Sport management or the management of sport? Reframing the theory debate

ABSTRACT

As a field, sport management is arguably divided into two perspectives related to theory: sport management or the management of sport. This division hinders the development and credibility of the field in the broader academic community. Thus, we adopt a perspective style of theorizing to critically discuss and reframe the sport management theory debate, suggesting an integrated perspective in the process. Each perspective’s central tenets, supporting arguments, and contentions are presented. The Sport-Management Theory Development Framework is proposed, which combines each perspective and includes four main facets: the what; the how; the why; and the who, when, and where of sport management research. Sport management scholars can use the proposed conceptual framework to critically appraise and advance research to establish a credible body of knowledge in sport and beyond. The framework allows the field’s existence to be defended according to its distinct knowledge, thus demonstrating its value in academia.

KEYWORDS:

• perspective piece
• theory borrowing
• theory building
• theoretical
• unique
• framework

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ A field is a distinct “body of knowledge and literature in relation to theory and practice, professionals – those who educate, those who pursue research, those who practice, professional organizations dedicated to the advancement of the field” (Pitts, 2001, p. 2).

² The Zeigler Award, named after the late Dr. Earle F. Zeigler, is awarded annually and recognized as the most prestigious prize for a sport management scholar within the North American Society for Sport Management (for more details see: https://nassm.org/awards-and-grants#page-section-61151cc91acb4b184fd58544).

³ We acknowledge the potential issues with the use of the term “borrowing”, as it can imply a temporary, convenience approach to theory development. However, we used this term to be consistent with the language found in sport management theoretical articles, namely A. Doherty (2013a, 2013b) and Odio (2021).

⁴ Whetten (1989) used the term variables to refer to the operationalization of theoretical concepts. To avoid (post-)positivist assumptions inherent in the term variables and be inclusive of diverse research paradigms and approaches (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), we used the term concepts.