Reading question

Spaaij_et_al-2015-Sociology_Compass.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Reading question

Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 400–411, 10.1111/soc4.12254

Sport and Social Inequalities

Ramón Spaaij1,2,3*, Karen Farquharson4 and Timothy Marjoribanks5 1College of Sport and Exercise Science, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), and Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing (CCDW), Victoria University 2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam 3Utrecht University School of Governance 4Department of Education and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology 5La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University

Abstract This article reviews recent research on the relationship between sport and social inequalities, focusing on gender, race, nation and social mobility. Through an engagement with these areas of research, we highlight how sport ref lects and reinforces broader hierarchical structures; how it serves as a site for both inclusion and exclusion, but in ways that work unevenly; and how sport is ultimately a site for social reproduction of hierarchy and social stratification. We argue that the gender, racial and national hierarchies that sport is embedded within interact to largely prevent sport from being a site for social mobility, despite popular myths to the contrary.

Introduction

Given its global popularity and its significance to global political, economic and cultural issues, as well as to everyday life, it is unsurprising that sport has burgeoned as a research field in sociology (Woodward 2012). Increasingly, this body of research has been directing attention to the relationship between sport, social inequalities and social change, with scholars calling on sociologists to make sport more central to analyses of social power (Eckstein et al. 2010; Washington and Karen 2001). The sociology of sport has evolved significantly in recent years, and it is timely to critically ref lect on its recent developments in relation to analyses of social divisions and inequalities. In this article, we examine sport as a contested set of power relations embedded in systems of

social inequality at the global, national and local levels. We review recent research on the relationship between sport and social inequalities, focusing on gender, race, nation and social mobility. This review shows that institutionalised inequalities according to gender, race and nation are often considered in isolation from each other or, less frequently, in terms of how they intersect. We highlight how sport is structured by inequality along gender, racial and national lines and how it is limited as a source of social mobility for those at the bottom of these hierar- chies, despite the rhetorical fairness and meritocracy often attributed to sports. We argue that these gender, racial and national hierarchies that sport is embedded within interact to maintain sport as a site for social inequality. This embeddedness largely prevents sport, despite popular myths to the contrary, from being a level-playing field and a site for social mobility.

Gender

Gender is arguably the most visible site of inequality in sport. The contemporary literature on gender in sport is largely concentrated in three somewhat overlapping areas: masculinity and

Sport and Social Inequalities 401

femininity; sexuality and homophobia; and bodily sex (including gender testing). It also, at times, looks at intersections between gender, race and class, though this is not a large focus. Similarly, gender equity, which used to be a key issue for sports sociologists, has been studied infrequently in recent years (but see Dufur and Linford 2010). The main recent focus for gender research in sport has arguably been in the interconnected

areas of masculinity, femininity and sexuality. Sport itself is organised by ideologies of patriarchy and heteronormativity. Mainstream sports such as hockey (e.g. Allain 2012), soccer (association football) (e.g. Adams et al. 2010), and sport in general (e.g. Coad 2008; Messner 2002) are organised around discourses of hegemonic masculinity that value hypermasculine, heterosexual men. These discourses serve to marginalise effeminate men and all women, maintaining mainstream sport as both heterosexual and homophobic (Coad 2008). Hegemonic masculinity justifies the lesser regard, and its associated lack of resources provided to women’s sport by asserting that the patriarchal organisation of sport is natural, normal and is therefore somehow right. Mainstream men’s sports are associated with hegemonic masculinity and often explicitly

marginalise homosexual athletes (Coad 2008). Homosexual men are almost never openly homosexual in mainstream sport, particularly in team sports (Coad 2008). Male homosexuality is marginalised in sport culture where one way of maintaining heteronormative hegemonic masculinity is to value manliness while simultaneously expressing homophobic opinions (Anderson 2002). Heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity are reinforced in locker room talk whichmarginalises homosexuality and reinforces heterosexual masculinity (Anderson 2002; Coad 2008; Messner 2002). As a result, professional male athletes almost never come out as homosexual, but sometimes come out as straight, usually in response to rumours about their sexuality (Coad 2008). Interestingly, recent research suggests that as broader societal homophobia has decreased

homophobia in sport, while still present, has lessened, and heterosexual men are now sometimes able to present as less hypermasculine without repercussion (Anderson 2009). This has led to the development of a theory of inclusive masculinity (Anderson 2009). Inclusive masculinity emerges when homohysteria, a culture characterised by homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality, diminishes, and a more inclusive masculinity emerges in contest with what Anderson (2009) calls orthodox masculinity, which is akin to what we have called hegemonic masculinity. This reduction in homophobia is also present in sports fans, with a recent study finding that a large majority of sports fans do not hold homophobic attitudes and are more interested in on-field performances than whether or not the players are gay (Cashmore and Cleland 2012). However, this perceived move towards inclusive masculinities and greater tolerance amongst fans has not yet led to gay athletes feeling comfort- able coming out (Cashmore and Cleland 2012). The place of sexuality is different in women’s sport. Where homosexual men are considered

unsuited to sport because they are not masculine enough (Elling and Janssens 2009), homosex- ual women are excluded because they are too masculine. Where men have to highlight their masculinity, women have to emphasize their femininity. For example, professional sports- women are often portrayed in full make-up and accompanied by their children (Muller 2007), whereas professional sportsmen are not. Further, women who participate in male- dominated sports are often constructed as masculine (Russell 2007), while men who participate in women’s sport are often seen as feminine or gay (Grindstaff and West 2011). Constructing women who are good at sport as manly or lesbian serves to downplay their achievements while reinforcing heteronormativity. Likewise, marginalising homosexual men so that they are dis- couraged from being openly gay also reinforces the dominance of heterosexual masculinity in sport (Anderson 2002).

402 Sport and Social Inequalities

There is much less research into femininity in sport than there is into masculinity. Indeed, it has been argued that femininity in sport and in general is under-theorised (Grindstaff and West 2011). While Connell (1995) argues that there is no hegemonic femininity because all feminin- ities are subordinate to hegemonic masculinity, nevertheless the types of femininity in sport re- inforce the valuing of the feminine heterosexual woman athlete above the homosexual woman athlete. Studies of masculinity, femininity and sexuality in sport highlight that sport maintains and reinforces both the patriarchal gender hierarchy and the heteronormative sexuality hierar- chy. These hierarchies are further normalised through practices of sex testing. A small but interesting body of research looks at sex testing (sometimes referred to as

gender verification) and gender boundaries in sport (e.g. Henne 2014, 2015). Gender bound- aries are policed in sport, but only in women’s sport. This is becausemen’s bodies are considered to be bigger and stronger than women’s, and so it would not be fair for men to compete directly against women. A woman masquerading as a man is thought to have little chance of winning, and whether such a woman participates does not threaten the perceived fairness of competition. However, a man masquerading as a woman is expected to have an advantage, and his participa- tion would threaten the evenness of the playing field. So sports care very much whether men participate as women, but not at all whether women participate as men. Because of this concern, womenwho are performing well or appear masculine are sometimes

sex tested (Wackwitz 2003). The challenge for sex testing is that there is no definitive sex test (Dreger 2010; Wonkam et al. 2010). Bodies, hormones and chromosomes do not necessarily align with either sex or gender categories. There are a number of conditions where a person may appear to be female and may have no testosterone but may have XY chromosomes. Such a person would have no physical advantages. On the other side, a person with XX chromo- somes might have ‘extra’ androgens, hormones that are thought to give physical advantages. In- deed, normal people have a range of levels of hormones, and it is unclear what constitutes normal (Dreger 2010). Social research into sex testing argues largely against it and also challenges the notion that sex

and gender are binary categories. Further, this research notes that sex testing consolidates patri- archy by maintaining and reinforcing the idea that there are separate sexes, even though the bodily evidence is much more nuanced in this regard (Wackwitz 2003). Women’s bodies alone are subject to this regulatory regime. Sociologists have not contributed a great deal to discussions in this area, but it is one that should be of concern. The research into gender and sport shows that sport is organised around hierarchies that value

men (patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity) and heterosexuals (heteronormativity). Sport, then, can be conceptualised as a heteronormative masculine domain. Taken together, contemporary research on gender in sport highlights the power differences between men’s and women’s sport. Women participate less, and their sports are less valued in all regards. Sport continues to be organised on patriarchal grounds and structured by heteronormativity and hegemonic mascu- linity (Grindstaff and West 2011; Marjoribanks and Farquharson 2012). Heterosexual men re- main at the centre of sport (Messner 2002), while homosexuals and women remain on the margins. Due to their perceived physical disadvantages, women’s bodies in sport are further scrutinised through sex testing regimes.

Race

Race has been a key area of social research into sport. Race is a socially constructed category. Geneticists have long known that there is greater genetic variation within racial groups than be- tween them (e.g. Bamshad et al. 2003), and, further, that genetic endowments that favour sport- ing achievement do not fall along racial lines. Nevertheless, the myth that Black athletes are

Sport and Social Inequalities 403

naturally talented is pervasive, and shapes the experiences of all athletes in multi-racial sporting contexts. This sportingmyth is based on an ideology that situates Blacks as lesser than other racial groups. In this way, sport maintains racial hierarchies, serving as site for social control by race. Research into race in sport has focused on a number of key areas including media represen-

tations of race in sport, positional segregation, pay discrepancies, racial vilification and racialised sport participation patterns. In addition, there is an emerging literature around Whiteness and sport. Many of these studies have aimed to debunk the myth that Black athletes are naturally gifted. In this section, we review the research on race and sport, beginning with a discussion of the myth of natural talent. Overall, the literature indicates that race and racism are ongoing concerns in sport around the world. The myth of natural talent says that Black athletes are naturally good at sport, while White

athletic success is the result of hard work. It downplays the achievements of Black athletes while lauding the achievements of White athletes. It associates Blackness with intellectual inferiority and Whiteness with intellectual superiority (Sailes 1991). The myth has been observed in the United Kingdom (Long and Hylton 2002), Australia (Hallinan and Judd 2009), Norway (Massao and Fasting 2010), the United States (Azzarito and Harrison 2008), and elsewhere. The myth of natural talent appears to be behind much of the discrimination and differential

treatment experienced by Black athletes. Based on an ideology that situates Black peoples as physically gifted but mentally inferior, the myth of natural talent serves to justify the differential treatment meted out to Black athletes. This myth is a form of social control that is pervasive in societies in general, not just in sport. Although not based in reality, it is deeply held and difficult to shift (St. Louis 2004). The myth is held by people of all races, even the Black athletes who are subject to it (Rasmussen et al. 2005). It is perpetuated from junior sport all the way through to professional sport (Azzarito and Harrison 2008). Media discourses around race in sport serve to reinforce and maintain the myth of natural talent (Bruce 2004). Because of this myth, one study found, Black student athletes felt they needed to overtly manage the stereotypes that suggested they were not worthy of their university place (Martin et al. 2010). The myth of natural talent is reinforced by media discourses of race in the context of sport

(Bruce 2004; Van Sterkenburg 2011). For example, in one British study, White soccer players were more likely to be discussed using psychological descriptors than Black players, and Black players were more likely to be discussed using physical descriptors (McCarthy and Jones 1997). A North American study found that African-American players were more likely to be called by their first name by commentators than White players (Bruce 2004). Another study found that media coverage of Black athletes reinforces myths around Blacks’ masculinity and sexuality and helps to maintain a racial frame that privileges Whites (Leonard and King 2011). The myth of natural talent affects players’ on-field experiences, and in particular, it likely

contributes to the practice of positional segregation, also called ‘stacking’, which occurs when players are restricted to particular positions on the field of play depending on their race. Typically, Black players are put in positions that require speed and agility, while White players are put in decision-making roles. Positional segregation was first described by Loy and Elvogue in 1970 and remains an issue today in many sports including Major League Baseball (Associated Press 2008), American football ( gridiron) (Berri and Simmons 2009), Australian rules football (Hallinan and Judd 2009), and soccer (Massao and Fasting 2010). Notably, not all professional sports have positional segregation. NBA basketball in the United States does not appear to have positional segregation (Kahn and Shah 2005), and although British soccer and Australian rugby have histories of positional segregation, it no longer seems to be practiced. One of the consequences of positional segregation is that non-White players do not get

decision-making experience and are overlooked for coaching and sports administration posi- tions once they finish playing (Loy and Elvogue 1970). This is borne out by statistics that show

404 Sport and Social Inequalities

few professional coaches in sports with positional segregation are not White (Hallinan and Judd 2009; Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport 2008; Madden 2004). An additional type of racial discrimination in professional sport is in salaries. There is evidence from American football and basketball that Black athletes are paid less than non-Black athletes, even when they are better performers (Berri and Simmons 2009; Kahn and Shah 2005; McCormick and Tollison 2001). Racial vilification is commonly experienced by Black athletes. Racial vilification refers to

abusive statements made against players, coaches, officials, spectators and teams due to their ra- cial background. It has been reported in sporting competitions around the world (Farquharson and Marjoribanks 2006; Gardiner 2003; Long 2000; Massao and Fasting 2010). Many compe- titions have developed policies against racial vilification, and these do seem to reduce its practice (Gardiner 2003), but research indicates it is an ongoing issue that aims to disadvantage Black players (Burdsey 2010). More broadly, sport participation patterns vary by race, with overrepresentation of minority

groups in some sports, and under-representation in others. For example, Olympic swimming has long been dominated by White athletes, while North American basketball is dominated by African-Americans (Marjoribanks and Farquharson 2012). There are few elite Black tennis players or golfers, but many Black American football players. Blacks are under-represented in Major League Baseball (Associated Press 2008). Recent research suggests that even in sports where African-Americans dominate, African-Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds are under-represented (Dubrow and Adams 2012). Further, non-Whites are less likely to partici- pate in recreational sport than Whites in several locales (Department of Sport and Recreation 2005; Sport England 2005), with potential negative effects on their health. Finally, there is an emerging concern withWhiteness in sport. Whiteness studies aim to shed

light on the mechanisms of racism by studying the dominant group. Such research has problematised Whiteness, which has usually been situated as the reference group that others are compared with. Research into Whiteness has examined its absence. For example, in studies where people are asked to identify their ethnicity, White ethnicity is often not interrogated whereas non-White ethnicity is (Hylton 2008; Long andHylton 2002). In the sporting context, non-Whites are sometimes seen as others (‘they’, not ‘us’) (McDonald, forthcoming) and are as- sociated with attributes related to the myth of natural talent (Long and Hylton 2002). Research into Whiteness often examines how Whites benefit from the maintenance of beliefs in racial difference. Whiteness intersects with gender and class to maintain the racial order. Overall, research into race and sport indicates that racism is an ongoing issue. Fuelled by a

persistent belief in the myth of natural talent, Black athletes face positional segregation, racial vilification and a downplaying of their achievements. Most pernicious is the way in which the myth of natural talent situates the achievements of Black athletes as less than those of athletes of other racial backgrounds. Beliefs in racial difference serve to maintain racial hierarchies and can be viewed as a form of social control. Racial ideologies such as the myth of natural talent help to keep Blacks at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. As with gender, these beliefs are enacted on a global scale and reinforced through global media coverage of both national and international sporting events.

Nation

In this section, we discuss inequality in the context of nation. Here we consider nations as both part of a global community where national teams compete on an unequal playing field and in competition with wealthy professional sports leagues, and as a site of belonging, where sport can both exclude and include groups within nations.

Sport and Social Inequalities 405

International sport is predicated on the existence of separate nations that compete for na- tional glory (Rowe 2003). In this way, the nation and the nation-state remain critical organising principles for contemporary sport and continue to structure and inf luence global sports governance and transnational athlete migration (Carter 2011). In many sports, there is, however, a global market that competes with national teams, attracting the best athletes to leave their country of origin to play in professional leagues. This trend places these elite leagues in competition with nations for players’ time and loyalty. For example, the increasingly powerful club-based teams of European soccer seek to dictate the organisation of soccer for their own interests, even where that is at the expense of national teams (Giulianotti and Robertson 2009; King 2000). Athletes contracted to these clubs are expected to put club obligations above national obligations, thus threatening the status of international competitions. The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a similarly multinational professional Twenty20 cricket professional competition, in which teams are made up of players contracted from other clubs and competitions from around the world. What emerges is a professional context in which players travel from nation to nation to

ply their trade, focused on club and individual advancement (Poli 2007). Nations with strong leagues that pay high amounts are able to attract the best players. The IPL and similar sporting ventures in non-western nations may be taken as evidence that these leagues are challenging the global game power structure (Gupta 2009). The case of the IPL is interesting as India would otherwise not be considered a wealthy sporting nation. Generally, the movement of athletes globally is from poor nations to rich nations with wealthy leagues (Poli 2010; Klein 2006). Just as nations can act as a source of identity construction and building (Rowe 2003; Smith

and Porter 2004), so they can act as sites of tension, division and social exclusion (Burdsey 2006; Spaaij 2012). Within nations, whether or not a person follows sport can become an everyday mechanism through which they either are included or excluded. It is also evident that sport at the national level can be a source of inclusion or exclusion through the ways in which it intersects with other social relations, such as gender and race (Van Sterkenburg 2013). For ex- ample, at the national level, while there will often be bothmen’s andwomen’s teams competing in the same sport, men’s teams typically secure much more media exposure, higher levels of sponsorship and higher pay levels for the athletes. As our discussion of race and gender above shows, there is nothing natural about such differences. They are the outcome of contested power relations in society. The media plays a crucial role in framing particular representations of the nation, with con-

sequences both in terms of the types of representations that occur and their effects or impacts (Farquharson and Marjoribanks 2003). The sports media’s stereotyping of nations, and particu- larly other nations, has been a common finding in research on national identity and sport (Crolley and Hand 2006; Garland 2004; Maguire and Poulton 1999). While supra-national sporting competitions and the increasing multinational composition of clubs and competitions provide a potential space for the articulation of post-national identities (Millward 2006), recent research suggests that stereotyped and even xenophobic representations of nation and national identity are still routine and persistent features of the media’s coverage of international sporting events (Cox et al., forthcoming). Overall, sociological research has made important contributions in showing how the nation

has been and continues to be a significant site of inequality in sport at both global and local levels. Nation and nationalism are key sites of contested and contradictory power relations within sport. On the one hand, they can be sites of social inclusion, creating a space through which people are able to feel they are members of a larger collectivity. On the other hand, sport can also act as a form of social division and exclusion in the context of the nation.

406 Sport and Social Inequalities

Social mobility

A popular belief is that sport offers the underprivileged a vehicle for social mobility. Sport is seen to provide a level-playing field where those with sufficient talent and commitment can succeed, regardless of their race, gender or socioeconomic status. The possibility of staggering wealth and social status through professional sport most certainly exists. In reality, however, the relationship between sport and social mobility is complex and ambivalent (Eitzen 2009; Spaaij 2011). International research shows that sport participation can facilitate intragenerational and inter-

generational mobility through mechanisms such as enhanced occupational and income status, educational attainment and social prestige (e.g. Eisen and Turner 1992; Semyonov 1986; Sohi and Yusuff 1987; Spaaij 2011). Athletic performance and physical capital are resources of power that can open doors that would otherwise remain closed for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, recent research shows that the social mobility pathways that sport offers are often exaggerated. Not only is the popular view of sport as a social mobility escalator unre- alistic, it may even be detrimental to disadvantaged groups because it reproduces or exacerbates their disadvantage (Anderson 2010; Messner 2007). The relationship between sport and social mobility may be viewed as a zero-sum game where time spent on sport takes away from time that could be spent on education or work experience (Mackin and Walther 2012; Spaaij 2012; Rodriguez and McDonald 2013). These critical accounts suggest that instead of facilitating up- ward mobility, participation in sport diverts attention and energies away from more likely paths to social mobility (Carrington 1986; Anderson 2010). While this body of research advances our understanding of the relationship between sport

and social mobility, a number of areas of contention remain. A major limitation of existing re- search is that most studies focus on athletes who have achieved professional status. The picture these studies present is unbalanced; it does not account for the fact that for every elite athlete, there are thousands of aspiring athletes who never reach professional status (Messner 2007; Poli 2010). Not only are the odds of becoming a professional athlete very long (Leonard 1996; Poli 2010), professional sporting careers are also notoriously brief, averaging well below 10years, particularly in team contact sports (Leonard 1996; Witnauer et al. 2007). A sporting career is a compressed work career that typically involves rapid ascent followed by rapid decline. For ex- ample, a recent study found professional baseball careers in the United States to be ‘an inevitably short time on a very slippery slope’ (Witnauer et al. 2007: 382). Age is a key factor inf luencing career longevity and social mobility opportunities. Upward mobility achieved during an athlete’s career may be followed by downward mobil-

ity after retirement from professional sport. While some athletes do quite well after retirement from sport by maintaining financial security and social prestige, others experience downward mobility (Carrington 1986; Eitzen 2009; Houlston 1982; Lever 1995). Barriers to successful post-career transition are higher for Black and minority ethnic athletes as they continue to face restricted access to key functionary positions in professional sport, such as in coaching, manage- ment and media roles (Cashmore and Cleland 2011; Hallinan and Judd 2009). Another key issue is the striking differences in social mobility opportunities between the small

number of high paid, globally televised, male-dominated sports such as leading football, baseball and basketball competitions, and other sports that are less well funded and televised (Eitle 2005; Eitle and Eitle 2002). Schotté’s study (2008) of North African long-distance runners in France, who experience financial and occupational insecurity, presents an important counterpoint to research undertaken with global sport celebrities, and highlights the precariousness of athletic careers that exists in many sports. Most important for the present purpose, however, is that social mobility opportunities in and

through sport are strongly inf luenced by the intersections between race, gender and class.

Sport and Social Inequalities 407

Overall, White males from middle-class backgrounds benefit most from professional sporting careers, while there are fewer viable, well-paid career opportunities for women, Blacks and mi- nority ethnic groups, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Anderson 2010; Leonard 1996; Messner 2007; Sabo et al. 1993). An exception to this critical insight is a recent study in the United States (Mackin andWalther 2012) which found that sport participation also had a positive effect on social mobility for African-American men, and not just forWhite males. The study did not find any statistically significant inf luence upon social mobility for Hispanic men in the United States.

Conclusion

This review indicates that sport is a site of entrenched inequalities along gender, race, nation and class lines. Its promise as a site for social mobility is limited for most groups. Based on this reading of the literature, we come to three conclusions: sport ref lects and reinforces broader hierarchical structures; sport is a site for both inclusion and exclusion, but the way this works is uneven; and sport is ultimately a site for social reproduction of hierarchy and social stratification. We discuss each in turn. First, sport is embedded in broader hierarchical societal structures that it both reproduces and

reinforces. Like the rest of western societies, sport is organised around a gender hierarchy that values men’s endeavours more than women’s. Similarly, sport is structured to maintain the dominance of Whiteness and wealth. While there is social mobility for some, middle-class White men are the most likely to benefit from social mobility through sport. Wealthy western nations are also at the centre of high-performance sport, while non-western societies are on the fringes. While there are some instances where sport challenges existing social hierarchies, these are relatively rare. Second, sport can be a site of both inclusion and exclusion, depending on where you sit. Na-

tion, gender and race all play out differently in this regard. Our analysis of nation indicates that it remains an important category for sport, enabling the existence of global sporting competitions outside of privately sponsored sports leagues. The globalisation of sporting competitions means that elite athletes are more globally mobile than ever, both working professionally in other na- tions, and, to a lesser extent, having the ability to change nations due to their sporting ability. Yet for women, elite sport is much less likely to be a site for inclusion, with professional oppor- tunities both limited, and where they exist, much less well paid than for men. Ideas of race in- teract with gender and nation and provide both barriers to and opportunities for inclusion. Racial stereotypes associated with various sports arguably make it easier for Black athletes to be included, while simultaneously making it more difficult for them to move into coaching or management.Women in general also have difficulties moving into coaching or management on a professional level, with very few women coaching men’s teams but many men coaching women’s teams. Finally, sport is largely a site for social reproduction of hierarchy and social stratification. It

reproduces existing social structures through its own values, rules and engagements with other social institutions. Through its internal processes, it reproduces patriarchy, heteronormativity and racism. It also contributes to maintaining hierarchy in broader society through its promise of social mobility, which encourages disadvantaged young men to spend time on sport that may perhaps be better spent on education or other activities that would be more likely to con- tribute to upward mobility. In conjunction, these insights highlight how issues of power and inequality are central to con-

temporary sport. They further suggest that the study of sport can make valuable contributions to our understandings of social structure and social inequalities, particularly where research adopts a

408 Sport and Social Inequalities

more intersectional approach to explore how various dimensions of power intersect to repro- duce and reinforce hierarchies and social inequalities.

Short Biographies

Ramón Spaaij is Associate Professor at Victoria University, Australia, and Special Chair of Sociology of Sport at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is also Visiting Professor at the Utrecht University School of Governance. Ramón has an academic back- ground in Sociology and Public Administration, and has a PhD in Sociology from the Univer- sity of Amsterdam. His research focuses on the sociology of sport and the sociology of terrorism. His recent books include Sport and Social Exclusion in Global Society and Sport and Social Mobility: Crossing Boundaries. Karen Farquharson is Associate Dean (Research & Engagement) and Associate Professor of

Sociology at Swinburne University of Technology. She holds PhD and MA degrees in Sociol- ogy from Harvard University and a BA in Social Science from the University of California, Berkeley. Karen is a sociologist with research interests in the areas of sport, ageing, race and the media, and issues of belonging and social inclusion more generally. TimothyMarjoribanks is Professor ofManagement andHead of the Department ofManage-

ment in La Trobe Business School at La Trobe University, Australia. He holds a PhD in Soci- ology fromHarvard University, and is an expert in the use of qualitative researchmethods in the areas of sport, media and health. Professor Marjoribanks’ current research interests are in the areas of sport, media and organisational change.

Note

* Correspondence address: Associate Professor Ramón Spaaij, College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

References

Adams, A., Anderson E. andM. McCormack. 2010. ‘Establishing and Challenging Masculinity: The Influence of Gendered Discourses in Organized Sport.’ Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(3): 278–300.

Allain, K. A. 2012. ‘“Real Fast and Tough”: The Construction of Canadian HockeyMasculinity.’ Pp. 359–371 inRethinking Society in the 21st Century: Critical Readings in Sociology, edited by M. Webber and K. Bezanson. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.

Anderson, E. 2002. ‘Openly Gay Athletes: Contesting HegemonicMasculinity and a Homophobic Environment.’Gender & Society 16(6): 860–877.

Anderson, E. 2009. Inclusive Masculinity. New York: Routledge. Anderson, E. 2010. Sport, Theory and Social Problems. London: Routledge. Associated Press. 2008. ‘MLB Gets Best Grade for Diversity in Hiring; Number of Blacks on Field Drops.’ [Online]. Retrieved on 26 August 2010 from http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3347739.

Azzarito, L. and L. Harrison Jr. 2008. ‘“White Men Can’t Jump”: Race, Gender and Natural Athleticism.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 43: 347–364.

Bamshad, M. J., S. Wooding, W. S.Watkins, C. T. Ostler, M. A. Batzer and L. B. Jorde. 2003. ‘Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership.’ American Journal of Human Genetics 72(3): 578–589.

Berri, D. J. and R. Simmons. 2009. ‘Race and the Evaluation of Signal Callers in the National Football League.’ Journal of Sports Economics 10(1): 23–43.

Bruce, T. 2004. ‘Marking the Boundaries of the “Normal” in Televised Sports: The Play-by-Play of Race.’ Media, Culture and Society 26(6): 861–879.

Burdsey, D. 2006. ‘“If I Ever Play Football, Dad, Can I Play for England or India?” British Asians, Sport and Diasporic National Identities.’ Sociology 40(1): 11–28.

Burdsey, D. 2010. ‘British Muslim Experiences in English First-Class Cricket.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(3): 315–334.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3347739

Sport and Social Inequalities 409

Carrington, B. 1986. ‘Social Mobility, Ethnicity and Sport’. British Journal of Sociology of Education 7(1): 3–18. Carter, T. 2011. In Foreign Fields: The Politics and Experiences of Transnational Sport Migration. London: Pluto Press. Cashmore, E. and J. Cleland. 2011. ‘Why Aren’t There More Black Football Managers?’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(9): 1594–1607.

Cashmore, E. and J. Cleland. 2012. ‘Fans, Homophobia and Masculinities in Association Football: Evidence of a More Inclusive Environment.’ The British Journal of Sociology 63(2): 370–387.

Coad, D. 2008. The Metrosexual: Gender, Sexuality, and Sport. Albany: State University of New York Press. Connell, R. 1995.Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity. Cox, R., L. Hills and E. Kennedy. forthcoming. ‘Myths of Nation in the Champions League.’ Soccer and Society. Crolley, L. and D. Hand. 2006. Football and European Identity. London: Routledge. Department of Sport and Recreation. 2005. Participation Patterns in Sport and Recreation Activities in South Africa: 2005 Survey. Pretoria: Republic of South Africa Department of Sport and Recreation.

Dreger, A. 2010. ‘Sex Typing for Sport.’ Hastings Center Report 40(2): 22–24. Dubrow, J. K. and J. Adams. 2012. ‘Hoop Inequalities: Race, Class and family Structure Background and the Odds of Playing in the National Basketball Association.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(1): 43–59.

Dufur, M. J. and M. K. Linford. 2010. ‘Title IX: Consequences for Gender Relations in Sport.’ Sociology Compass 4(9): 732–748.

Eckstein, R., D.Moss and K. Delaney. 2010. ‘Sports Sociology’s Still Untapped Potential.’ Sociological Forum 25(3): 500–518. Eisen, G. and D. Turner. 1992. ‘Myth and Reality: Social Mobility of the American Olympic Athletes.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 27(2): 165–174.

Eitle, T. McNulty. 2005. ‘Do Gender and Race Matter? Explaining the Relationship between Sports Participation and Achievement.’ Sociological Spectrum 25: 177–195.

Eitle, T.McNulty andD. J. Eitle. 2002. ‘Race, Cultural Capital, and the Educational Effects of Sports Participation.’ Sociology of Education 75(2): 123–146.

Eitzen, D. S. 2009. Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Elling, A. and J. Janssens. 2009. ‘Sexuality as a Structuring Principle in Sport Participation: Negotiating Sports Spaces.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 44(1): 71–86.

Farquharson, K. and T. Marjoribanks. 2003. ‘Transforming the Springboks: Re-Imagining the South African Nation through Sport.’ Social Dynamics 29(1): 27–48.

Farquharson, K. and T.Marjoribanks. 2006. ‘Representing Australia. Race, theMedia and Cricket.’ Journal of Sociology 42(1): 25–41.

Gardiner, G. 2003. ‘“Black” Bodies – “White”Codes: Indigenous Footballers, Racism and the Australian Football League’s Racial and Religious Vilification Code.’ Pp. 29–45 in Sport and Postcolonialism, edited by J. Bale and M. Cronin. Oxford: Berg.

Garland, J. 2004. ‘The Same Old Story? Englishness, the Tabloid Press and the 2002 Football World Cup.’ Leisure Studies 23(1): 79–92.

Giulianotti, R. and R. Robertson. 2009. Globalization and Football. London: Sage. Grindstaff, L. and E. West. 2011. ‘Hegemonic Masculinity on the Sidelines of Sport.’ Sociology Compass 5(10): 859–881. Gupta, A. 2009. ‘India and the IPL: Cricket’s Globalized Empire.’ The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs 98(104): 201–211.

Hallinan, C. and B. Judd. 2009. ‘Race Relations, Indigenous Australia and the Social Impact of Professional Football.’ Sport in Society 12(9): 1220–1235.

Henne, K. 2014. ‘The “Science” of Fair Play in Sport: Gender and the Politics of Testing.’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 39(3): 787–812.

Henne, K. 2015. Testing for Athlete Citizenship: Regulating Doping and Sex in Sport. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Houlston, D. R. 1982. ‘The Occupational Mobility of Professional Athletes.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 17(1): 15–26.

Hylton, K. 2008. ‘Race’ and Sport: Critical Race Theory. London: Routledge. Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. 2008. The Buck Stops Here: Assessing diversity among campus and conference leaders for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Schools in the 2008-09 Academic Year. Orlando, FL: Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports, University of Central Florida, College of Business Administration.

Kahn, L. M. andM. Shah. 2005. ‘Race, Compensation and Contract Length in the NBA: 2001-2.’ Industrial Relations 44(3): 444–462.

King, A. 2000. ‘Football Fandom and Post-National Identity in the New Europe.’ British Journal of Sociology 51(3): 419–442. Klein, A. 2006. Growing the Game: The Globalization of Major League Baseball. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Leonard, D. J. and C. R. King. 2011. ‘Lack of Black Opps: Kobe Bryant and the Difficult Path of Redemption.’ Journal of Sport and Social Issues 35(2): 209–223.

410 Sport and Social Inequalities

Leonard, W.M. 1996. ‘The Odds of Transiting fromOne Level of Sports Participation to Another.’ Sociology of Sport Journal 13: 288–299.

Lever, J. 1995. Soccer Madness, 2nd edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Long, J. 2000. ‘No Racism Here? A Preliminary Examination of Sporting Innocence.’ Managing Leisure 5: 121–133. Long, J. and K. Hylton. 2002. ‘Shades of White: An Examination of Whiteness in Sport.’ Leisure Studies 21(1): 87–103. Loy, J. W. and J. F. Elvogue. 1970. ‘Racial Segregation in American Sport.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 5(1): 5–24.

Mackin, R. S. and C. S. Walther. 2012. ‘Race, Sport and Social Mobility: Horatio Alger in Short Pants?’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(6): 670–689.

Madden, J. F. 2004. ‘Differences in the Success of NFL Coaches by Race, 1990-2002: Evidence of Last Hire, First Fire.’ Journal of Sports Economics 5(1): 6–19.

Maguire, J. and E. Poulton. 1999. ‘European Identity Politics in Euro 96: Invented Traditions and National Habitus Codes.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 34(1): 17–29.

Marjoribanks, T. and K. Farquharson. 2012. Sport and Society in the Global Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Martin, B. E., C. K.Harrison, J. Stone and S.M. Lawrence. 2010. ‘Athletic Voice and Academic Victories: African American Male Student-Athlete Experiences in the Pac-Ten.’ Journal of Sport & Social Issues 34(2): 131–153.

Massao, P. B. and K. Fasting. 2010. ‘Race and Racism: Experiences of Black Norwegian Athletes.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(2): 147–162.

McCarthy, D. and R. L. Jones. 1997. ‘Speed, Aggression, Strength, and Tactical Naïveté. The Portrayal of the Black Soccer Player on Television.’ Journal of Sport and Social Issues 21(4): 348–362.

McCormick, R. E. and R. D. Tollison. 2001. ‘Why Do Black Basketball Players Work More for Less Money?’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 44: 201–219.

McDonald, B. forthcoming. ‘Coaching Whiteness: Stories of “Pacifica Exotica” in Australian High School Rugby.’ Sport, Education & Society.

Messner, M. A. 2002. Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Messner, M. A. 2007. Out of Play: Critical Essays on Gender and Sport. New York: State University of New York Press. Millward, P. 2006. ‘“We’ve All Got the Bug for Euro-Aways”: What the Fans Say about European Football Club Competition.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 41(3/4): 375–393.

Muller, T. K. 2007. ‘The Contested Terrain of theWomen’s National Basketball Association Arena.’ Pp. 37–52 in Sport and Gender Identities, edited by C. Aitchison and S. Scraton. London: Routledge.

Poli, R. 2007. ‘The Denationalization of Sport: De-ethnicization of the Nation and Identity Deterritorialization.’ Sport in Society 10(4): 646–661.

Poli, R. 2010. ‘African Migrants in Asian and European Football: Hopes and Realities.’ Sport in Society 13(6): 1001–1011.

Rasmussen, R., A. Esgate and D. Turner 2005. ‘On Your Marks, Get Stereotyped, Go! Novice Coaches and Black Stereotypes in Sprinting.’ Journal of Sport and Social Issues 29(4): 426–436.

Rodriguez, L. and B. McDonald. 2013. ‘After the Whistle: Issues Impacting on the Health and Wellbeing of Polynesian Players off the Field.’ Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 4(3): 201–215.

Rowe, D. 2003. ‘Sport and the Repudiation of the Global.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 38(3): 281–294. Russell, K. 2007. ‘“Queers, Even in Netball?” Interpretations of the Lesbian Label among Sportswomen.’ Pp. 106–121 in Sport and Gender Identities, edited by C. Aitchison and S. Scraton. London: Routledge.

Sabo, D., M. J. Melnick and B. E. Vanfossen. 1993. ‘High School Athletic Participation and Postsecondary Educational and Occupational Mobility: A Focus on Race and Gender.’ Sociology of Sport Journal 10(1): 44–56.

Sailes, G. A. 1991. ‘The Myth of Black Sports Supremacy.’ Journal of Black Studies 21(4): 480–487. Schotté, M.. 2008. ‘La Condition Athlétique: Ethnographie Du Quotidien De Coureurs Professionnels Immigrés.’ Genéses 71(2): 84–105.

Semyonov, M. 1986. ‘Occupational Mobility through Sport: The Case of Israeli Soccer.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 21(1): 23–32.

Smith, A. and D. Porter (eds) 2004. Sport and National Identity in the Post-War World. London: Routledge. Sohi, A.S. and K. B. Yusuff. 1987. ‘The Socioeconomic Status of Elite Nigerian athletes.’ Sociology of Sport 22(4): 295–303. Spaaij, R. 2011. Sport and Social Mobility: Crossing Boundaries. New York: Routledge. Spaaij, R. 2012. ‘Beyond the Playing Field: Experiences of Sport, Social Capital and Integration among Somalis in Australia.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(9): 1519–1538.

Sport England 2005. Participation in Sport in England: Sports Equity Index 2002. London: Sport England. St. Louis, B. 2004. ‘Sport and Common-sense Racial Science.’ Leisure Studies 23(1): 31–46. Van Sterkenburg, J. 2011. Race, Ethnicity and the Sport Media. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications. Van Sterkenburg, J. 2013. ‘National Bonding and Meanings Given to Race and Ethnicity; Watching the Football World Cup on TV.’ Soccer and Society 14(3): 386–403.

Sport and Social Inequalities 411

Wackwitz, L.A. 2003. ‘Verifying theMyth: Olympic Sex Testing and the Category “Woman”.’Women’s Studies International Forum 26(6): 553–560.

Washington, R.E. and D. Karen. 2001. ‘Sport and Society.’ Annual Review of Sociology 27: 187–212. Witnauer, W. D., R. G. Rogers and J. M. Saint Onge. 2007. ‘Major League Baseball Career Length in the Twentieth Century.’ Population Research and Policy Review 26(4): 371–386.

Wonkam, A., K Fieggen andR.Ramesar. 2010. ‘Beyond the Caster Semenya Controversy: TheCase of the Use of Genetics for Gender Testing in Sport.’ Journal of Genetic Counselling 19: 545–548.

Woodward, K. 2012. Planet Sport. London: Routledge.