a time that will be viewed in retrospect as one of the most important periods in human history (Simon, 2019).
These giga-changes inevitably impact sport, including how it is broadcast (Hutchins et al., 2019), who invests in it and why (Koba, 2021), and the convergence of sport with other sectors (such as entertainment) (Carter, 2010). As such, this paper contends that sport is now much changed and continuing to change, from, as we have known it over the last one hundred and fifty years. This renders impotent existing ways of theorising about and researching in sport, especially among those in the academic community who have identified themselves as working in ‘sport management’, over the last four decades,. This paper will highlight that such impotence is most commonly observed in work focused on global aspects of sport and elite professional sport. However, there have also been, for example, changes in sport consumer attitudes and behaviours, sport policies and industrial strategy in sport, and investments made in grassroots and amateur sports. It also extends to athletes, participants, fans and other human involvement in sport, all of whom are embedded within and reflect the contexts within which they are located. This necessitates that scholars and researchers, at the very least, broaden their view of what sport is, what it can achieve, and how it is deployed. Readers need to note that what is advocated here is essentially an ideological standpoint that challenges the prevailing ideological hegemony that is commonly observed in the sport management literature.
Established notions of sport management are thus increasingly challenged indeed one argues that they are no longer fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. This necessitates that how to conceive of sport better must be developed to better reflect our changing world. The main purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative view of sport, which will provide the platform upon which a new body of work can be built. Hence, the question underpinning this paper is, at one level: is it time to start looking at sport in a different way? At another level, a second question is posed: should scholars now be thinking in terms of a new geopolitical economy of sport?
Utilitarianism and sport
Although sport has been evident across human history, the foundations of the modern sport were established (Vamplew, 2017) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The origins and global popularity of football were forged during this time, the industrial revolution prompting the foundation of many clubs that remain popular today (Lanfranchi & Roach, 2017). This resulted in the formal codification of football, resulting in league structures and cup competitions being created (Collins, 2015). Ultimately, it led to the constitution of the Federation Internationale de Football Association in 1904, followed in 1930 by the staging of football’s first World Cup. Yet it was not just the development of football that characterised this period in sport’s history. The International Olympic Committee was set up in 1894, the first Tour de France was staged in 1903, and the inaugural Wimbledon tennis tournament was staged in 1877. Many of the teams, clubs, leagues, events and associated organisations from this period exist even today. It is also important to note that many of these entities were set up in Europe; indeed, countries, such as Switzerland, retain their global prominence, in this case as the location for many of world sport’s governing bodies. European sporting pre-eminence during this period reflected the continent’s economic and political influence. The industrial revolution emerged from technological developments in Germany, Italy and Great Britain. At the same time, others, including Spain, Belgium and Portugal, were building colonial empires. These expansionary acts were driven by geographic and strategic motives, which resulted in such countries establishing social and cultural influence. For example, in India – a former British colony – cricket has become embedded in the country’s psyche.
Sport, as many people worldwide now know it, which forms the basis upon which research in the field commonly referred to as ‘sport management’ is undertaken, emerged during this period. Papers published on events, such as the Olympic Games or football’s World Cup, and those that focus on competition design, governance and fandom, typically have their origins in the prevailing ideology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gold & Gold, 2011). This was a period during which utilitarian views of the world prevailed. The central tenet of this is that we should bring about a world in which every individual has the highest possible level of well-being. Alternatively stated, Bentham, Malthus and Mill see utilitarianism as entailing the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number (Cremaschi, 2004; Crimmins, 2017; Viner, 1949). At the heart of framing the world in this way is the notion that collectivism rather than individualism should underpin decisions and actions (Chandler, 1973). Health, lifestyle and community are fundamental to human activity (Crisp, 1992). One interpretation is that utilitarianism is concomitant with Christianity and muscularity (Parker & Watson, 2014), which emphasises the significance of citizenship, responsibility and physical fitness. Sports studies, such as sociology, policy and development, and history, appear to have their roots in the proselytising of utilitarianism. One could make the same claim about certain strands within the field of what subsequently became ‘sport management’. For instance, work emphasising matters pertaining to governance, corporate social responsibility, and notions of collective fandom, all have utilitarian DNA. There are even studies in contemporary sport management – such as Schneider (2010) - which explicitly reference the on-going significance of utilitarian views of sport. Whilst this provides some evidence of its continuing reach, utilitarianism’s European foundations must also be noted. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the continent’s significant influence in shaping modern sport was obvious. However, more than a century has passed since then, raising fundamental questions about the contemporary relevance of work built upon utilitarian principles. As the United States ascended and Europe’s economic and political power diminished, an alternative ideology emerged and ultimately began to dominate, whilst new technologies (perhaps most notably in sports broadcasting) were developed. This rendered utilitarianism impotent in explaining an ideology that came to emphasise individual, private interests and gain alongside the importance of business and profit.
Neoclassicism and sport
It was not until 1949 that the National Basketball Association merged with the Basketball Association of America and the National Basketball League to form what is now known as the NBA. Significantly, the competition was instigated, unlike clubs and leagues in Europe, to ensure financial viability and commercial success. Whilst the development of European sport had been socially democratic and largely unregulated, corporate involvement in US sport resulted in closed leagues, salary caps and a draft system is employed as a means through which to govern the sport and ensure financial sustainability. The US neoclassical model became firmly established by the middle part of the twentieth century. At the same time, the allied victory in World War 2 and subsequent post-war settlements (for example, Bretton Woods in 1944 and foundation of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation in 1948 – later to become the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) were instrumental in enabling a new world order in which liberal, free market capitalism came to the fore and began to impose itself globally. As business and markets flourished, a commercial focus developed across US sport, stimulating the growth of activities including sponsorships, merchandising, naming rights, and broadcasting deals. By the last quarter of the twentieth century, these activities had become so pervasive and such a powerful influence upon the global sport that teams, clubs, leagues, competitions and events across the world we’re operating in a way that has drawn heavily from the North American neoclassical model of the sport.
Whilst European economic and political influence endured through to the late twentieth century, the United States’ growing economic, political and ideological strength during the first quarter of the century was striking. The country’s growing influence became pervasive, driven by new technology, inventiveness, an entrepreneurial spirit and a strong business focus. This resulted in developments including radio, television and the mass production of motor vehicles. Such dynamism ultimately came to dominate world affairs for the remainder of the century, boosted by the country’s economic performance and political strength and the ultimate fall of communism in the 1990s. At that time, commentators observed how, in essence, capitalism and liberal Western ideology had triumphed (Macey & Miller, 1992). This supposed victory was instigated then sustained by adhering to neoclassical economic principles (Henry, 2012), which was founded upon classical economics (Aspromourgos, 1999). The classicism of this nature emerged from the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism and was centred upon the importance of production, trade and growth (Hennings & Samuels, 2012). In turn, income generation and its management became an inevitable outcome of their interconnections (Hunt, 2000). The twentieth century re-imagining classicism as neoclassicism emphasised the role that free market capitalism should play in making choices – economic, societal, environmental and otherwise (Bowles, 1991). Central to the effective operations of markets are buyers and sellers – demand and supply; and for markets to function effectively, perfect competition demands that they are unencumbered by regulatory interventions (Swanson, 2007). In such circumstances, proponents of this ideological stance argue that efficient resource allocation can only occur when it is driven by private interest (collective interests being thought to hinder and distort the functioning of markets) and rewarded by profit (Scapens, 1978). Capitalism promoted the development of business and changed patterns of industrial development across a multiplicity of sectors. It also prompted the rise of managerialism; for markets to function effectively, the production needed to be organised efficiently, whilst consumer demands needed to be anticipated, met or deliberately shaped by businesses and their managers (Epstein, 2007). Unlike utilitarianism, the development of neoclassicism was founded upon individual units of production and consumption – in essence, it is a micro-level discipline with macro-level considerations (such as the government) seen as it is of secondary importance.
The overwhelming majority of sport management research and publication with which many working in sport are now familiar was the result of this period in history. Studies in this field, no matter how they are conceived of or framed, betray their neoclassical origins. The oldest journals in sport management were largely instigated in North America. The Journal of Sport Management was established by American and Canadian scholars, who were prominent contributors to JSM when it was first established and later embraced by others – initially Europeans and Australians, then others worldwide. Neoclassical papers in sport management have typically focused upon topics ranging from sponsorship and public relations to financial accounting, fan engagement, managing consumer experiences and more. This subsequently spawned a profusion of journals, conferences and other publishing outlets in numerous countries, underpinning neoclassical principles that emphasised managerialism, commercialisation and industrialisation. The remnants of utilitarianism have doggedly remained attached to sport management research, especially in contexts such as studies of European football (see Parker et al., 2019, as an illustration of this), but the reality is that for half a century the sport management community has been labouring on behalf of neoclassical, capitalist ideology. This has served many scholars well, establishing and embedding the field as an important one at many different levels. University research centres academic journals (including European Sport Management Quarterly), conferences, and undergraduate and postgraduate programmes have flourished during the period. Not only has the scholarly community responded to the needs of neoclassical orthodoxy and ideology, it has also prepared students well for the world of neoclassical sport, and has firmly embedded itself as a legitimate member of the academic and industrial communities.
However, there is something distinctly late twentieth century about the established conceptualisation of sport management, as it continues under the illusion that the Western capitalist, free-market model remains the dominant global paradigm (in sport and more generally). Although advocates of sport management will point to the ever-proliferating number of publication outlets and the discipline’s ability to adapt and respond (for instance, explaining the digitalisation of sport), an argument could be that sport management is past its prime, and no longer adequately explains sport in the twenty-first century. Some who have prospered under sport management’s fifty-year dominance, especially those in certain geographic locations who believe that free, unfettered markets really exist (and are a good thing), will no doubt recoil from such an assessment, indeed they may feel affronted and even outright reject it. However, one seeks to clarify this statement in several ways. Piketty (2018) has questioned the assumptions about the essentialness and positive outcomes from the competition. The world has profoundly changed even in just the last twenty years; indeed advocates of a victory for capitalism observed in the 1990s by those such as Francis Fukuyama (2006) have been widely condemned as being wrong (for example, see Williams et al., 2016). Recent global change has challenged all aspects of the liberal order imposed upon global institutions by the West following World War 2; for instance, the rules-based order, which even in sport is being replaced by deals (Chomsky, 1999) and the emergence of new global institutions (Ikenberr, 2014).
To further illustrate one’s scepticism about sport management’s capacity to cope with the world’s new reality, the reader is asked to consider Russia’s Gazprom (Chadwick, 2015a). Its origins are as a Russian state-owned oil and gas producer, which in the early nineties was privatised under the programme of Perestroika (Rosner, 2006). For a while, oil and gas markets in the former Soviet Union were liberalised though once Vladimir Putin became president of Russia, Gazprom (as it is now known) was essentially renationalised and now serves the needs of the state. Subsequently, Gazprom became a sponsor of the UEFA Champions League (and the German Bundesliga’s FC Schalke 04); the corporation’s president Alexander Dyukov even sits on UEFA’s Executive Committee. Unlike other sponsors – such as McDonalds, Coca Cola or Mastercard – Gazprom’s relationship with UEFA is neither a B2C (business-to-consumer) nor a B2B (business-to-business) deal. Instead, it is best characterised as a G2G (government-to-government) deal, enabled by the diplomatic and networking opportunities that the Champions League matches (Chadwick, 2021). To some, this could seem trivial; however, it needs to be set in the context of United States sanctions against Gazprom amid warnings from Washington that Germany’s dependence upon Russian gas constitutes a major strategic threat to European security (Krickovic, 2015). Such is the network of economic, political and strategic factors within which Gazprom’s sponsorships are embedded (Jirušek & Kuchyňková, 2018) that the existing sport management literature (in this case, specifically in sponsorship) is ill-equipped to explain such contemporary developments.
A new geopolitical economy of sport
In observing sport during the first quarter of the twenty-first century, one can still see the contemporary intersection of utilitarianism and neoclassicism, that is of sport which is influenced by different ideologies and competing perspectives. For instance, during the early part of 2021, twelve European football clubs revealed proposals to break away from UEFA’s existing Champions League structure and its attendant system of governance by establishing a Super League (The Economist, 2021). The clubs’ motives were underpinned by the principles of free-market capitalism, whereby profitability is the ultimate arbiter of an organisation’s operations, indeed its existence. Nevertheless, the proposal caused a huge outcry amongst Europeans, particularly fans, who were driven by a sense of community and identity, underpinned by notions of history and heritage, and resentment about the ideological dominance of North America and its sport. Nevertheless, in this episode were some significant stakeholders. One of the clubs, Italy’s Internazionale of Milan, was then owned by a Chinese high street electrical retailer. Another, the English Premier League’s Chelsea, was owned by a Russian oligarch from Siberia. In a further instance, Manchester City of England was owned by an Abu Dhabi state investment vehicle which had used the club as the basis for opening multiple franchises across countries, including India, China and Japan. Rumours have circulated that the Super League itself was planning to use funding from Saudi Arabia to establish the league and award prize money to the participants. Elsewhere, the Chinese government has envisioned itself becoming the world’s largest domestic sport economy by 2025. Hence, the country has enacted policy and created a programme of investments that has embraced everything from event hosting and stadium construction to the acquisition of overseas sports assets and the development of new broadcasting services (Chadwick, 2015b).
On this basis (and in the context of the giga-changes noted above), this paper advocates the necessity for the sport community to change its utilitarian-neoclassical framing of sport. Moving forward from here, one contends that sport must be viewed and researched in terms of a geopolitical economy. To begin with, it is worthwhile deconstructing this notion into its constituent parts: geography, politics and economics. Geography, in broad terms, can be viewed as essentially being composed of two elements: human geography and physical geography (Goudie, 1986). Throughout this paper, repeated references have been made to countries, places and people, commonly associated with human geography (Marston et al., 2005). For this analysis, physical geography is conceived of as country features and natural resource endowments, and the environmental challenges the planet faces (which one might alternatively label ‘sustainability’) (Petersen et al., 2016). With globalisation, the rise of Asia and the democratising effects of digital technology, sport is facing new and intriguing human challenges – such as the sport and entertainment convergence we are witnessing worldwide (Carter, 2010). Yet the physical environment poses some equally interesting, at times urgent, challenges (not least environmental change and the need to eliminate carbon dependence). For instance, nations in the Gulf region (Qatar and Abu Dhabi being two notable examples) have sought to address their geographic insecurities by engaging natural resource endowments (specifically oil and gas deposits and their attendant revenues), which they have sought to achieve by investments in sport (Reiche, 2015). For example, three of the Gulf Cooperation Council members now host F1 Grand Prix, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates run professional cycling teams, and European football clubs, such as Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain, are owned by state entities from the region. Geography plays an important role across many aspects of the sport; as such, there is evidence of a growing interest in the role the discipline plays in examining sport at various levels (Ilieș et al., 2014).
Popular interpretations of politics are typically associated with how countries and areas are governed (Leftwich, 2015). Such interpretations are typically laden with notions of power, control and contesting (Barnett & Duvall, 2005), which are associated with the role that states, governments and private institutions play in battling for dominance (Migdal, 2018). Dominance can manifest in many ways, including over territories, resources, economic activity, narrative and discourse and, also sport (Sparke, 2004). There is an oft-stated view that politics and sport don’t mix; however, especially given the contemporary global environment, this is an impossibly naïve and simplistic view. Indeed, sport is increasingly being employed and deployed as a means to pursue other ends and assert power and achieve dominance in the sport itself (Burnett, 2001). Over the last decade, China has used a policy of stadium diplomacy in Africa to secure preferential access to natural resources (Dubinsky, 2021; Will, 2012). Initiated and led by the Chinese government, stadiums are gifted or funded through soft loans (provided at significantly below market interest rates). China’s goal is to secure the natural resources needed to sustain its long-term economic development. Equally, the United States government’s use of basketball diplomacy has become a feature of the international relations landscape in Africa, India and elsewhere in the world. Ideologically, one can also see that the geopolitical economy of the sport becoming manifest in human resources. For instance, how Colin Kaepernick, taking a knee and links to sponsorships have been enabled by and reflect Western values stands in stark contrast to how female tennis player Peng Shuai’s social media post about sexual indiscretions perpetrated by a state official were handled.
Contrary to popular opinion, the essence of economics is not about understanding how to make money; it focuses on the choices that people, organisations, governments and states all make (Backhouse & Medema, 2009). As such, economics examines how resources are allocated, and how production, distribution and consumption decisions are made (Cohen & Cyert, 1965). Fundamentally, economics consists of two strands: micro and macro. Microeconomics is associated with neoclassicism (through its analysis of individuals, households and firms) (Dopfer et al., 2004). Macroeconomics alternatively focuses on economic systems and how production, consumption, savings and investment interact. Therefore, it emphasises the importance of resource deployment and utilisation, economic growth, and the impact that public policy has upon economic systems and those entities that are actors within them. Macroeconomics is omnipotent; hence, this paper asserts that an understanding of work in this field will help the sport community better understand the industry, its challenges, and the decisions that need to be made. For instance, in Israel, the government seeks to establish the country as an important global hub for the development of sports technology, which, it anticipates, will help the country build competitive advantage and help generate productive capacity, employment, trade opportunities, fiscal benefits and political influence (Dubinsky, 2020). Another illustration of the economic importance of sport as an economic choice is evident among rentier states, which generate rents externally by manipulating global political and/or economic environments. Saudi Arabia is an example of a rentier state (Baumann, 2019). Its current sport investment programme is a conscious attempt to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependence by incentivising international sporting events to be staged in the kingdom (Chadwick & Widdop, 2018).
In combination, the elements of geography, politics and economy accentuate the importance of and interplay between territory, power and choices. As has been emphasised across this paper, this interplay is becoming pervasive in sport, demanding that scholarly analysis needs to move on from its increasingly misplaced obsession with neoclassicism. Further justification for such a shift is provided by an established body of work in geopolitics, which is centred upon the struggle over the control of geographical entities with an international and global dimensionand the use of such geographical entities for political advantage (Flint, 2016). Betraying economic dimensions of choice, geopolitics asks several key questions, including: How should countries interact with one another? How are countries made through the politics of nationalism? How is the geographical extent of countries defined? How do state and non-state actors operate through territorial and network strategies? How should state and non-state actors make decisions in the context of environmental changes? (Flint, 2016) Significantly, geopolitics advocates the need for network analyses as the basis for understanding geopolitical realities, something far removed from micro-level neoclassical approaches to understanding the world. Alongside the literature on geopolitics, there is extant literature in political economy, which addresses interactions between political and economic processes within society. In particular, the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and individuals and the processes that create, sustain and transform these relationships over time are seen as key challenges for the discipline (Woodley, 2015). Collinson (2003) highlights the challenge facing political economy, which addresses real-world problems in ways that emphasise the connections between economic problems, social structures and political processes. In particular, by answering the following questions: What is happening? Why? Who gains and who loses? Does it matter? And, if so, what can be done and by whom? In emergent work on the geopolitical economy, Desai (2013) identifies that it signifies the politico-economic actions of states, dominant and contender states, particularly at the international and global levels.
There is great resonance for sport in the twenty-first century among these questions. States, governments and related entities are engaged in using their geographies, resource endowments and politico-economic characteristics to build power and exert control within and out with sport (for instance, see Chadwick’s, 2019a, assessment of Japan’s pivot towards sport). This means that the desire to win on the field is increasingly paralleled by a desire to win off it. Equally, winning in sport and winning through sport is also connected. China’s government has stated that it wants the country to become a leading FIFA nation by 2050 (Chadwick, 2015c). Many observers have characterised this as an intention on China’s part to win the men’s World Cup, which is potentially beneficial to the nation in many ways. However, the country’s vision, when framed in geopolitical terms, can be interpreted in a different way. For instance, Chinese corporations are an increasingly dominant presence in FIFA’s portfolio of sponsors. Indeed, the FIFA president has publicly acknowledged the financial stability that money from China has brought to the organisation (Press Association, 2016). Strategically, this has created a resource-dependent relationship between FIFA and China, enabling the latter to exert a degree of power and control over the former. It seems likely that this will be used as the foundation for a future Chinese World Cup hosting bid and to promote the politico-economic benefits that the government in Beijing is seeking to derive from being a host.
Drawing from the analysis provided in this paper, it is proposed that a new field of research is established – the geopolitical economy of sport – which is defined as
The way in which nations, states and other entities engage in, with, or through sport for geographic and politico-economic reasons in order to build and exert power, and secure strategic advantages through the control of resources within and via networks of which sport is a constituent part.
The domain of sport’s geopolitical economy is all-pervasive, encompassing sport at all levels and impacting policy, strategy, governance, marketing. Furthermore, on matters pertaining to, for example, transgender athletes, decolonisation and racism, analysing such phenomena in terms of geopolitical economy is important. For instance, China has recently sought to suppress LGBTQ+ rights, in terms of event staging and event sponsorship, have significant consequences, especially for Western sponsors engaged in China, whilst promote brand values globally that emphasise a commitment to LGBTQ+ rights. It seems inevitable that some will point to, say, Saudi Arabia’s aspiration to become an established mega-event destination or Qatar’s ownership of multiple sport assets as embodying the essence of this paper’s central proposition. However, China’s funding of community sports facilities in Africa or Great Britain’s spending on grassroots sport in other countries is manifestation of sport’s geopolitical economy. It is also important for readers to note that although one proposes here that geopolitical economy should displace neoclassicism and utilitarianism as the dominant paradigm in sport research, this does not negate the significance of management, governance, strategy, organisational behaviour, leadership and so forth. Sport as a geopolitical economy still requires good management. However, rather than being guided by neoclassical principles, the contention here is that managers exist within the environment of,and engage in activity driven by inter-related considerations of geography, politics and economics.
Implications for sport research
It would be rather presumptuous to suggest that sport in the twenty-first century has become entirely and exclusively geopolitically economic. However, today’s world is one in which 19th and 20th hegemonies have dissipated, meaning they are, thus, far less dominant. Rival ideologies now gain traction, which means that decisions to engage in sport management research (or, for that matter, research ingeopolitical economy and sport) requires that scholars and researchers are fully conversant with their choices and the effects this may have in terms of generating insights into the phenomena are explored. For instance, sponsorship research as it has been undertaken in the existing sport management literature remains relevant in many twentieth century, Western settings. However, it is much less robust in accounting for the sponsorship practices displayed by the twenty-first century, state-owned entities engaging in it. One hopes this paper provides some impetus for the emergence of a new body of work, identified as the geopolitical economy of sport. However, for those who continue to self-identify as sport management scholars, it is important that they engage with, understand and embrace the causes and effects of the giga-changes mentioned in their work. To help illustrate: the Gulf region’s three largest airlines – Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways – are all state-owned and annually receive considerable state subsidies, partly because their goals are often non-commercial in nature. Yet each of them retains an extensive sport sponsorship portfolio, characterised by rights acquisitions made at above-market rates and funded by what some see as illegal state aid. The sport management literature does not have an armoury that will enable it to convincingly or effectively address the challenges this illustration poses for sport.
As for sport, human contesting, playing games and engaging in physical activities are part of our DNA, which manifest themselves in various ways, including how people self-identify, one’s sense of place and belonging, and a person’s attitudes towards health and well-being. As such, the framing of sport as utilitarian by sport management researchers will continue to be of some relevance. Indeed, the field will no doubt still prompt studies in a diversity of areas ranging from attitudes towards fitness to the reasons why sports fans engage with a team, club or franchise. Even in a range of specific twenty-first century contexts and cultures, the residue of utilitarianism will endure. It is worth noting that of fewer countries staging annual national sports days, all are in Asia (for example, in Iran and Malaysia). These territories, with systems and policies, have helped give rise to the arguments presented here that sport research needs to switch from a neoclassical perspective towards a more geopolitical view of the world.
Equally, it is not the purpose of this paper nor the intention of its author to herald the death of the neoclassical foundations upon which much of the contemporary sport management literature is built. A large proportion of the studies being submitted to and published by journals in the field remain firmly rooted in liberal, free-market ideology, with a clear focus on matters on management and business. This closely aligns with the positioning and content of many university sport programmes worldwide, especially in the West. Although it reflects the nature of some developments in contemporary sport, which continues to accentuate a market-driven, commercially focused framing of research and publication. Yet utilitarianism and neoclassicism face an ideological challenge. This paper stops short of making such assertions, the author preferring instead to see sport as being connected to society, culture and business, though as a part of much wider networks of interconnecting relationships. These include important dimensions of geography, politics and economic activity – the new geopolitical economy of sport as it is expressed here throughout. In this context, and as a result, researchers and scholars in the field of what is known as ‘sport management’ are challenged to reframe their understanding of sport in a way that accounts for globalisation, the rise of Asia, digital technology, the use of sport as a means through which to pursue supra national goals, and competing global ideologies. In general terms, this implies a need for sport researchers to relinquish their micro-level fixation with sport favouring a new, macro-level view of sport. For those who are unclear about the difference between the two, such differences can also be observed in disciplines such as economics where micro-level studies focus on individuals and firms whereas macro-level studies examine economies, countries and global trade. There is already evidence that researchers in the field are embracing the notions of inter-country competitiveness (De Bosscher et al., 2015) and the networked nature of global sport (Babiak et al., 2018). Yet the intention is for this paper to serve as a clarion call for work of this nature to be more widely embraced. A simplified view of this might be that sport management scholars need to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to their work. However, the geopolitical economy of sport demands that new world views are developedto develop an understanding of the connections between sport, music, fashion and politics (Chadwick & Widdop, 2021). There is also a need to bring business and management to politics, diplomacy and international relations (and vice versa).
More specifically (though not exhaustively), it is proposed that the following should provide a basis for those seeking to engage in research that can be labelled as sport’s geopolitical economy:
Sport as an outcome of geography
In examining literature pertaining to sport and geography, one is struck by the paucity of research connecting the two. This is surprising, as the sport is inextricably bound up with geography, whether in terms of consumption and production or notions of fandom, nationality and event staging. Some interesting developments take place in this field in environmental studies and sport, which have their origins in an understanding of geography (McCullough & Kellison, 2017). However, geography, as it is conceived of here, embodies fundamental elements of physical and human geographies. It is contended that each of these, separately and together, establish/es the parameters for sport in countries worldwide. Alternatively stated, sport is a response to the advantages and disadvantages faced by a country. To illustrate, consider the influx of investment into the global sport industry from the Gulf region over the last two decades. Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) are all endowed with significant oil and gas deposits, which has conferred significant wealth upon them. Accordingly, we have seen considerable investments being made by these nations in sports infrastructure, event hosting, team formation and overseas sports assets (from horse racing and powerboat racing to cycle teams and football clubs) (Chadwick, 2019b). Other geographies that underpin and help explain some countries’ prominent roles in sport are Britain’s island status, colonial ambitions and the consequent impact this has had upon world sports, such as cricket and rugby; and Japan’s strategic position in the Pacific, which led to the United States’ influence upon the country and the resultant popularisation of baseball. However, it is Qatar’s vulnerable geographic position and the way that the government in Doha has used sport as means by which to boost its profile, presence, legitimacy and security, whilst serving to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependence that epitomise the significance of geography for this paper (as background and to fully understand this point, it is recommended that readers familiarise themselves with Qatar’s position on a map) (Kamrava, 2015). Based on the above, the following research questions are presented as opportunities for further development of research in this sphere:
− In what ways does geography impact sport, and with what implications for organisations, leadership, management and decision-making?
− What geographic features of a country give rise to sport becoming an important element in a country’s policy, strategy and thinking in general?
− How will changes in the natural environment, notably climate change, shape and influence sport?
Sport as a focus for soft power, diplomacy and trade
Notions of soft power and diplomacy through sport have become ubiquitous over the last decade (the likes of Koch, 2018; Rofe, 2016), with the former term now routinely used in popular discourse about sport. For instance, Chinese sport policy since 2015 has sometimes been framed by some Western commentators as an exercise in soft power projection (Liu, 2020). Similar statements have also been made about countries like Saudi Arabia, which raises an interesting point for debate. Whilst the government in Riyadh is actively seeking to leverage the effects of soft power, some critics label this as sports washing – a means by which a country can deflect audiences’ attention away from less favourable perceptions of a country via a programme of investment in sport. The significant dearth of studies in sport examining sports washing is particularly notable, especially as many countries are accused without proof. Furthermore, views of sport washing appear to be culturally prescribed, with nations in the West using such conceptions as the basis for casting judgement upon countries that are sometimes ideologically and morally opposed to them. Nevertheless, if one examines rankings of soft power, it is clear that nations, such as Britain, France and Germany, have become particularly adept at boosting their global soft power through sport. France’s victory in the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final is even specified as a factor contributing to the country’s soft power ascent (Portland Communications, 2019). Soft power is sometimes viewed as somewhat nebulous and intangible, yet there is often a bottom-line underpinning it. Indeed, the British government uses sport to drive diplomatic and trade relationships, using football as the basis for constructing a British national brand. Inbound investment, overseas sales and the consequent economic benefits associated with them are at the heart of this (Chadwick, 2016). Diplomacy has long been part of the sport landscape, with ping-pong and basketball diplomacy being two obvious instances. More recently, China has used policies of the stadium and sponsorship diplomacy as the means through which to achieve many outcomes. One of these is influence over sports governing bodies, with sponsorship contracts seemingly being used to create a financial dependence, something then closely linked to the power and influence China has sought to exert inside these governing bodies. To further illustrate this point, it is worth noting the consequences that a military skirmish (in which numerous soldiers were killed) on the India/China border in mid-2020 had for Premier League cricket in India. At that time, the competition had several Chinese sponsors, which subsequently withdrew from their deals as diplomatic tensions rose and Indian consumer sentiment began to turn against the Chinese brands in question (Chadwick, 2020a; Chadwick et al., 2020). In the sport management literature to date, there has been no concerted attempt to build a sustained or coherent body of work focused on this convergence of geographic, economic and political matters. Overall, this paper, therefore, proposes another set of research questions for sport scholars to contemplate:
– How does the soft power role of sport impact its economic and political roles, and should the effects be measured?
− In extending existing studies of sport and diplomacy, where are the opportunities to position the role of diplomacy as being an economic, industrial and commercial phenomenon?
− What role does sport play in international trade, and what are the consequences of changes in the global trade environment for the geopolitical economy of sport?
Sport as a networked geopolitically economic activity
In literature pertaining to networks, sport has appeared regularly, including in studies of sponsorship (such as Chanavat et al., 2016), and digital technology (like Naraine, 2019). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that a section of sport’s scholarly community is familiar with network-based research. Existing research seems to be largely located within domestic or micro-level contexts, with little attention paid to the transnational or global reach of such networks. Furthermore, network studies in sport have typically been unidimensional in nature, focusing on exchanges between dyads and nodes in these networks (for example, sponsor and sponsee). The world is, however, much more complex than existing network studies acknowledge or embrace which, during a time of international financial flows, transnational resource exchanges and globalised sport, means that it has been somewhat remiss of sport researchers not to have developed more elaborate studies in this sphere. Perhaps the embodiment of twenty-first century networked sport, City Football Group now owns or licences its name to football clubs in a double-digit number of territories. At one level, this network is intended to enable the timely identification, acquisition, development and disposal of playing talent and other human resources. At another level, CFG’s network enables the organisation’s Abu Dhabi state owners to engage in geopolitical and economic relationships. In one instance, CFG acquired a franchise club in Chengdu, China, which served as the basis for enhancing the state airline’s (Etihad) presence in East Asia (where Chengdu Airport is an important transit hub for the airline). At the same time, CFG’s ownership brings together organisations from China (China Media Capital) and the United States (Silver Lake) that have served to further the strategic interests of the organisation’s owners from the small Gulf State. In another instance, CFG acquired an Indian franchise club in Mumbai, not uncoincidentally the home of India’s film industry – commonly referred to as Bollywood at the same time as Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund (Mubadala) acquired a stake in a tech company, Reliance Jio, which is headquartered in Mumbai. Almost simultaneously, Silver Lake also purchased a stake in Reliance Jio, creating a network of interconnected investments linking the sport, entertainment and the digital technology sectors, and the strategic interests of an oil and gas-dependent Gulf state, private equity investment from the United States, and investments drawn from opaque Chinese sources (Chadwick, 2020b). The dense, transnational and scale of such networks, of which this is only one example, poses the following questions for researchers:
− What is the nature, characteristics and scale of the networks that underpin global sport, and how should these be visualised and explained?
− What factors determine the nature, size and shape of networks, and what significance do these factors have for sport on-the-field and off it?
− Do different types of such networks in sport exist, and what does this mean for researching sport and for leading and managing within the sport?
Sport as the basis for achieving national and geopolitical competitive advantage
Sport and national competitive advantages have commonly and historically been framed in understanding how countries can secure an on-field advantage. Indeed, pieces of literature on managing performance and, more recently, on areas such as athlete analytics form the basis for understanding how to build the athletic, competitive advantage of nations. However, as Porter (2011) indicates, competitive advantage in sport can also be built off-field. In one sense, this remains a distinctly neoclassical notion, as annual league tables (published by outlets such as Forbes) of financial performance and brand value highlight. Nevertheless, the politico-economic impacts a country’s team, club, league and event successes can have should not be underestimated; after all, the National Basketball Association, English Premier League and Ferrari Formula One team are all acknowledged as having soft power and nation branding effects for their respective countries (Freeman, 2012). However, in the way that countries envision sport, the policies and strategies they pursue, and the outcomes they seek broader, contemporary notions of national competitive advantage in sport need to be established. For instance, esports, countries, including South Korea and Denmark, have implemented state policies to establish themselves as global leaders in this fast-emerging industrial sector (Chadwick, 2020c). Similarly, Saudi Arabian government policy is currently focused upon positioning the country as a sport event destination, which is particularly manifesting itself in motorsport and combat sports. Similarly, reports published by the English Premier League in conjunction with consulting business EY (2019) highlight the importance of the competitive advantage built through football. In this context, the following questions are proposed as the basis for stimulating contributions to the geopolitical economy:
− In geographic, political and economic terms, what constitutes national competitive advantage?
− On what basis can a national competitive advantage in sport be created and sustained?
− What challenges does establishing a national competitive advantage in sport pose for leaders, managers, and other decision-makers?
Sport as a means of acquiring resources
Two perspectives have had the potential to contribute to the development of sport management research, although neither has attracted the sustained attention of researchers. These perspectives are resource-based theory and the competitive advantage of nations (a notion addressed above). Resource-based theory (for example, see Franco & Haase, 2017) addresses how valuable, rare resources, which cannot be imitated and substituted, can be acquired and deployed in ways that enable firms to achieve superior performance and establish a competitive advantage. The competitive advantage of nations (Porter, 2011) asserts that national prosperity is created, not inherited, concluding that nations have become more, not less, important. This perspective emphasises the importance of national values, culture, economic structures, political institutions, and histories, highlighting that successful countries are forward-looking and dynamic. However, neither of these two perspectives has ever gained traction in the collective imagination of sport researchers, even though both could have helped explain the strength of nations and businesses engaged in sport. In sport’s geopolitical economy, the relevance of both may nevertheless become more apparent and potentially more pressing. In traditional economic terms, there are essentially four types of resource: land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. Identifying, acquiring and deploying resources are fundamental to economic systems, countries, governments, businesses and other organisations (Le Billon, 2017). Whether it is sporting success or other types of sporting performance success, such as employment creation or generation of export earnings, building strategic and competitive advantage in and through sport is increasingly important. Several nations are engaged in athlete harvesting (otherwise sometimes referred to as athlete naturalisation), one being Qatar, as the basis for populating and enhancing their national teams. With this in mind, a final set of research questions is offered for researchers to reflect upon:
− To what extent can resource theories and/or theories of national competitive advantage be utilised as the basis for understanding sport’s twenty-first century geopolitical economy?
− What issues and challenges do the transnational acquisition and deployment of resources pose for global sport?
− Given the role being played by states in acquiring resources in or through sport, what are the ramifications of this for the likes of clubs, sponsors, naming rights partners and other commercial organisations?
Conclusions
The world, and more specifically sport, in the twenty-first century, is encountering profound changes, which will shape human existence for at least the next fifty years if not to the end of the century. Global economic and political shifts are challenging the established Western order, power has begun to move beyond centres such as New York and London to Mumbai, Riyadh and Beijing. Other nations are also growing and becoming increasingly influential; Nigeria is now labelled as Africa’s first superpower, whilst Indonesia will soon become the world’s fifth-largest economy. With such shifts have come a challenge in prevailing ideologies, systems of government and institutions, and the rules-based order established by Western nations after the Second World War. At the same time, a digital revolution is building global interconnectivity while creating new production and consumption opportunities. After two decades of this revolution, digital technology has given globalisation a boost and driven some profound changes to economic systems, political relationships and how individuals, organisations and states engage with one another. The ever-present dangers of climate change and environmental degradation must not be forgotten either. Measures to address these problems will inevitably have to be collaborative and consensual, implying that networks, of which sport is part, will need to be engaged. Gone are the days of the zero environmental cost production and consumption models of sport, something that the new geopolitical economy of sport proposed here actually addresses. It is also worth remembering that the wealth of countries like Qatar is threatened by the pivot away from carbon fuels, which has prompted investments in sport as such countries look to diversify their economies.
With the world thus having changed significantly since the emergence of research and publication in sport management, academia needs to respond with some alacrity. The utilitarian and neoclassical foundations of studies in sport management are not dismissed here as now being outdated; indeed the extensive body of knowledge built over the last four decades will continue to form the basis for researchers and others to understand micro-level phenomena in sport. However, with the advent of a new geopolitical economy of sport, sport management needs to reposition, refocus, rename and move on from its European and North American origins. This is not meant to imply that an Asian conception of sport will necessarily come to dominate the field in coming years. Rather, one of this paper’s main takeaways is that global sport in its entirety is, to a greater or lesser extent, now impacted by the geopolitical economy – this is not about the disintegration of one country or ideology and the rise of another. However, it does necessitate that scholars, researchers and others in the field of sport should change how they see a discipline that has thus far broadly been framed as ‘sport management’. Issues and questions pertaining to the geopolitical economy of sport have been proposed in this paper, and one anticipates that further questions will emerge as a sport (and our understanding of it) develops in the second quarter of the twenty-first century. At the same time, in posing then answering such questions, scholars will also need to address how programmes of study are created and delivered. This is vital if students and future researchers are to be appropriately and robustly prepared for a new way of looking at sport and the environments in which they will be working. Whilst some people may feel threatened or disconcerted by the profound changes our sport community is now facing, one prefers to see this period as one of the most exciting in the field’s history. It allows the discipline to extend and move on from its origins and old certainties into new ways of seeing the world. Sport management – in neoclassical and utilitarian forms – is not dead although a new life is being breathed into our community and its work by a new geopolitical economy of sport.