Annual conference 2010
critiquing sport: theory and practice, leeds metropolitan university
On 26 February 2010, The Political Studies Association’s (PSA) Sport and Politics study group held their 4th annual conference at Leeds Metropolitan University. Fifty delegates attended and nineteen papers were presented on the theme ‘Critiquing Sport: Theory and Practice’.
The first of two keynote addresses came from Ian McDonald (Brighton). Beginning with a discussion on the importance of critique to his documentary portfolio, McDonald argued that critique is a necessary epistemological position and political stance to help both the future of sport and the sociology of sport. This lively lecture provided a short history of ‘the documentary’, demonstrating how, since their emergence, documentaries have played a key and unique role for looking at reality. With a brief overview of some of his own documentaries (notably, Brighton Bandits), the focus shifted to the ingrained dimensions of homosexuality in football and Ian discussed his own interventions through a forthcoming documentary that follows the recently-launched Justin Campaign. A thought provoking discussion ensued, followed by a series of questions which largely sought elaboration on the impenetrability of the ‘inside’ of football clubs, and the invisibility of homosexuality in professional football.
A series of three papers by Matthew David (Brunel), Simon Gardiner (Leeds Metropolitan) and Colin King (Martin Shaw King Trust) considering Sport and Transnationalism followed. David offered a timely paper on ‘The Future of TV Rights in an Age of Free Distribution’. Parallels between music and sport in the ‘digital age’ were prominent throughout. The themes of file sharing and live streaming were explored vis-à-vis their impact on music and sport industries. The impact is neither as straightforward, nor as negative, as some commentators suggest. David’s presentation usefully raised important distinctions between music and sports fans. He asked ‘Are the cultural foundations of sport being undermined by hyper-commercialism? Does the economic model of sport depend upon sports fans receiving a double-whammy of paying for TV subscriptions and live events?’ Gardiner discussed ‘Nationality and Protectionism in Football’. Specifically focusing on UEFA’s recent Home Grown Players Rule and FIFA’s projected 6+5 Rule, he offered a critique of labour migration policies and the potential human rights violations within. Arguing for the freedom of movement, the paper identified a number of contentious issues, highlighting the importance of ‘proportionate response’ in the management of football labour migration. A provocative response to the question ‘Is Soccer the New African Slave Trade?’ was then provided by King. Parralels were drawn between the African slave trade and the scouting techniques of powerful European football clubs. The tactics of some clubs, it was argued, results in the diversion of finances away from African nations to the clubs that invest in such academies. This was a further instance of the development of underdevelopment thesis. With recruits who fail to progress to the elite level being ‘dumped’ in European cities, King asks ‘is it slavery or economics?’
Delegates subsequently split into two subgroups; Policy Interventions and Prejudice and Diversity. In the former, a number of theoretical and case-based policy interventions were explored. Jonathan Grix (Birmingham) began by highlighting the unprecedented financial investment in elite sports between 2006-2012. He went on, however, to question the reliability of the evidence base for which the investment is premised upon. Laura Kelly (Durham) introduced an interesting paradox concerning the status of young people in contemporary policy. Whilst noting that ‘youth’ has been ‘a symbol of potentiality’ in much of New Labour’s rhetoric, the contradistinction between policy and practice begs the question whether New Labour has been ‘“aiming high” or “cracking down” on young people?’ The focus on youth was extended in Sarah Melville’s (Loughborough) presentation. Reporting on research into the UK School Games, a division was identified between the objectives of some NGOs and the official rationale for the games. Iain Lindsey (Southampton) concluded the sub group’s session with a theoretical consideration of the potential for fusing Foucault’s notion of governmentality with Alastair Macintyre’s virtue ethics.
The Prejudice and Diversity parallel session was also made up of four papers, given by Tony Collins (Leeds Metropolitan), Thomas Fletcher (Leeds Metropolitan), Adrianne Blue (City) and Kate Dashper (Leeds Metropolitan). Collins’ paper was an illuminating analysis of the previously untapped resources which looked at the politics of the Springboks’ 1969 rugby union tour of Britain. In doing so, he examined the ambivalent policy of Harold Wilson's Labour government to the tour, the politics of the demonstrators and the attitudes of the Rugby Football Union and its supporters, arguing that the tour was not only a crucial turning point in the campaign against sporting links with the apartheid regime but was also a defining moment for the sport of rugby union, both in Britain and abroad. Fletcher’s paper looked at the myths and invented traditions embedded within cricket in Yorkshire and how they have aided a culture of ethnocentric exclusion. His paper drew upon interesting ethnographic fieldwork undertaken with white and British-Asian cricketers who participated in the Yorkshire leagues. Blue and Dashper both looked at the socio-political issues relating to the South African athlete Caster Seymenya in distinctive ways. Blue argued that the case revealed the absence of a clear definition of a woman in the context of sport, using athletics as a case study. Dashper, on the other hand, used Judith Butler’s theoretical framework to argue that the ways in which many of the practices of modern sport are framed as issues of fairness police the boundaries of gender, sex and sexuality within sport and beyond, with Semenya being an empirical case in point of this argument.
The second of the subgroup sessions saw presentations on Priorities and beneficiaries in Sport Policy and Rethinking Football and Society. In the Sports Policy session, Neil King (Edgehill) discussed sports policy at the local authority level. Recent restructuring of service provision has lead to increasing pressure being forced upon local government. Sport has gone from being primarily self serving, to being used for a host of other means. Joe Piggin (Loughborough) provided an interesting consideration of the work of corporations in sport and health promotion. Although many products sold by organisations conradict health promotion, viewing corporations as ‘villains’ is overly simplistic. The negative representation of corporations in editorials implies that the state is the only legitimate health promoting institute; the current labelling of corporations is, potentially, damaging to future initiatives. Andy Adams (Southampton Solent) offered the final subgroup contribution. The lecture focused on three strains of social capital, and how these are adopted as motivating factors for sports participation. There was a call for policy makers to take note of the social capital people aim to achieve through sports participation.
Over at the Football and Society session, Joel Rookwood (Liverpool Hope), George Poulton (Manchester) and Sean Hamil (Birkbeck) presented papers about the way in which football interfaces with, and is shaped by, wider socio-cultural issues. The focus of Rookwood’s paper was to explore the notion of violence at football matches, arguing that some ‘traditional’ but ‘non-hooligan’ fans appreciate their club having a reputation for football violence. Drawing upon extensive participant observation material, he argued that fans use a number of frames such as protection of non-violent fans and club prestige in order to justify their positive attitudes toward hooligan encounters. Poulton took a different sub-cultural value in football, by ethnographically examining the attitudes toward the commercialisation of football amongst protest club FC United of Manchester supporters. In this paper, he argued that football fans search for a means of cultural-political ‘distinction’ which is a way of justifying their actions as football fans as ‘authentic’, especially when compared to other fan groups. Hamil rounded off the session with an absorbing paper which looked at the impending crisis in English football which has been created by club’s perpetual overspending and asked questions about the policies which could be implemented to reduce the risk of football’s ‘inconvenient truth’.
The day was concluded with the second keynote paper, provided by Richard Giulianotti (Durham) who gave a thought-provoking talk which simultaneously brought together many of the conference themes and discussed the future trajectories of sport, as a trans-disciplinary object of analysis. Giulianotti’s posed a vision for the field beyond the ‘old guard’ who, he claimed, had been wedded to sectarian theoretical stances. He pointed toward a bright future of a theoretically diverse and trans-disciplinary field of study whose research priorities would be: distributive justice; sport governmentality; mega-events; social division; international divisions of labour and sport-based interventions into peace and international development.
In what was a stimulating array of presentations, the organisers incorporated a range of topics into a coherent, yet wide-ranging critique of sport. The presence of a number of postgraduate and postdoctoral students amongst the presenters was particularly stimulating for understanding the ways in which this sub-field is moving and the forms of methodological and analytical techniques being applied. The combination of theoretical and case-based discussions catered for all delegates and led to some fruitful debates, leaving those in attendance with many issues to consider in future research.
Report by Mark Edwards, Durham University
Full programme
The first of two keynote addresses came from Ian McDonald (Brighton). Beginning with a discussion on the importance of critique to his documentary portfolio, McDonald argued that critique is a necessary epistemological position and political stance to help both the future of sport and the sociology of sport. This lively lecture provided a short history of ‘the documentary’, demonstrating how, since their emergence, documentaries have played a key and unique role for looking at reality. With a brief overview of some of his own documentaries (notably, Brighton Bandits), the focus shifted to the ingrained dimensions of homosexuality in football and Ian discussed his own interventions through a forthcoming documentary that follows the recently-launched Justin Campaign. A thought provoking discussion ensued, followed by a series of questions which largely sought elaboration on the impenetrability of the ‘inside’ of football clubs, and the invisibility of homosexuality in professional football.
A series of three papers by Matthew David (Brunel), Simon Gardiner (Leeds Metropolitan) and Colin King (Martin Shaw King Trust) considering Sport and Transnationalism followed. David offered a timely paper on ‘The Future of TV Rights in an Age of Free Distribution’. Parallels between music and sport in the ‘digital age’ were prominent throughout. The themes of file sharing and live streaming were explored vis-à-vis their impact on music and sport industries. The impact is neither as straightforward, nor as negative, as some commentators suggest. David’s presentation usefully raised important distinctions between music and sports fans. He asked ‘Are the cultural foundations of sport being undermined by hyper-commercialism? Does the economic model of sport depend upon sports fans receiving a double-whammy of paying for TV subscriptions and live events?’ Gardiner discussed ‘Nationality and Protectionism in Football’. Specifically focusing on UEFA’s recent Home Grown Players Rule and FIFA’s projected 6+5 Rule, he offered a critique of labour migration policies and the potential human rights violations within. Arguing for the freedom of movement, the paper identified a number of contentious issues, highlighting the importance of ‘proportionate response’ in the management of football labour migration. A provocative response to the question ‘Is Soccer the New African Slave Trade?’ was then provided by King. Parralels were drawn between the African slave trade and the scouting techniques of powerful European football clubs. The tactics of some clubs, it was argued, results in the diversion of finances away from African nations to the clubs that invest in such academies. This was a further instance of the development of underdevelopment thesis. With recruits who fail to progress to the elite level being ‘dumped’ in European cities, King asks ‘is it slavery or economics?’
Delegates subsequently split into two subgroups; Policy Interventions and Prejudice and Diversity. In the former, a number of theoretical and case-based policy interventions were explored. Jonathan Grix (Birmingham) began by highlighting the unprecedented financial investment in elite sports between 2006-2012. He went on, however, to question the reliability of the evidence base for which the investment is premised upon. Laura Kelly (Durham) introduced an interesting paradox concerning the status of young people in contemporary policy. Whilst noting that ‘youth’ has been ‘a symbol of potentiality’ in much of New Labour’s rhetoric, the contradistinction between policy and practice begs the question whether New Labour has been ‘“aiming high” or “cracking down” on young people?’ The focus on youth was extended in Sarah Melville’s (Loughborough) presentation. Reporting on research into the UK School Games, a division was identified between the objectives of some NGOs and the official rationale for the games. Iain Lindsey (Southampton) concluded the sub group’s session with a theoretical consideration of the potential for fusing Foucault’s notion of governmentality with Alastair Macintyre’s virtue ethics.
The Prejudice and Diversity parallel session was also made up of four papers, given by Tony Collins (Leeds Metropolitan), Thomas Fletcher (Leeds Metropolitan), Adrianne Blue (City) and Kate Dashper (Leeds Metropolitan). Collins’ paper was an illuminating analysis of the previously untapped resources which looked at the politics of the Springboks’ 1969 rugby union tour of Britain. In doing so, he examined the ambivalent policy of Harold Wilson's Labour government to the tour, the politics of the demonstrators and the attitudes of the Rugby Football Union and its supporters, arguing that the tour was not only a crucial turning point in the campaign against sporting links with the apartheid regime but was also a defining moment for the sport of rugby union, both in Britain and abroad. Fletcher’s paper looked at the myths and invented traditions embedded within cricket in Yorkshire and how they have aided a culture of ethnocentric exclusion. His paper drew upon interesting ethnographic fieldwork undertaken with white and British-Asian cricketers who participated in the Yorkshire leagues. Blue and Dashper both looked at the socio-political issues relating to the South African athlete Caster Seymenya in distinctive ways. Blue argued that the case revealed the absence of a clear definition of a woman in the context of sport, using athletics as a case study. Dashper, on the other hand, used Judith Butler’s theoretical framework to argue that the ways in which many of the practices of modern sport are framed as issues of fairness police the boundaries of gender, sex and sexuality within sport and beyond, with Semenya being an empirical case in point of this argument.
The second of the subgroup sessions saw presentations on Priorities and beneficiaries in Sport Policy and Rethinking Football and Society. In the Sports Policy session, Neil King (Edgehill) discussed sports policy at the local authority level. Recent restructuring of service provision has lead to increasing pressure being forced upon local government. Sport has gone from being primarily self serving, to being used for a host of other means. Joe Piggin (Loughborough) provided an interesting consideration of the work of corporations in sport and health promotion. Although many products sold by organisations conradict health promotion, viewing corporations as ‘villains’ is overly simplistic. The negative representation of corporations in editorials implies that the state is the only legitimate health promoting institute; the current labelling of corporations is, potentially, damaging to future initiatives. Andy Adams (Southampton Solent) offered the final subgroup contribution. The lecture focused on three strains of social capital, and how these are adopted as motivating factors for sports participation. There was a call for policy makers to take note of the social capital people aim to achieve through sports participation.
Over at the Football and Society session, Joel Rookwood (Liverpool Hope), George Poulton (Manchester) and Sean Hamil (Birkbeck) presented papers about the way in which football interfaces with, and is shaped by, wider socio-cultural issues. The focus of Rookwood’s paper was to explore the notion of violence at football matches, arguing that some ‘traditional’ but ‘non-hooligan’ fans appreciate their club having a reputation for football violence. Drawing upon extensive participant observation material, he argued that fans use a number of frames such as protection of non-violent fans and club prestige in order to justify their positive attitudes toward hooligan encounters. Poulton took a different sub-cultural value in football, by ethnographically examining the attitudes toward the commercialisation of football amongst protest club FC United of Manchester supporters. In this paper, he argued that football fans search for a means of cultural-political ‘distinction’ which is a way of justifying their actions as football fans as ‘authentic’, especially when compared to other fan groups. Hamil rounded off the session with an absorbing paper which looked at the impending crisis in English football which has been created by club’s perpetual overspending and asked questions about the policies which could be implemented to reduce the risk of football’s ‘inconvenient truth’.
The day was concluded with the second keynote paper, provided by Richard Giulianotti (Durham) who gave a thought-provoking talk which simultaneously brought together many of the conference themes and discussed the future trajectories of sport, as a trans-disciplinary object of analysis. Giulianotti’s posed a vision for the field beyond the ‘old guard’ who, he claimed, had been wedded to sectarian theoretical stances. He pointed toward a bright future of a theoretically diverse and trans-disciplinary field of study whose research priorities would be: distributive justice; sport governmentality; mega-events; social division; international divisions of labour and sport-based interventions into peace and international development.
In what was a stimulating array of presentations, the organisers incorporated a range of topics into a coherent, yet wide-ranging critique of sport. The presence of a number of postgraduate and postdoctoral students amongst the presenters was particularly stimulating for understanding the ways in which this sub-field is moving and the forms of methodological and analytical techniques being applied. The combination of theoretical and case-based discussions catered for all delegates and led to some fruitful debates, leaving those in attendance with many issues to consider in future research.
Report by Mark Edwards, Durham University
Full programme
