Of Mechanisms and Myths: Conceptualising States’ “Soft Power” Strategies through Sports Mega-Events

© 2016 Taylor & Francis. Joseph Nye’s concept of “soft power” has become an increasingly used term to help explain why states—including so-called “emerging states”—are paying greater attention to acquiring various forms of cultural and political attraction. However, within mainstream International Relations, Political Science, and Sport Studies literature, a continuous debate remains as to what actually constitutes soft power, how national leaders go about acquiring it, and how forms of attraction convert into power outcomes in both the short- and long-term. This analysis endeavours to overcome these issues by offering an “ideal type” model that details states’ soft power strategies, the mechanisms they use, and the tangible future outcomes they gain

Empathic and Self-Regulatory Processes Governing Doping Behavior

Evidence associating doping behavior with Moral Disengagement (MD) has accumulated over recent years. However, to date, research examining links between MD and doping has not considered key theoretically-grounded influences and outcomes of MD. As such, there is a need for quantitative research in relevant populations that purposefully examines the explanatory pathways through which MD is thought to operate. Towards this end, the current study examined a conceptually-grounded model of doping behavior that incorporated empathy, doping self-regulatory efficacy (SRE), doping MD, anticipated guilt and self-reported doping/doping susceptibility. Participants were specifically recruited to represent four key physical-activity contexts and consisted of team- (n = 195) and individual- (n = 169) sport athletes and hardcore- (n = 125) and corporate- (n = 121) gym exercisers representing both genders (nmale = 371; nfemale = 239); self-reported lifetime prevalence of doping across the sample was 13.6%. Each participant completed questionnaires assessing the aforementioned variables. Structural equation modelling indicated strong support for all study hypotheses. Specifically, we established: (a) empathy and doping SRE negatively predicted reported doping; (b) the predictive effects of empathy and doping SRE on reported doping were mediated by doping MD and anticipated guilt; (c) doping MD positively predicted reported doping; (d) the predictive effects of doping MD on reported doping were partially mediated by anticipated guilt. Substituting self-reported doping for doping susceptibility, multisample analyses then demonstrated these predictive effects were largely invariant between males and females and across the four physical-activity contexts represented. These findings extend current knowledge on a number of levels, and in doing so aid our understanding of key psychosocial processes that may govern doping behavior across key physical-activity contexts

‘War and Peace’ at the 1980 Moscow and 2014 Sochi Olympics: The Role of Hard and Soft Power in Russian Identity

© 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Russia’s (and the USSR’s) use of sports mega-events (SMEs) makes this BRICS country (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) not only an outlier among emerging states, but also among key SME hosts generally. Both the historic Moscow Olympics (1980) and the more recent hosting of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics provide evidence that Russia has, on both occasions, focussed on geopolitical priorities using hard power (military might) at the expense of soft power acquisition. Furthermore, both Olympics were, first and foremost, used to pursue domestic soft power goals. This, again, makes Russia an outlier in terms of the political use of SMEs by states in the literature on this subject. The 1980 Olympic Games, therefore, in terms of their potential to generate soft power and national unity, turned out to be a mis-used opportunity for Russia. To what extent is this specific to Russia and could the first Russian Olympics provide valuable insight into the modern-day hosting of SMEs by Russia (2014/2018)?

Planning to fail? Leveraging the Olympic bid

Purpose In recent years, there has been a decline in the number of cities seeking to host the Olympic Games, with several cities withdrawing from the bid process following referenda. The debate around bidding have hinged on the costs and benefits of hosting events, with little consideration as to the benefits of a bid itself. The purpose of this paper is to identify the ways in which Olympic bids be leveraged for positive outcomes, regardless of the outcomes of the bid. Design/methodology/approach This research employs a content analysis, examining the 16 bid responses to the question in the International Olympic Committee Candidate questionnaire: “What will be the benefits of bidding for the Olympic Games for your city/region, irrespective of the outcome of the bid?”. Findings This research found that bid cities do attempt to use the Olympic bid process as a leveraging resource, with four unique opportunities arising from this; national and city pride, Olympism, the formation of networks, and global focus. These provide the opportunities for Olympic bid cities to achieve the following strategic objectives: nation and community building, sport participation, business opportunities, enhancing image and profile, and to push through infrastructural projects. Originality/value There has been little consideration as to the ways an Olympic bid can be used to leverage positive outcomes for a city or a nation, and therefore this research contributes to the literature on leveraging mega-events. The research also has practical value, in providing potential bidders with information regarding positive outcomes whether the bid is successful or not

Interrogating States’ Soft Power Strategies: A Case Study of Sports Mega-Events in Brazil and the UK

© 2015 University of Kent. Central to this article is the use of sports mega-events as part of a state's “soft power” strategy. The article offers two things: first, a critique of the “soft power” concept and a clearer understanding of what it refers to by drawing on the political use of sports mega-events by states; second, the article seeks to understand how and why sports mega-events are attractive to states with different political systems and at different stages of economic development. To this end a case study of an advanced capitalist state (London Olympics, 2012) and a so-called “emerging” state (FIFA World Cup, 2014; Rio Olympics, 2016) will be undertaken in order to shed light on the role of sports events as part of soft power strategies across different categories of states

Understanding south korea’s use of sports mega-events for domestic, regional and international soft power

This paper seeks to contribute to the growing literature on ‘soft power’ by focusing on East Asia as a region gaining in political and economic significance; equally, we highlight the role sports mega-events play in the region’s most powerful states’ soft power strategies. For the purpose of this paper, we focus on South Korea’s soft power strategy and how the hosting of major sporting events has become a central part of this. We introduce both a novel tripartite approach to the study of the motives behind hosting sports mega-events, along with new, empirical data on the chosen case of South Korea. Our findings strengthen the notion that an explanation of why states seek to host major sports events can be better understood by considering the domestic, regional and international dimensions to capture the complexities behind such decisions

Blaming Bill Gates AGAIN! Misuse, overuse and misunderstanding of performance data in sport

Recently in Sport, Education and Society, Williams and Manley (2014) argued against the heavy reliance on technology in professional Rugby Union and elite sport in general. In summary, technology is presented as an elitist, ‘gold standard’ villain that management and coaches use to exert control and by which players lose autonomy, identity, motivation, social interactions and expertise. In this article we suggest that the sociological interpretations and implications offered by Williams and Manley may be somewhat limited when viewed in isolation. In doing so, we identify some core methodological issues in Williams and Manley’s study and critically consider important arguments for utilising technology; notably, to inform coach decision making and generate player empowerment. Secondly, we present a different, yet perhaps equally concerning, practice-oriented interpretation of the same results but from alternative coaching and expertise literature. Accordingly, we suggest that Williams and Manley have perhaps raised their alarm prematurely, inappropriately and on somewhat shaky foundations. We also hope to stimulate others to consider contrary positions, or at least to think about this topic in greater detail. More specifically, we encourage coaches and academics to think carefully about what technology is employed, how and why, and then the means by which these decisions are discussed with and, preferably, sold to players. Certainly, technology can significantly enhance coach decision making and practice, while also helping players to optimise their focus, empowerment and independence in knowing how to achieve their personal and collective goals

A qualitative investigation of coaches’ doping confrontation efficacy beliefs

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Objectives: To investigate the nature of doping confrontation efficacy (DCE) beliefs – as well as their antecedents and outcomes – through a qualitative examination of Sullivan, Feltz, LaForge-MacKenzie, and Hwang's (2015) DCE model with high-level technical and strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches from athletics and rugby union. Design: Qualitative, descriptive. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 coaches (nmale = 15, nfemale = 6; ntechnical = 11, nS&C = 10; nathletics = 5, nrugby = 13, nrugby & athletics = 3), working at a regional, national, or international level in athletics, rugby, or both sports. Study data were analyzed deductively using content analysis techniques. Results: Data analysis supported the relevance of all five dimensions of DCE (i.e., personal resources, initiation, legitimacy, intimacy, and expected outcomes) to coaching practice in athletics and rugby, identifying key potential antecedents (e.g., coach education) and outcomes (e.g., likelihood of confronting athletes on doping-related issues) of coach DCE beliefs relevant to one or more of the DCE sub-dimensions. Deficits in coaches’ anti-doping knowledge were also identified, supporting the need for improved anti-doping education for coaches. Conclusion: By conducting the first qualitative examination of DCE beliefs, we enriched understanding of the DCE model and identified a range of possible antecedents and outcomes of DCE beliefs in technical and S&C coaches. Based on the results of this study, recommendations are posed for revising and expanding the DCE model. Practical recommendations are also offered for coach education

State strategies for leveraging sports mega-events: unpacking the concept of ‘legacy’

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. The spiralling costs of hosting sports mega-events (SMEs) are usually justified by the ‘legacies’ that they produce. Therefore, this article begins by problematising the notion of SME ‘legacies’ and the benefits they are intended to bring to hosts. The article serves as a general introduction to the papers that follow in this Special Issue. Common to all papers is a concern with the multifaceted nature of ‘legacy’, its meaning to a variety of stakeholders involved in such events and how this impacts policy. The belief in the causal relationship between hosting major events and the realisation of specific legacies–increased sport participation in London’s case, highlighted in this paper–underpinned the United Kingdom’s bidding for, and subsequent hosting of, the Olympics. Thus, this paper serves as a discussion of some of the key concepts in, and assumptions about, the use of SMEs to produce a legacy for the hosting state