![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Previous research has supported the idea that achievements in international sports might contribute to national pride. However, the potential role of political regimes has been widely neglected. The account presented here argues that less democratic regimes depend strongly on output legitimacy and therefore are more likely to employ sport-centred identity policies. These policies should shape public attitudes and influence the levels and socio-demographics of sport-related national pride. These ideas are examined by analysing the 2013 International Social Survey Program on ‘National Identity’, which has been conducted in 33 countries with a total number of 45,297 respondents. The analyses show that sport-related national pride varies between countries and that the state of democracy can explain some of the cross-national differences. Findings may inspire scholars to develop a more sophisticated political theory of sport-related national pride.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. It may be a matter of debate, however, how much the globalisation of sport has led to a homogenisation of sport-related politics in countries. Glocalization theory, for instance, emphasises that sport’s global development is not subject to a simple logic of adoption and imitation (Giulianotti and Robertson Citation2007, Citation2012). Instead the ‘glocalization’ framework stresses the continuous interplay of the global and the local (Rowe and Gilmour Citation2009, Van Bottenburg Citation2010, Giulianotti and Robertson Citation2012). Thus, Giulianotti and Robertson (Citation2012, p. 438) have stated that global sport provides ‘one important cultural domain through which the universalization of particularism may take hold’. While processes of homogenisation and heterogenisation are interconnected in sport’s global diffusion, Giulianotti and Robertson (Citation2012) claim that homogenisation is most evident in regard to cultural forms and institutions. In contrast, heterogenisation becomes most apparent in content and practices.
2. The non-consideration of the 2014 Winter Games is justified by the fact that the only countries in which the surveys were conducted in 2015 never won a medal in the Winter Olympics (India, Mexico and Portugal) leaving their medal count unaffected.
3. Germany participated from 1896 to 1936 and from 1992 on as ‘Germany’, from 1952 to 1964 as ‘United Team of Germany’, from 1968 to 1988 as ‘West Germany (FRG)’ and ‘East Germany (GDR). Moreover, the French-occupied Saarland participated in the 1952 Games as independent team ‘Saar’. The official Olympic medal count considers only the medals won by Germany. Russia participated as ‘Russian Empire’ from 1900 to 1912, as part of the ‘Soviet Union’ from 1952 to 1988, as part of a ‘Unified Team’ in 1992 and as ‘Russian Federation’ from 1996 on. The official Olympic medal count refers only to the Russian Federation.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Henk Erik Meier
Henk Erik Meier is a professor for social sciences of sports at the University of Muenster, Germany, since 2012. Research covers a broad spectrum of issues in the social sciences of sport, for instance sport audience, sport development, and sport governance.
Michael Mutz
Michael Mutz is professor for sociology of sport at Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany. His main research focus is on social and ethnic inequalities in sport, youth sport as well as public perceptions of high-performance sport.