Latest Articles

This paper examines the rise of modern social sciences that deal with sports phenomena. It begins with the first formula that paved the way for sports science to become an independent scientific field. This is found in European intellectual discourse in the first half of the twentieth century, which linked sport to what was then known as the "crisis of European values." It then deals with the endeavours of the social sciences to make sport a research and knowledge topic, which was devoted to and institutionalised in the 1960s. It investigates the first theoretical paradigms in the field, the first designed by Norbert Elias, and deals with the position of sport in the development of modern European societies. The other, designed by Pierre Bourdieu, is based on viewing sport as an independent social field. Finally, the paper looks at the interest in cultural studies in sports in the late seventies of the twentieth century, which saw it as a field revealing the distinctions on which Western societies are built.

This study explore the concepts of populism and “the people,” linking them to ideology, hegemony, and the making of modern sport in Western liberal-capitalist democracies. While populism is widely seen as a useful way to understand oppositions between “the people” and elites, This study particularly interested here in what happens when self-styled populist political leaders actually govern, ostensibly on the people’s behalf. To illustrate this, the study consider two examples of self-styled populist leaders from different eras – Benito Mussolini and Donald Trump – that have used sport to promote narrow, ideologically laden, conceptions of “the people.” Through these examples the study argue that the concept of populism on its own does not provide a comprehensive understanding of political and cultural struggles in sport today, nor does it provide adequate guidelines for oppositional political strategies.

​This article debates the significance of cultural differences in the identification and application of principles of sport governance. It attempts at refuting the underlying assumption that the ‘progress’ achieved and enjoyed within sport governance in the West represents the model to be emulated by the non-west. It argues that modernisation of sport is liable to take on subtly different forms in different local contexts which are modern but not uniform, supporting in effect a form of ‘multiple modernities’. Sport governance, like modernity itself, is not a homogeneous phenomenon, as its (cultural, political, and/or economic, and thus sport) forms varies as much as cultural contexts do, and their characteristics overlap rather than tend to take a unitary set of features attributable to a single model.

​The constructivist approach provides several perspectives to study sports as a complex social phenomenon. Beginning with the conditions of modernity, which is usually defined as a Western product, and its dominance over narratives surrounding the emergence and rationalisation of sports, the West has traditionally defined the region and history of sports. While recognising Western contributions to modernisation, this paper addresses the need to consider the influence of other cultures and civilizations in the genesis of modernity through knowledge, science, and innovation. In the West itself, differences prevail regarding the concepts of the body (and the soul in the spiritual and religious sense) and productivity, and how to express them in sporting traditions. Any kind of general assessment of sporting culture and practice in Western Europe and beyond is thus no easy task. This short introduction provides an overview of the richness and limitations of constructivist epistemology as an entry point to studying sports. It discusses the concepts of pluralism and otherness in sports studies, applying discourse analysis to the study of sports in different cultural and linguistic traditions, and engages in criticism regarding its potential relativity.

​Pierre Bourdieu published this paper in correlation with France hosting the World Cup in 1998, marking the last of his contributions to sports sociology going back to the 1970s. These texts worked to address social class at the core of sports practice, decided as much by cultural and social capital as financial. The text translated here by Siyasat Arabiya contrasts with Bourdieu's earlier methods in the study of sports, as it deals with the relationship of the state to the economy, detailing the 'commodification' of and the extension of neoliberal logic to sports, to become a 'commercial spectacle' and a medium for advertisement. Sporting events and timings are now controlled by the market. Bourdieu thus laments the creep of neoliberalism into a country with a traditionally centralised state, such as France, permeating sports, and presents his case against neoliberalism through the example of sport.

This paper examines the rise of modern social sciences that deal with sports phenomena. It begins with the first formula that paved the way for sports science to become an independent scientific field. This is found in European intellectual discourse in the first half of the twentieth century, which linked sport to what was then known as the "crisis of European values." It then deals with the endeavours of the social sciences to make sport a research and knowledge topic, which was devoted to and institutionalised in the 1960s. It investigates the first theoretical paradigms in the field, the first designed by Norbert Elias, and deals with the position of sport in the development of modern European societies. The other, designed by Pierre Bourdieu, is based on viewing sport as an independent social field. Finally, the paper looks at the interest in cultural studies in sports in the late seventies of the twentieth century, which saw it as a field revealing the distinctions on which Western societies are built.