E10623

SS7200 - Theories of sport and Exercise

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

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

Word Count: 5499

1
The main objective of this assignment is to examine the extent to which two theories can

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

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

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

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

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

(Houlihan, 2003). Furthermore, Perry, (2002) suggests that labour is like the DNA of

human history; ever present, imperceptibly shaping and reshaping society. The second of

the theories, Figurational Sociology; according to Murphy, Sheard and Waddington “the

central organizing concept of figurational sociology is, unsurprisingly, the concept of the

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

of Figurational Sociology is the power balance; it is a question of relative power balances,

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

contrasting ideologies that distinguish Marxism from Figurationalism, it would be

appropriate to explore both theories to examine the extent to which they can make

sociological sense of sport. However, before Figurationalism and Marxism can be

examined in a sporting context, each theory should be comprehensively discussed and

compared in a general context.

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

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

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

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

Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and more recently theorists have been called Neo-

Marxists. Indeed, according to Perry, (2002) there were three generations of Marxist
2
history, the first of which revolved around the writings of Marx and Engels. To fully

comprehend Marxism and the fundamental principles associated, any academic research

must have a starting point centered around the writings of Karl Marx, Max Weber and

Emile Durkheim, as they are the founding fathers of Marxist Sociological theory. Marx has

had, and continues to have, a decisive influence upon the development of sociological

thought; Weber and Durkheim also contribute key ideas to contemporary configurations of

social thought (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 2006). Marxism, is an impossibly huge topic, if

we consider all work that has used Marx as a starting point, (Roberts, 2006) therefore, the

focus of this assignment will be Marx.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emancipation lay in the development of philosophy, carrying people to the level of

complete understanding (Cuff, et al, 2006). Marx thought the history of human

development could not be a history solely of thought or ideas; it would have to incorporate
3
the world of economic and political being (Evans, 1975). Thus, his approach was

considered to be a historical materialist approach, his understanding of the present as

history, with focus upon living and working conditions of ordinary people and to the

economic and political materiality of power (Therborn, 2008).

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

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

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

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

society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent

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

another.

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

primary concepts; furthermore power can be difficult to define, as it can take so many

different forms (Roberts, 2006). Power is conceptualized within Marxism as who controls

economic production within society. Economic production was considered as the base of

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

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

activities of others are exerting their economic power over those individuals. Controls over

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

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

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

economic relations on their own; it involves analysis of society as a whole (Cuff et al,

2006). In addition, Marx had several preconceptions about society, one such

preconception was the concept of the division of labour. Put crudely, society is divided by
4
those who work and those who think. Subdivision of labour can immensely improve

production, however, can lead to separation of human beings, with some having power

over others. Thought can prevaricate reality, by placing itself as more important than

physical labour. Therefore, elevating thinkers above those who do physical work (Cuff et al,

2006). Another such preconception is Alienation, Marx’s criticism of contemporary society

was that human beings were separated from their essence to work, it is argued that work

is our natural human essence (Joseph, 2006). An influential subsidiary within the concept

of alienation is the way people accept economic climates, for example, badly paid labour.

This is due to the predisposition of the masses to accept their fate is controlled by laws

over which they cannot exert any control. In short, alienation, means we lose control over

such process (Joseph, 2006). This conceptualization suggests the key to understanding

society was to begin by understanding the way in which it organizes its economic activity

(Cuff et al, 2006). Thus emphasizing the importance of ownership of production to exerting

power. The emergence of a class system lead to a conflict of interest between the owning

class and labour class, which pervades all of societies' organization as owners wish to

protect their own position. The economically dominant class, who distribute the means of

production, ultimately also determine the distribution of political power (Evans, 1975). Thus

aspire to become the ruling class.

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

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

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

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

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

2009). Further, Gramsci believed that Cultural Hegemony, was a major contributory in
5
governing society; he believed that a culturally diverse society can be ruled or dominated

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

ideas of the ruling class becoming seen as the norm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

acceptable to speculate that the members of controlling organizations of sport are also

those in control of production, within a Capitalist Society.

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

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

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

conceptualized by Hegels, not the ownership of production. As Bero Rigauer (cited in

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

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

inherent economic determinism in order to research capitalistically manipulated social

6
processes. Morgan, (1994) further compounds this argument, stating hegemonists treat

the social predicates of sport as material ones, and its material predicates as social ones.

Which betrays a wholesale departure from the base-superstructure model of Marxist

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

it would. Marx’s own analysis predicted that a revolution would occur in the most advanced

capitalist countries, not in a society where the economy was still largely dependent upon

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

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

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

everything that is observed and experienced as dynamic and interdependent is

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

Coakley & Dunning, 2000) modes of production, with regards to Marxism.

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

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

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

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

theory, reference will be made with regards to research conducted about sport and finally

critiquing the figurational theory.

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

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

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

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

7
individual who acts independently of the world around them (Elias as cited in van Krieken,

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

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

people who are, indubitably oriented towards and dependent upon other people throughout

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

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

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

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

credence of previous Sociological theories including Marxism was questioned, as they

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elias thus argued that sociological analysis is constantly fluctuating between these two

poles of involvement and detachment, between an articulation of the sociologist’s

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

and objective, scientific perspective (van Krieken, 1998). The relationship between

involvement and detachment, according to Elias, should be seen as a dynamic tension

balance embodied in social activities (Loyal & Quilley, 2004). Thus, the concept of the

figuration was created.

8
Elias argued that concepts of structure or function, the economy, or culture in the case of

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

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

conceptualized as interdependent rather than autonomous, characterized by socially and

historically specific forms of habitus, or personality structure (van Krieken, 1998).

Therefore to understand what sociology is about, one must be aware of oneself as a

human being among other human beings, and that one has to recognize that what are

often conceptualized as reified social forces, are infact nothing other than constraints

exerted by people over one another and themselves (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley &

Dunning, 2000). Hegemony theory therefore, based upon Elias’ writings, has been reified

whereas it is nothing more than one class of people exerting their power over the

subordinate classes. The premise of the figuration is that people are interdependent upon

each other, and the course taken within social situations are based upon the actions of a

group of interdependent individuals (Elias, 1978b). de Swaan, (2001, p.15) illustrated this

point; “people it is clear are dependent upon one another to survive, six basic conditions

must be fulfilled, for all of which people are reliant on others: food, shelter, protection,

affection, knowledge and self-control.” This process of interdependency and the

interweaving of large numbers of people continuously give rise to outcomes that no one

has chosen and no one has designed. Unintended, unplanned outcomes of this kind,

which Elias stressed were normal characteristics of social life, were called blind social

processes (Elias, 1987). Additionally, one of the main objectives of figurational sociology

was to encourage sociologists to think processually by always studying social relations as

developing and incidental processes (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000).

Elias thought it peremptory that figurations were studied as interdependent factions in

constant flux; to understand these figurations a sociologist must understand their changing
9
dispositions and how they are interrelated (Elias, 1978b). Unlike Marxists, who stress the

importance of economic relations, above all others, to social bonding, figurationalists

suggest that the importance of economic relations are likely to vary from one situation to

another and that in some situations political or emotional bonds may be more pertinent

(Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000). One of the central dimensions of

figurations is power, Elias (1978b, p.131) summarized

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

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

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

characteristic of the flow of every figuration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

seriousness of involvement and the growth of professional sport; football hooliganism; and

the relationship between globalization processes and sport. Coakley, (2009) has

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

first of which is the Culture at the time, this consists of the shared ways of life and shared

understandings that people develop as they live together. Secondly, Social interaction, this
10
consists of people taking into account, and in the process influencing, each other’s

feelings, thoughts and actions. Thirdly, Social structure, which consists of the established

patterns of relationships and social arrangements that take shape as people live, work and

play with each other. To put this in practical terms, a professional sport team is a social

world, comprising of players, coaching staff and team administrators (Coakley, 2009). Over

time, a sports team will create a particular culture or way of life that embodies the club.

Everyone associated with that club will engage in social interaction, as they take into

account one another both on and off the field. In addition, the recurring actions,

relationships and social arrangements that become apparent represent the social structure

of the team. The amalgamation of culture, social interaction and social structure

constitutes the team as a social world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

critiqued figurational sociologies contribution towards explaining the development of sport.

11
Stovkis, (as cited in Dunning & Rojek, 1992) commented on the limitations of Elias and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adduces that Elias when comprising The Civilizing Process, provides a paradigm for

sociological analysis that focuses on males experiences, marginalizes females and makes

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

others authors who use the Figurational perspective as a framework for research, have

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

Dunning & Rojek, 1992).

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

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

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

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

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

and a pastime (Miller, 2001). Therefore, it is appropriate to scrutinize the globalization of

sport. “The broad field of ‘global studies’ has mushroomed enormously since the mid-

1980s, engendering diverse transdisciplinary and transnational networks of scholars,”

(Giulianotti & Robertson, 2007). Further, globalization has established itself in the social

sciences to such an extent that it can can be considered the central thematic for social
12
theory (Featherstone & Lash, as cited in Houlihan, 2003). Before defining what

globalization of sport comprehends, it would be pragmatic to first define sport. Official

matches and informal games are important social phenomena, however, it is important for

Sociologists to distinguish between them because they have few sociological similarities

(Mindegaard, 2007; Peterson, 2008 as cited in Coakley, 2009). According to Coakley,

(2009, p.5) “sport is defined as well established, officially governed competitive physical

activities in which participants are motivated by internal and external rewards.”

Globalization defined in broad terms is the process by which the experience of everyday

life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around

the world (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 2006). In addition, Therefore, it would be

reasonable to state that the globalization of sport is a process that has, to some extent,

standardized everyday experiences and culture throughout the sporting world. Further,

many components of globalization are common across sites, leading to the

acknowledgment of certain governing laws, media norms and economic tendencies (Miller,

2001). Based upon these predications globalization in sport will first be examined from a

Marxist/Neo-Marxist perspective and secondly a Figurational perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

be traced back to the institutionalization of sport, as it was the bourgeoisie who graduated

from public schools in England, who decided upon codified rules of the sports in which
13
they participated. Thus, imposing upon the predominantly working class of the mid

nineteenth century, what they believed were the correct laws with which sport should

henceforth be governed. It is reasonable to speculate that the institutionalization of sport is

a key starting block for the professionalization and subsequent globalization of sport. To

what extent can Hegemony theory explain globalization of sport?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tournament, the Ashes. Soccer gained its world governing body in 1904, with equivalents

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

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

upon empire turned into one based upon capital.

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

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

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

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

television rights of the league to an American television Network (Smart, 2005).This

concept accelerated at pace, by the mid 1980’s, the now National Football League (NFL)
14
had expanded significantly and received $430 million for transmission of games on

television (Eastman & Meyer, 1989, as cited in Smart, 2005). The successful relationship

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

would consequently seek to emulate to increase their revenue (Smart, 2005). Further,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the concept of the national team will be superseded by the club ethos with which fans

associate themselves (Maguire, 1994). No sport exudes this characteristic better than

American football, which is a franchise based sport, where a national team has never and

continues not to exist. It is reasonable therefore to suggest that American Football, has

diffused into American and indeed world popular culture, over which a Bourgeoisie

Hegemony has been achieved. Thus, Globalization of sport manifests itself firstly, as an

irrefutable economic power, where sports stars are a ruthlessly exploited commodity, sold

to the consumer for financial gain (Darby, 2001; Dunning, 1999). Secondly, a world wide

reinforcement of a Bourgeoisie Hegemony, deigned to alienate the subordinate classes

from a national culture or identity and exaggerates what Hargreaves, (1986) termed a

divisive non-class identity. To what extent can Figurational Sociology explain the

Globalization of sport?

15
Figurationalism, unlike Marxism, will not necessarily perceive economic relations to be the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

process.

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

explanation of how the process has occurred, the method adopted in this case is termed

Westernization/Americanization (Scholte, 2000). This concept reflects the

interdependencies of economic, political and cultural factors (Houlihan, 2003). Due to the

limitations of this assignment, any figurational analysis will be based around the

aforementioned factors. It should be noted at this point that adopting a long-term

perspective may yield many benefits (Maguire, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000).

Firstly, the element of culture is important to consider, globalization of sport has lead to the

conceptualization of cross-cultural modernization of sport and leisure and the subsequent

diminishing contrasts and increasing varieties between sporting culture (Jarvie & Maguire,

1994; Maguire 1994). Diminishing contrasts between nations has been affiliated with the

media sport production complex, which has achieved success in globally marketing

virtually identical sporting products (Maguire, 1993). Those who attempt to homogenize

sport in the global market also strive to promote difference, for example, the spread of

Japanese martial arts to Britain (Jarvie & Maguire, 1994; Maguire, 1994). Therefore, this
16
process can be seen as being molded by the interlocking processes of diminishing

contrasts and increasing varieties (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley & Dunning, 2000).

The the root of global marketing is the Capitalist nature of Western civilisation, that is

designed to boost economic productivity.

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

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

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

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

sports products and the increasing integration between the media and sports broadcasting

(Houlihan, 2003). Since the 1970‘s global economic factors have exacerbated the

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

interdependence between sport and the media is based around revenue streams and profit

margins, with sports organizations becoming increasingly business-like (Houlihan, 2003).

Sport generates an identifiable audience that can be sold to capitalists seeking consumers

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

products to captive audiences (Coakley, 2009). Consequently, sport and the media

possess both a constraining and enabling element in their ongoing interdependency. One

of the central themes of Commodification of sport, a subsiduary of globalization, is the

trend that has emerged over recent years towards to sport spectating. Stewart, (1987)

suggests that this process has lead to the degradation of sport, an argument supported by

Moor, (2007). The increasing value of spectator sport is perhaps most clearly

demonstrated by the rising cost of television rights for the Olympic games. In 1960, the US

television rights cost $231,000 in 2000 for the Sydney Olympics, the television rights cost

$415m, an inflation of 18000% (Park, Zanger & Quarterman, as cited in Houlihan, 2003).
17
The shift towards spectator oriented sport has, in part, transformed social geography

marked by the growth of supra-territorial forces (Scholte, 2000).

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

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

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

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

Spectator sport has contributed heavily to the emergence of this phenomena, satellite

broadcasting of sports events allows consumers to ‘be at’ any sport venue across the

globe (Murphy et al, as cited in Coakley and Dunning, 2000). This has a distinct effect

upon sporting culture, as new varieties of sports subcultures emerge within existing

national cultures. Political factors have to be considered at this point, as both an enabling

and constraining element of cultural, economic and geographical factors.

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

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

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

refusing to attend the Moscow games and vice versa. This agenda was not conceived

because of a cultural, economic or geographical difference but a political one. However,

political institutions can also be viewed as an enabling medium, the Adonino report

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

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

creation of european flag and the Euro in circulation across Europe. Jarvie and Maguire,

(1994) supported this argument, recognizing the creation of a European sports identity.

18
In conclusion, both Marxism and the Figurational approach offer an adequate

interpretation of the globalization of sport, the methods they employ however are vastly

different. The strength of the Marxist argument is the irrefutable evidence that economic

factors are of critical significance in the globalization of sport. Sport has become a

commodity, where the performance of an athlete has become a product that is for sale to

the consumer (Dunning, 1999). Further, the bourgeoisie view of modern sport is that

sporting organizations should be run like a business, pursuing operational strategies

designed to maximize profit or revenue while being sensitive to the needs of the consumer

(Houlihan, 2003). However, the Marxist approach has its limitations in explaining the

globalization of sport, as it cannot highlight the significance of any other factors that may

influence the globalization of sport.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to become more business like centered around generating a profit.

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

explanation, modern sport is heavily contoured by the underlying economic desires of the
19
owning class within sport to generate capital. It should be noted however that all

Sociological theory cannot escape critique, Weber declared creating one Sociological

theory to comprehensively describe society and history is an enterprise that is assumed

insurmountable (Roberts, 2009). Finally, a Sociologist should gain an understanding of

multiple Sociological theories, as the dominance of one Sociological theory over all others

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

standstill (Rigauer, 2000)

References

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

McGraw-Hill.

20
Coakley, J. & Pike, E. (2009). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. Maidenhead,

United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.

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

European Economic Community, 3, 111-117.

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

NY: Routledge.

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

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

United Kingdom: Polity.

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

New York, NY: Routledge.

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

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

1939).

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

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

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

Expanded Edition. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

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

Progress Publishers. (Original work published in 1880).

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

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

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

Kinetics.

21
Guttmann, A. (1995). Games and empires. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

Kingdom: Macmillan.

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

NY: Routledge.

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

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

Spon.

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

Sage.

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

Routledge.

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

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

Kingdom: Cambridge.

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

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

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

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

22
Maguire, J. (2000). Sport and Globalization. In J. Coakley, & E. Dunning (Ed.), Handbook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macmillan.

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

Macmillan Press.

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

celebrity. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

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

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

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

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

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

23
Therborn, G. (2008). From Marxism to Post-Marxism? London, United Kingdom: Verso.

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

24