The Instrumentalization of Sport in Authoritarian Regimes

Gökhan Acar; Barbaros Serdar Erdoğan

Article Details

The Instrumentalization of Sport in Authoritarian Regimes

Authors:

Gökhan Acar | Barbaros Serdar Erdoğan

Publisher:

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Main Topics:

Political Communication

Journal:

Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty Vol.12 Issue 3, pp.1220-1238

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

9/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001359660

pISSN:

2149-1658

Keywords:

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 Gramscis theory of hegemony and Louis Althussers 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 studiesincluding Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Russiademonstrate 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.

 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 Gramscis theory of hegemony and Louis Althussers 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 studiesincluding Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Russiademonstrate 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.

 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 Gramscis theory of hegemony and Louis Althussers 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 studiesincluding Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Russiademonstrate 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.

 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 Gramscis theory of hegemony and Louis Althussers 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 studiesincluding Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and Russiademonstrate 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.

Article Details

The Instrumentalization of Sport in Authoritarian Regimes

Authors:

Gökhan Acar | Barbaros Serdar Erdoğan

Publisher:

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Main Topics:

Political Communication

Journal:

Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty Vol.12 Issue 3, pp.1220-1238

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

9/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001359660

pISSN:

2149-1658

Authoritarian Regimes

Hegemonic Structures

Ideological State

Sport and Politics

Issues

Article Details

The Instrumentalization of Sport in Authoritarian Regimes

Authors: Gökhan Acar | Barbaros Serdar Erdoğan

Publisher: Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Main Topics: Political Communication

Journal: Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty Vol.12 Issue 3, pp.1220-1238

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 9/2025

Document Language: English

Document ID (Org No.): 2001359660

pISSN: 2149-1658

Authoritarian Regimes

Hegemonic Structures

Ideological State

Sport and Politics

Issues

Authors:

Gökhan Acar | Barbaros Serdar Erdoğan

Publisher:

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Main Topics:

Political Communication

Journal:

Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty Vol.12 Issue 3, pp.1220-1238

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

9/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001359660

pISSN:

2149-1658