SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 3

The Instrumentalization of Sport in Authoritarian Regimes

Gökhan Acar(UŞAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3617-1958
Barbaros Serdar Erdoğan(BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6039-1494
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study concludes that sport in authoritarian regimes operates as a hegemonic mechanism embedded in state structures, facilitating both domestic consent production and international legitimation through symbolic practices and cultural rituals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In authoritarian regimes, sport goes beyond its traditional role as recreation and becomes a strategic instrument of political power.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Following PRISMA 2009 guidelines, 173 peer-reviewed studies were initially identified, 23 were screened for eligibility, and 9 were selected for in-depth analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concludes that sport in authoritarian regimes operates as a hegemonic mechanism embedded in state structures, facilitating both domestic consent production and international legitimation through symbolic practices and cultural rituals.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Authoritarian Regimes · Hegemonic Structures · Ideological State

Abstract

In authoritarian regimes, sport goes beyond its traditional role as recreation and becomes a strategic instrument of political power. It reinforces regime legitimacy, mobilizes mass consent, and reproduces ideological narratives through cultural, emotional, and symbolic channels. Although numerous case-specific studies have examined the political use of sport, a systematic and theory-based synthesis has been lacking. This study addresses that gap by conducting a qualitative meta-analysis of how sport functions as an ideological apparatus in authoritarian regimes, drawing on Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and Louis Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs). Following PRISMA 2009 guidelines, 173 peer-reviewed studies were initially identified, 23 were screened for eligibility, and 9 were selected for in-depth analysis. The final sample was determined according to three criteria: (1) explicit focus on the political instrumentalization of sport in authoritarian or hybrid regimes, (2) reliance on conceptual, theoretical, or comparative qualitative methods, and (3) publication in peer-reviewed academic journals. Each eligible study was independently reviewed by two authors to ensure relevance and methodological rigor. Qualitative content analysis and thematic coding were then applied to extract dominant political functions of sport. Three recurring strategies were identified: (1) constructing leader cults by associating athletic success with regime power, (2) organizing mega-events as ideological spectacles to foster national unity, and (3) employing sports media to disseminate propaganda and control discourse. Historical and contemporary case studies—including Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Russia—demonstrate strikingly consistent patterns. The study concludes that sport in authoritarian regimes operates as a hegemonic mechanism embedded in state structures, facilitating both domestic consent production and international legitimation through symbolic practices and cultural rituals.

🔖

Cite This Article

Acar, G., Erdoğan, B. S., *, G. A. (2025). The Instrumentalization of Sport in Authoritarian Regimes. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 12 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1731359

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. Abanazir, C. (2023). Politicalexpression in sport: Transnationalchallenges, moral defences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003241102
  2. Allison, L. (1993). The changing politics of sport. Manchester University Press.
  3. Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Monthly Review Press.
  4. Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Verso. Art, D. (2012). What do we know about authoritarianism after ten years? Comparative Politics, 44(3), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041512800078977
  5. Bairner, A. (2001). Sport, nationalism, and globalization: European and North American perspectives. SUNY Press.
  6. Boykoff, J. (2016). Power games: A political history of the Olympics. Verso Books.
  7. Brady, A. (2009). The Beijing Olympics as a campaign of mass distraction. The China Quarterly, 197, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741009000058
  8. Brownell, S. (2008). Beijing’s games: What the Olympics mean to China. Rowman & Littlefield.
  9. Chadwick, S., & Widdop, P. (2023). Sport washing and the Gulf region: Myth or reality? In S. Chadwick & P. Widdop (Eds.), The geopolitical economy of sport (pp. 7–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003348238-21
  10. Chatziefstathiou, D., & Henry, I. P. (2012). Discourses of Olympism: From the Sorbonne 1894 to London 2012. Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  12. Cornelissen, S. (2010). The geopolitics of global aspiration: Sport mega-events and emerging powers. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 27(16–18), 3008–3025. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2010.508306
  13. Cynarski, W. J., & Skowron, J. (2014). An analysis of the conceptual language used for the general theory of martial arts – Japanese, Polish and English terminology. Ido Movement for Culture. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 14(3), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.14589/ido.14.3.7
  14. Darnell, S. C., Field, R., & Kidd, B. (2019). The history and politics of sport-for-development: Activists, ideologues and reformers. Palgrave Macmillan.
  15. De Melo, V. A., & Malaia Santos, J. M. C. (2023). Sport and authoritarianism in Latin America: An introduction. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 39(15), 1585–1590. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2023.2171996
  16. De Waele, J.-M., & Trif, A. (2020). Introduction: Soccer under authoritarian regimes. Soccer & Society, 21(6), 625–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2020.1775048
  17. Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0025
  18. Edelman, M., & Holden, J. T. (2021). Monopolizing sports data. William & Mary Law Review, 63, 69–69. Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115
  19. Giliomee, H., & Simkins, C. (1999). The awkward embrace: One party domination and democracy. Harwood Academic Publishers.
  20. Giulianotti, R. (2015). Sport: A critical sociology. Polity Press.
  21. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
  22. Grix, J. (2013). Sport politics and the Olympics. Political Studies Review, 11(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12001
  23. Grix, J., & Kramareva, N. (2015). The Sochi Winter Olympics and Russia’s unique soft power strategy. Sport in Society, 20(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1100890
  24. Grix, J., & Brannagan, P. M. (2016). Of mechanisms and myths: Conceptualising states’ “soft power” strategies through sports mega-events. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2016.1169791
  25. Grix, J., & Lee, D. (2013). Soft power, sports mega-events and emerging states: The lure of the politics of attraction. Global Society, 27(4), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2013.827632
  26. Grix, J., & Brannagan, P. M. (2024). Authoritarian states and global sport: The contested cases of Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Social Sciences, 13(12), 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13120701
  27. Hargreaves, J. (1986). Sport, power and culture: A social and historical analysis of popular sports in Britain. Polity Press.
  28. Hellmeier, S. (2021). The dictator’s dilemma revisited: Coercive capacity, co-optation and domestic constraints in authoritarian regimes. Democratization, 28(2), 227–247.
  29. Holt, R. (1998). Interwar sport and interwar relations: Some conclusions. In P. Arnaud & J. Riordan (Eds.), Sport and international politics: The impact of fascism and communism on sport (pp. 227–235). Routledge.
  30. Hutchins, B., & Rowe, D. (2012). Sport beyond television: The internet, digital media and the rise of networked media sport. Routledge.
  31. Koch, N. (2010). The monumental and the miniature: Imagining ‘modernity’ in Astana. Social & Cultural Geography, 11(8), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2010.521854
  32. Koch, N. (2013). Sport and soft authoritarian nation-building. Political Geography, 32, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.11.006
  33. Large, D. C. (2007). Nazi games: The Olympics of 1936. W. W. Norton & Company.
  34. Leese, D. (2016). Rituals, emotions and mobilization: The leader cult and party politics. In B. Apor, J. C. Béland, J. Bernhard, & P. Rieber (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of mass dictatorship (pp. 217–228). Palgrave Macmillan.
  35. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Lewis, S. (2018). Belarus – Alternative visions: Nation, memory and cosmopolitanism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315143743
  37. Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  38. Loxton, J. (2024). Hereditary democracy. Journal of Democracy, 35(3), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a930433
  39. Mackenzie, M. M. (2003). From Athens to Berlin: The 1936 Olympics and Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia. Journal of Sport History, 29(2), 302–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/374029
  40. Makarychev, A., & Yatsyk, A. (2014). The four pillars of Russia’s power narrative. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 49(4), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2014.954185
  41. Manzenreiter, W. (2010). The Beijing games in the Western imagination of China: The weak power of soft power. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723509358968
  42. Márquez, X. (2018). Two models of political leader cults: Propaganda and ritual. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 19(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2018.1510392
  43. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  44. Mondello, M. (2009). Sports economics and the media. In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 21–49). Routledge.
  45. Murray, S. (2012). The two halves of sports-diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 23(3), 576–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2012.706544
  46. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
  47. Parks, J. (2016). The Olympic Games, the Soviet sports bureaucracy, and the Cold War: Red sport, red tape. Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978736559
  48. Petracovschi, S. (2021). Daciada and mass sport during communism in Romania as reflected in the Sport magazine: A propaganda tool. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 37(15), 1569–1587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2020.1845156
  49. Rensmann, L. (2024). Autocratization as a global process? Authoritarianism and democracy in an international context. In Law 2024 (Chap. 3, pp. 84–120). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035324705.00010
  50. Riordan, J. (1980). Sport in Soviet society: Development of sport and physical education in Russia and the USSR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Rookwood, J. (2023). From sport-for-development to sports mega-events: Conflict, authoritarian modernisation and statecraft in Azerbaijan. In J. Grix (Ed.), The sport mega-events of the 2020s (pp. 143–162). Routledge.
  52. Rowe, D. (2004). Antonio Gramsci: Sport, hegemony and the national-popular. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Sport and modern social theorists (pp. 97–110). Palgrave Macmillan.
  53. Scharpf, A., Gläßel, C., & Edwards, P. (2022). International sports events and repression in autocracies: Evidence from the 1978 FIFA World Cup. American Political Science Review, 116(3), 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000056
  54. Schedler, A. (2002). The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0031
  55. Schwenkel, C. (2013). Post/socialist affect: Ruination and reconstruction of the nation in urban Vietnam. Cultural Anthropology, 28(2), 252–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuan.12003
  56. Shaw, T., & Youngblood, D. J. (2017). Cold War sport, film, and propaganda: A comparative analysis of the superpowers. Journal of Cold War Studies, 19(1), 160–192. https://doi.org/10.1162/JCWS_a_00721
  57. Simsek, I. (2021). Louis Althusser’in ideoloji ve devletin ideolojik aygıtları adlı çalışması üzerine bir değerlendirme. Medya ve Kültür, 1(1), 112–115.
  58. Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our midst: The hidden menace in our everyday lives. Jossey-Bass.
  59. Talimciler, A. (2005). İdeolojik bir meşrulaştırma aracı olarak spor ve spor bilimleri. Spor Yönetimi ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Dergisi, 1(2), 35–40.
  60. Timulak, L. (2009). Meta-analysis of qualitative studies: A tool for reviewing qualitative research findings in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802477989
  61. Tomlinson, A., & Young, C. (2006). National identity and global sports events: Culture, politics, and spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup. SUNY Press.
  62. Wedeen, L. (2015). Ambiguities of domination: Politics, rhetoric, and symbols in contemporary Syria. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226345536.001.0001
  63. Zanella, C. K., Neves Junior, E. J., & da Silva, L. R. (2024). Cultural diplomacy and soft power: Critical analysis and methodological application. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 67(1), e012. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329202400112