Introduction
One could hardly imagine a resident of the developed country who has never delved into such aspect of popular culture as sport – either by buying a soccer ticket, buying exactly the same sneakers model David Beckham was wearing in that Adidas commercial, following the Olympics on TV or hunting some rare baseball cards. In the modern world, sport activities have become extremely different from the leisure games they used to be as they were invented. In the recent decades, significant societal, economic, political and cultural transformations turned sport not just into a socially meaningful phenomenon but rather in an immense domain of business and commerce. Nowadays, sport is a large industry producing multiple commodities and services, employing many people, bringing incredible revenues and regulated by a complex network of national and international governing bodies. The transition between purely amateur sport and the modern sport industry became possible with the tendencies of commodification and commercialization of sporting activities – the phenomena that generated multiple sport-related commodities to be consumed on a massive scale, just like other goods in the epoch of industrial production. Commercialization and commodification, in turn, became natural outcomes of the joint influence of globalization, capitalist mindset and consumerism. As Borisova & Michuda (2011, p. 20) state, the sport services market functions along with commodity and labor markets, having similar structure and organization; meanwhile, the role of sport in national economies is typically evaluated by such economic criteria as funding and investment flows, employment rates or the share of GDP intended for development of national sport. However, transformation of sport into an immense global market has produced a rather corruptive effect in this social phenomenon. In the present essay, commercialization, regulation and commodification of sport in the modern society will be evaluated to prove that the domain of sport activities has been distorted to a significant extent despite visible benefits of commercialization.
Original essence of sport
Originally formed as a type of leisure activity, sport represented the medium of self-fulfillment and was virtually opposed to technical and utilitarian dimensions of life: sport in its original form is rather aesthetic, moral, dramatic and bonding phenomenon (Sewart 2016, p. 172). Any commercial elements were not included in its meaning a century or two ago. Møller and Genz (2014) provide an example of football to illustrate the originally nationalistic nature of sport as a type of leisure activity forming a part of one’s identity: “The modern version of the game was invented in England and has been an element in that country’s leisure activities for English people watching, investing time, emotions and involvement in the sport» (Møller & Genz 2014, p. 263). That is, sport was originally conceived as a type of experience appealing to the individual’s sense of community, identity, need for fulfillment or, in fact, spectacle. Probably, it is the need for spectacles and impressions embedded in human nature that became the spark that set sport ablaze with advent of new ‘revolutionary’ trends in the world’s economy and sociopolitical relations – globalization, consumerism and mass communications.
Ubiquitous commerce in sport
Radical social changes that began in the twentieth century laid foundations of a completely new type of sport, the global commercialized industry involving multiple stakeholders. The research on the topic views the impact of mass communication and technological development as important factors making sport an international spectacle. Commercialization moved sport to the new level and made it an important tool for corporations in their commercial activities. As Evens and colleagues (2013, p. 1) note, modern sport is a “big business” worth $120 million (according to 2010 estimates). That is, the phenomenon which was previously associated mainly with non-commercial and non-market realms has been transformed into an industry offering its products to the consumer society. As sport is a dynamic spectacle involving the strong emotional and entertaining components, it serves as a suitable channel allowing the corporate world to reach the audience or certain consumer groups. This idea is supported by Silk and colleagues (2004) in the book Sport and Corporate Nationalisms: for corporations, commercialization of the domain is justified by their dependence on sport as a principal vehicle which allows them to ‘infuse’ their economic interests into the lives of consumers (Silk et al. 2004).
As it has been mentioned, sport as a commercialized phenomenon offers its own product to the society, and – as Mullin and colleagues (2007, p. 148) put it – it is comprised by an extensive package of both intangible and tangible elements. By transforming non-market elements of sport into products and using a special ‘marketing mix’, the industry manages to address consumers and establish sound sources of revenue. In fact, ‘sport’ experience consists of many various sport products consumed either directly or via media. For instance, sport event experience consists of players whose physical (and psychological, too) performance drives the game, venues, equipment, apparel and the form of the game itself (Mullin et al. 2007, p. 149). Thereby, commercialization of sport implies market relationships between providers of these experiences and other related sport products and potential consumers.
On the other hand, it would be reasonable to mention that commerce has been introduced to the sport domain under influence of and in connection with developing technologies. Beginning with developing communication technologies and media in the twentieth century which made people closer to each other and, in fact, made the world ‘smaller’, TV broadcasting, radio and other channels have been developing to make sport experience accessible for as many people as possible. As Evens and colleagues put it, exploitation of TV broadcasting rights for sport events is a crucial part of the marketing mix that turned sport into the domain of global commerce (Evens et al. 2013, p. 1). Even more, the authors provide an example of the Beijing Olympics of 2008: broadcast right holders got the revenue of around $1.7 billion in media right fees (Evens et al. 2013). However, it should be kept in mind that sport’s connection with technologies is not limited by communication technologies and media: connecting with technologies in development, e.g., in development of secondary products and services, sport manages to reach other economic domains and involve them in commercial processes.
Other important revenue streams used by sport governing bodies, corporate groups and right holders include merchandising, gate revenues (live events) and sponsorships of various types (PWC 2011, p. 2). Due to its entertaining nature, sense of community and large scale, sport events are often used by corporations to reach their potential consumers via advertising, whose potential in revenue generation is immense. As Levin and colleagues explain, commercialization of sport made advertising, promotions, sponsorships and other marketing communication tools ubiquitous (Levin et al. 2013, p. 193).
Both live events and TV broadcasts of major sport events are frequently interrupted by commercial messages appealing to the audience – one of the primary marketing strategies used by corporations to expand their consumer audience via sport. For instance, the U.S. ‘iconic’ creation of popular culture is SuperBowl, which not just yields millions in broadcasting rights for the right holders but also brings approximately $54 million for each of the thirty commercials aired during the game. Other examples include transfers of ‘valuable’ players (such as the case of David Beckham in Manchester United) and multiple endorsement collaborations between famous athletes/players and corporations.
A number of famous CrossFit athletes including Rich Froning and Katrin Tanja Thorisdottir endorse sport apparel and equipment brands participating in commercials, promoting products via social media or taking part in product development.
However, this type of sport commerce differs from advertising and TV broadcast time purchases: while advertising is typically distanced from the sport entity or event itself (e.g., from the game in the spectator sport), sponsorship inserts commercial elements deeper into sport by creating close connections and associations between the corporation and the sponsorship entity which might be a football team, a league, a player or a sport event (e.g., the CrossFit Games) (Levin et al. 2013, p. 195). In other words, commercialization of sport activities (and especially professional sport) has transformed different elements of sport into media through which commercial messages are delivered.
What Mullin and colleagues (2007) define as “star power” contributes to sport commerce: the image of famous players, athletes and champions is used continuously to promote corporate interests and increase revenue flows by selling products and services by association with these personalities. A very bright example of commercial interests behind partnership between sport activities/events/players and transnational corporations manufacturing sport ‘side products’ is the contract between CrossFit (particularly, the CrossFit Games) and Reebok. Since the brand signed a sponsorship contract with the CrossFit Games and multiple CrossFit athletes in 2010, both parties have experienced a dramatic increase in commercial success. By sponsoring the Games and developing special CrossFit footwear and apparel collections, the corporation restored its popularity, increased sales and attained commercial sustainability. On the other hand, CrossFit has seen “large gains in commercial success with bringing on Reebok as a partner to the CrossFit Games” (Rishe, 2011).
Commodification
Market relations penetrate into multiple realms of life including even those that were originally conceived and existed for centuries as non-market. In this relation, Michael Sandel (2013) provides a decent number of outstanding examples such as financial rewards for sterilization of substance abusers, compensations for losing weight in obesity patients and multiple instances of speculative activities in the domain of sport. Gottdiener (2000) provides a summary of debates on consumerism and capitalism citing scholars who view the modern society as the society dominated by consumption. Capitalism, in turn, is then dependent on the culture of consumption; growing demands for more goods and services fuels capitalist economies. In this respect, commodification of sport is among the outcomes of such interdependence: sport has become a commodity itself to serve commercial needs of corporate manufacturers and right holders. In relation to sport, commodification is conceptualized as transformation of sport and related activities into services and consumer goods.
Whereas the original essence of sport involves non-market relations, emotional gains and cultural identity elements, commodification virtually disassembles sport into a large number of trade items and commercial services. The range of commodities generated by the modern sport industry is impressive: the player’s performance (and the players themselves), live sport event experience, sport-related apparel, nutrition, equipment and merchandise, airtime, filming and broadcasting technical services and many others.
Thereby, the typical modern perception of amateur versus professional sport derives from the presence of commerce in the individual’s sport activities. It is physicality of sport that make it emotionally appealing and entertaining for the spectatorship; that is why the number of spectators increasing dramatically through history made physical performance a professional realm, i.e., a real profession (Bramlett & Sloan 2000, p. 179). In the Olympics of ancient Greece, sport was a type of activity involving spectatorship, competition and entertainment, but athletes were not introduced to the professional domain, being supported by wealthy patrons. However, emergence of capitalism and consumer culture served by large-scale commerce facilitated the rise of professionalization in the domain of sport. The modern sport industry is comprised by players and athletes who use their physical performance as one of the main or even the main source of income – professional sport players/athletes. In other words, physical performance – skills, agility, strength, speed, endurance, coordination – is sold and purchased as a commodity.
However, it is not just physical performance that is commodified: the aforementioned “star power” used in international commerce creates a new intangible commodity professional athletes can offer – their reputation/image. The Forbes estimates cited by Bramlett and Sloan (2000, p. 183) show that professional players/athletes in various sports – from racing to tennis – earn more from serving as commercial media (e.g., endorsement) than from participating in games and sport competitions, which are, in fact, their primary occupation. This fact might be interpreted as an evidence of the dominating position held by commerce in modern sport.
Intellectual property rights
As sport itself is nonmaterial in nature, being rather a social phenomenon that a tangible commodity, the rising tendency in the realm is commodification of nonmaterial aspects of sporting activities and – as a result – exploitation of property rights. Special trademarks, logos, training programs, patents and even stadium names are exploited as commodities that can be bought and sold. A good instance comes from CrossFit. This fitness regimen was invented by Greg Glassman on the verge of the 21st century and registered under the trademark of CrossFit, Inc.: by owning intellectual property rights for the regimen and the name, Glassman sells affiliation rights to sport clubs and gyms worldwide. That is, every gym or club willing to practice CrossFit program legally is bound to buy a license from the company – annual fees for certification or trainers (CrossFit Level 1) and the right to use the brand name (Spandorf et al. 2014). In this instance, it is the intellectual property that serves as a commodity exploited broadly by the owner in the sport industry: the system of training and the brand name marking it.
Technologies and science in commodification
As it has been mentioned, sport is connected with other industries via technologies and science, which involves even more stakeholders in commercial use of sport activities and related components. Professionalization and commodification of sport increased the demand for greater performance, higher productivity and better experiences. Thereby, technology and science are involved in development of new sport-related commodities including professional absorbing sportswear, high-tech athletic shoes, sport supplements, better training equipment, sport pulse sensors, sport injuries treatment methodologies, athletic tapes and secondary goods. All these commodities – especially when endorsed and promoted by prominent players and athletes – hit their target audiences both among professionals and among amateurs.
Sport governance and regulation
As sport acquired greater affluence on a global scale due to increase in spectatorship and media development, it evolved from an informal phenomenon into an elaborately organized industry. Organized sport as a rather complex mechanism needed governance, owners and regulators, creating the need for sport governing bodies that would maintain unified performance standards, rules and norms. At the same time, increase in international sport commerce and development of sport into a key element of economic activity of many transnational corporations created the need for market regulation – both locally, nationally and internationally (Borisova & Michuda 2011, p. 24). As a result, all major sport projects are subject to corporate management today.
Commodification of sport resulted in establishment of centralized governance and formalization of all key elements of the game, competition or any other sport activities. According to Geeraert (2016, p. 1) sport is governed by private entities and sport governing bodies that have monopolized regulation of competitive sports on an international scale. Regulations are imposed in relation virtually all aspects of ‘commercial sport’, from schedules to investment norms. Typically, governance is implemented through bilateral trade and economic agreements, by integrated political entities such as, for instance, the European Union, and by multiple international organizations focusing on specific sports and sport-related issues (FIFA, UEFA, IAAF, IVF, WADA etc.). Remarkably, the latter form the key governance complex for international sport, though none of these organizations are political or governmental in nature. As Louw (2012, p. 5) mentions, sport governing bodies are not related to any government and have no official status of non-governmental organizations (NGO) which would impose certain official duties and grant legal recognition in the face of the international law. However, their affluence strangely creates their immunity in terms of legal codes and procedures and helps these governing bodies exert not just economic but also political power in the international area, power that could exceed that of some small developing countries.
Most sport governing bodies are transnational associations “based on principles of voluntary association of private individuals and groups of individuals” (Louw 2012, p. 5) and are established as non-profit organizations, though their rights for governance and regulation of major sport events generate revenues of many multinational corporations. One of the most significant examples is the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) whose influence on the formal, organizational and economic aspects of the game covers 212 countries.
In light of the complex system of sport governing bodies, one should note that commodification of sport and growing commercial interest in the ‘spectacle’ as a vehicle for commercial success informed a certain trajectory for governing bodies. The nature of sport and its ethics are often compromised due to economic interests, with multiple instances of rule changes, corruption and game fixing being recorded. Interestingly, Sewart (1987) provides a brilliant example of football: the game acquired its modern guise – rules, timing, even location of goal posts – due to the need to adapt it to the consumerist thirst for spectacles. In the seventies, the NFL Rules Committee implemented a set of rule changes that made the game more attractive for spectators watching it live or via TV broadcasts (Sewart 1987, p. 174). That is, establishment of integrated governance in sport did not just lead to formalization of rules, control over schedules and universal performance evaluation; it also paved the way for further commercialization. Interestingly, another important formal element in football, the two-minute warning, persists due to its commercial significance as well. Implemented in the sixties because the stadium clock was unofficial and inaccurate, the warning was not called off even when the clock was replaced as it created a two-minute ‘space’ for commercials.
At the same time, sport governance – due to high stakes and huge economic potential of sport – has been the matter of politics rather than just formalization and economy. Given the economic implications standing behind major sporting events (such as, for example, the European Football Cup, World Cup or the Olympics), organizational matters became the interest of governments, too. For governments, hosting a major sport tournament becomes a matter of potential business benefit: along with massive investment flows sport tourism is a ‘side’ industry packaging and selling sport to consumers and bringing huge benefits to the local governing bodies (Hinch & Higham 2004, p. 61).
Finally, an important and challenging issue emerging in conditions of commercial sport is complexities of legal regulation as combined with rules imposed by sport governing bodies. In other words, the international sport industry with its massive capital flows and resource involvement requires coherent regulatory policies on the side of international and national laws. With sport activities being involved into the economic realm and functioning in accordance with market laws, integrated, national and international legislative and judiciary bodies have to handle sport-related cases by the pattern of economic and market cases.
In the modern conditions, these bodies have to ensure compliance with the competition law on the side of nongovernmental sport associations, clubs and unions. For instance, the European commission has been burdened by complaints filed by Formula 1 teams, players from FIFPro and other subjects regarding transfer rules and compliance of competition laws by their employers/organizations. On the other hand, the commission conducted antitrust investigations in the case of a Spanish basketball team and alleged discriminative strategy practiced by the local basketball association. At the same time, commercialization of media rights raises competition issues: “Such issues arise in particular when the rights to premium content are concentrated in the hands of a central body [] coupled with a vertical restriction on competition (exclusive licensing of broadcasting rights granted to a single broadcaster)» (Daly & Walch 2012, p. 1).
Overall, having been commercialized, the sport industry functions by market laws, with its stakeholders seeking to protect their rights for competition, property or economic freedom, which imposes new challenges on the international legal framework as it has to integrate the previously non-market domain into a purely commercial framework of legislation.
Conclusion
Beyond all doubt, commercialization and growing scale have changes sport dramatically, elevating it to the professional levels, initiating scientific research that would improve the field, creating new opportunities for professional fulfillment and promoting unity and peace in the globalized world through the activity which is (or is supposed to be) beyond politics. However, the impact of commodification and commercialization of sport is deeper. Commerce plays a crucial role in modern sports and, in fact, contribute to its sustainability as a professional-level domain reaching immense audiences and countless stakeholders. As the present essay has demonstrated, commercialization of sport as a social phenomenon and transformation of sport and related elements into commodities has changed and, to some extent, distorted the original nature of sport. Recalling Michael Sandel’s book What Money Can’t Buy, one can conclude that sport as a genuine non-market, emotionally nourishing, moral, community-bounding leisure activity has been moved to the realm of market relations. Emotional contents, exciting experiences and physical performance are sold and bought, packaged and served, contributing to the thriving global consumer culture.
References
Borisova, OV, & Michuda, YP 2011, ‘Tennis as A Kind of Sports-Commercial Activity’, Pedagogika, Psihologia Ta Mediko-Biologicni Problemi Fizicnogo Vihovanna I Sportu, 3, pp. 20-25.
Bramlett, MD, & Sloan, M 2000, ‘The Commodification of Sports: The Example of Personal Seat Licenses in Professional Football’, in Gottdiener, M (ed.) New Forms of Consumption: Consumers, Culture, and Commodification. Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 177-203
Daly, JK, & Walch, J 2012, ‘Sports And Competition Law: An Overview Of EU And National Case Law’, e-Competitions National Competition Laws Bulletin, 42447, 7p. [Online] Available at http://www.sidley.com/~/media/files/publications/2012/02/sports-and-competition-law-an-overview-of-eu-and__/files/view-article/fileattachment/k--daly-j--walch-ecompetitions-n-42447.pdf [Accessed January 12, 2017]
Evens, T, Iosifidis, P, & Smith, P (eds.) 2013, The Political Economy of Television Sports Rights. Springer.
Geeraert, A 2016, The EU in International Sports Governance: A Principal-Agent Perspective on EU Control of FIFA and UEFA. Springer.
Gottdiener, M 2000, New Forms of Consumption: Consumers, Culture, and Commodification. Rowman & Littlefield.
Hinch, T, & Higham, JES 2004, Sport Tourism Development. Channel View Publications.
Levin, A, Cobbs, J, Beasley, F, & Manolis, C 2013, ‘Ad Nauseam? Sports Fans' Acceptance of Commercial Messages During Televised Sporting Events’, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 4, pp. 193-202.
Louw, AM 2012, Ambush marketing & the mega-event monopoly: How laws are abused to protect commercial rights to major sporting events. The Hague, The Netherlands: T. M. C. Asser Press.
Møller, V, & Genz, J 2014, 'Commercial sport - Debordian spectacle or Barthesian mythology?', Catalan Journal Of Communication & Cultural Studies, 6, 2, pp. 257-271.
Mullin, BJ, Hardy, S, & Sutton, WA (eds.) 2007, Sport marketing. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
PWC 2011, Changing The Game: Outlook for the Global Sports Market to 2015. [Online] Available at http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hospitality-leisure/pdf/changing-the-game-outlook-for-the-global-sports-market-to-2015.pdf [Accessed January 12, 2017]
Rishe, P 2011, ‘CrossFit's Relationship with Reebok Enhances Its Financial and Commercial Credibility’, Forbes. [Online] Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/07/22/crossfits-relationship-with-reebok-enhances-its-financial-and-commercial-credibility/#23cbc4ad3ab2 [Accessed January 12, 2017]
Sandel, M 2013, What Money Can’t Buy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sewart, JJ 2016, ‘The Commodification of Sport’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 22, 3, pp. 171 - 192.
Silk, ML, Andrews, DL, Cole, CL (eds.) 2004, Sport and Corporate Nationalisms. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Spandorf, RB, Brockett, JL, & Buono, AR 2014, ‘Certification Programs: Franchises or Not?’ Franchise Law Journal, 33, 4, pp. 505–524.
