Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Athletes have again started to take a visible stance on various political and social issues, which has stirred fierce controversies. Existing research has a strong US bias, and, to extend the range of research, we conducted a German survey on the perceived legitimacy of athletes’ political activism. The evidence suggests that the US debate cannot simply be transferred to other political and cultural contexts. The German respondents did not generally disapprove of athletes employing sporting venues as political stages. However, they are primarily willing to accept political activism in cases where the claims made are congruent with their political beliefs and with hegemonic political values. The perceived legitimacy of more controversial forms of athletes’ political activism depends on political ideology, political activism and political tolerance. For international sport governing bodies, the results indicate a dilemma: western audiences approve of athletes’ political activism, which is congruent with their own political values, but seem unwilling to accept activism making other claims.

Keywords

Athlete activism elite sport political tolerance politicization International Federation of Association Football World Cup

Introduction

After decades during which sport stars seem to have been primarily occupied with maximizing their brand value, athletes have again started to take a visible stance on political issues. The activism of African American athletes such as Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James against racial discrimination in the United States has stirred fierce controversies and was even a subject of presidential election campaigns. However, apart from the United States, little is known about the public’s acceptance of athletes’ political activism.

The cliché of apolitical sports has by now been widely debunked by social scientists. The insight that sport is politically significant and represents a policy domain in its own right has given rise to vibrant research on sport and politics (Gift and Miner, 2017). Scholars have employed a broad range of theoretical and methodological approaches. They have studied the internal politics of sport governing bodies (Darby, 2005), explored how states try to employ mega sport events to create ‘soft power’ (Grix and Kramareva, 2017), conducted comparative studies on sport politics (e.g. Bergsgard et al., 2009), analysed regulatory politics in the European Union (e.g. Parrish, 2003) and examined sport’s role for national identification (Elling et al., 2014) as well as public support for the hosting of mega sport events (Johnston et al., 2021).

This contribution focuses on sport’s role as a vehicle for political ideologies, which has been recently emphasized by scholars who follow Foucault’s (1980: 93) claim that ‘power is everywhere’ (Seippel et al., 2018). Thus, recent scholarship emphasizes that traditional sports discourse has privileged existing societal structures and cultural patterns, such as inequality, heteronormativity and male hegemony (Lenskyj, 2013; Valiente, 2022). Sport discourses are therefore understood as a ‘site of struggle’ over power relations between different social groups (Van Sterkenburg and Knoppers, 2004), which has inspired calls to use sports to promote progressive causes (e.g. Agyemang, 2012).

As a matter of fact, political activism by athletes has indeed experienced a resurgence. Although Muhammed Ali, Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Billie Jean King had taken a visible stance on political and social issues during the 1960s and 1970s, subsequent generations of athletes preferred to ‘stick to sports’ (Broussard, 2020). The recent protests of African American elite athletes against racial discrimination in the United States (Falcous et al., 2019) provoked an uproar by white and conservative fans, who insisted on the apolitical character of sports. Studies suggest that indeed a majority of US fans show an aversion to the politicization of sports (Thorson and Serazio, 2018), which has materialized in a partial consumer boycott (Brown and Sheridan, 2020; Watanabe et al., 2019). The racial politics in the United States certainly have a very specific dynamic of their own. Yet, in the wake of increased polarization within western societies (Carothers and O’Donohue, 2019), political activism for various causes seems to be on the rise (Hutter and Weisskircher, 2022) and popular culture has turned into a site of ideological struggle. Athletes’ political activism is therefore not only found in the United States but all around the world; however, this geographic diversity is unfortunately hardly reflected by existing research (e.g. Magrath, 2022). We aim to mitigate the US bias in research by presenting empirical evidence from Germany where the relationship between sport and politics has been particularly complex.

After the willing collaboration of the bourgeois German sport movement with the Nazi regime, sport in West Germany was reconstructed after World War II as an apolitical sphere. The autonomy of sport even gained the status of a constitutional doctrine. However, the Cold War motivated West German political elites to re-politicize sports in the late 1960s. The federal government established the still valid doctrine that sport is a ‘means of national representation’ and started heavily subsidizing elite sports (Balbier, 2006). After the Cold War, the federal government discovered sport’s potential to generate soft power, which was best evidenced when Germany hosted the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) World Cup in 2006 (Grix and Houlihan, 2014). Recently, sport’s role as a means of national representation seems to have been reinterpreted to include public advocacy for values considered important. There were calls to boycott the FIFA World Cups hosted by Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022 as both countries do not adhere to German human right standards (Thorhauer, 2022). German politicians tried to use the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) EURO championships in 2021 to protest against a Hungarian law believed to discriminate against sexual minorities (Horeni, 2021). In 2022, the captain of the German national soccer team intended to protest against the suppression of homosexuals in Qatar by wearing a rainbow armband. After FIFA had banned the gesture, the German team posed with hands covering their mouths, while a German federal minister, who was present at the match, wore the rainbow armband (Ehrhardt, 2022). The strong willingness to use international sports as a political venue suggests that Germany might represent an outlier case (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). Our quantitative study represents, therefore, an entrée to the subject, which explores German attitudes toward athletes’ political activism.

Hence, our first question is intended to examine the acceptance of athletes’ activism and its limits:

1. Do Germans accept different forms of athlete activism as a legitimate form of political expression?

Our second question is intended to place the controversy about athletes’ political activism in the broader context of the legitimacy of political protests. Accordingly, we ask:

2. How does the acceptance of athletes’ political activism relate to individual attitudes?

We address these research questions based on a representative survey conducted in Germany in May 2022.

Theoretical background

The contested legitimacy of athletes’ political activism

We understand political activism by athletes as a specific form of political protest or activism to which general insights on perceived legitimacy and individual attitudes towards political protests apply (Andrews et al., 2016). Hence, we take guidance from Kelman (2001: 55) who defined legitimacy as the acceptance or rejection of a claim depending ‘on whether that claim is seen as just or rightful’. Moreover, Kelman’s (2001) insight that the legitimacy of a claim depends on the evaluation of its content and of the claimant is extremely instructive for defining athletes’ political activism.

It is important to realize that the belief that sport is an apolitical sphere has strong historical and institutional roots. Modern sports were created in the United Kingdom by a vivid and resourceful, albeit socially exclusive, civil society. British governments adhered for a long time to the liberal doctrine that sport was a sphere of private life offering a break and retreat from politics (Allison, 2001). These ideas inspired the founding father of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, to create the Olympic Games as an ‘apolitical meeting venue where loyalty to the rules of the game and the beauty of the competition would enable people otherwise known as enemies to become friends’ (Næss, 2018: 147). Accordingly, the myth of apolitical sport became institutionalized. The fact that the inclusive nature of sports has been linked to the suppression of the freedom of political expression of athletes is not only paradoxical, but also hypocritical. The neutrality or apolitical character of sport is a fiction given the political significance and manifold political ties of sport (Meier and García, 2021). Nevertheless, sport audiences seem still to expect that sport offers a retreat from divisive politics. Furthermore, in particular in the United States, athletes have been regularly dismissed in public discourse as unqualified political claimants and, due to their popularity, as a dangerous influence (Serazio and Thorson, 2020). The fact that sport authorities have imposed rather strong restrictions on athletes’ freedom of political expression inspires a broad definition of athletes’ political activism, which avoids the common distinctions between different forms of political participation (e.g. Giugni and Grasso, 2022). Hence, we follow previous scholarship, which has defined ‘athlete activism’ as referring to individual athletes who use their popularity to take a stand within debates around political or societal issues (e.g. Frederick et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2019). Given the myth of apolitical sport, athletes are prone to be perceived as illegitimate claimants. However, following Kelman (2001), the content of claims has also to be taken into account.

Potential determinants of the legitimacy of athletes’ political activism

The perceived legitimacy of a claim’s content depends on the values, reasons and justification that support it. In his classic piece, Rokeach (1973) distinguishes, amongst others, social and personal values as well as instrumental and terminal values. Social values are society-centred – that is, they describe preferred states for society – whereas personal values are self-centred. In addition, instrumental values refer to preferred ‘modes of conduct’, whereas terminal values point to ‘end states of existence’ (Rokeach, 1973: 7). Political claims in particular are debated and legitimized within a normative reference system in which values and ideologies function as powerful means of justification (Lehner, 2015). Hence, recipients of a claim supposedly assess its very content against the background of values in order to decide whether the concern raised refers to end states that are – in their point of view – just and worthwhile. They may also assess whether the claim is put forward in a manner consistent with procedural norms – that is, in line with the preferred modes of conduct.

Suchman (1995) argues that statements that resonate with a society’s core cultural and political values can claim ‘moral legitimacy’ and, vice versa, lack moral legitimacy if they contradict these values. Most political activism by athletes hardly involves claims blatantly challenging society’s core values but seems to resonate at least with some social values represented in society’s political discourse. Therefore, personal values may shape individual legitimacy judgements. According to theories of psychological balance (Heider, 1958), individuals strive to maintain a sense of consistency in their lives and to reach ‘a harmonious state’ (Heider, 1958: 180). Hence, people evaluate claims as legitimate if they resonate with their personal values, and as illegitimate if not. The scarce evidence on the perception of athletes’ political activism supports this idea (Mudrick et al., 2019). Hence, we assume that Respondents are more likely to perceive athletes’ political activism as legitimate when the protests’ content is congruent with their own political beliefs (H1).

The link between the support of a political claim and its perceived legitimacy is, however, more complex than psychological balance theory suggests. Political ideology also impacts respondents’ attitudes towards political protests. A left political orientation increases not only the likelihood that people will participate in protests, but also that they perceive such forms of political participation as legitimate (Zlobina and Gonzalez Vazquez, 2018). Political ideology might also relate to the disapproval of athletes’ political activism. In particular, US scholars have argued that the myth of apolitical sports conceals that traditional sports discourse has been rather conservative and has privileged existing societal structures (e.g. Falcous et al., 2019). Hence, National Football League (NFL) player Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the US anthem has triggered critical reactions from conservative sport fans (Schmidt et al., 2019). Kaepernick was accused of being anti-American, which allowed Donald Trump to weaponize the kneeling controversy as it fitted into the emergence of explicit white identity politics (Falcous et al., 2019). Empirical studies indicate that these forms of athletes’ political activism provoked boycotts in particular from conservative consumers (Brown and Sheridan, 2020; Watanabe et al., 2019). Hence, conservative sports fans in the United States seem to adhere to the doctrine that athletes should ‘stick to sports’ (Frederick et al., 2017). Thus, we hypothesize that Respondents with a rather left political ideology are more likely to perceive athletes’ political activism as legitimate (H2).

Given that athletes’ political activism has been strongly delegitimized, it is likely to be perceived as a ‘creative’ or ‘alternative’ form of political influencing (Micheletti and McFarland, 2016). Therefore, we assume that, irrespective of political ideology, individuals with their own experiences of so-called ‘alternative’ forms of political participation – that is, demonstrations, strikes or petitions – perceive athlete activism as more legitimate: Respondents who have been active in political protests are more likely to perceive athletes’ political activism as legitimate (H3).

Any procedural understanding of democracy entails normative ideas about desirable ‘modes of conduct’ – that is, the acceptance of rules and rights and the willingness to apply them equally (Saffon and Urbinati, 2013). In democracies, these rules include the fundamental right to freedom of expression (Scanlon, 2003). The ability to allow for dissenting opinions refers to political tolerance, which is a person’s willingness to extend constitutional rights – to speak publicly or to run for office – to all those with whom they disagree (Sullivan et al., 1993). Hence, political tolerance should affect the relationship between support of a claim and the perception of its legitimacy: Respondents showing a higher degree of political tolerance are more likely to perceive athletes’ political activism as legitimate (H4).

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the myth of apolitical sports corresponds to the motives of sport fans, which tend to centre around eustress, escapism and entertainment (Wann, 1995). Before the recent resurgence of athletes’ political activism, athletes and sport organizations alike had internalized the idea that sports and politics should be separated in order to avoid antagonizing fans (Cunningham and Regan, 2012). Indeed, adverse fan reactions to athletes’ political activism in the United States are well documented (e.g. Brown and Sheridan, 2020; Frederick et al., 2018; Mudrick et al., 2019; Schmidt et al., 2019). Thus, we assume: The more respondents are interested in sports, the less they are likely to perceive athletes’ political activism as legitimate (H5).

Research design and methods

Study design

This study analyses data from the ‘Political Activism in Elite Sports’ project (PoleS). We conducted a large-scale representative survey (n = 1002) for the population living in Germany (⩾14 years). Forsa, a well-known German polling company, integrated this survey into its existing nation-wide online panel. The survey employed computer-assisted web interviewing. The recruitment procedure used telephone surveys with random digit dialling. All respondents participated voluntarily. Data collection took place in May 2022. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Muenster.

The measures

Legitimacy of and support for athletes’ political activism

In order to measure the perceived legitimacy of athletes’ activism, we presented the respondents with six scenarios of political activism involving German soccer players. The scenarios focused on national soccer team players because the national team is highly popular and has been described as the last ‘campfire’ around which an increasingly diverse nation still gathers (Meier et al., 2018). The items alluded to a number of actual incidents but were complemented with purely hypothetical scenarios in order to achieve a balance between progressive and conservative causes. The intended balance was disturbed by the fact that the study was designed before the military escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict but conducted after the beginning of the war.

Walk-out to protest against racist chants: the scenario reflects an actual incident during a third-tier football match in 2021: ‘After a racist insult from the opposing fan block, a well-known national soccer player asks his team to stop playing in protest against racism. The team then leaves the pitch.’

Kneeling against xenophobia and anti-Semitism: the scenario alludes to the kneeling of the German national team before a Nations-League match against England in Munich in June 2022: ‘A well-known national soccer player kneels down during the playing of the national anthem before an international match in order to draw attention to xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Germany.’

Rainbow armband to support homosexual and transgender people: the scenario refers to the captain of the German national team, Manuel Neuer, who used to wear a rainbow armband since 2021 (Horeni, 2021). ‘A well-known national soccer player wears a captain’s armband in rainbow colours on his upper arm during a national team match. He wants to send a signal for equal rights and social acceptance of homosexual and transgender people in Germany.’

Social media election post for Christian Democrats: this scenario is completely hypothetical. ‘A well-known national soccer player posts a photo on social media a few days before a federal election. The photo shows him together with the CDU’s [Christian-Democratic party] candidate for chancellor. Underneath it says: “I vote CDU – every vote counts.” ’

Participation in anti-COVID-19 policy demonstration: the populist scenario alludes to Thomas Berthold, winner of the FIFA World Cup in 1990, who made a number of appearances at anti-COVID-19 demonstrations. Moreover, national team member Joshua Kimmich was the subject of intense public controversies when he initially refused to get vaccinated (Meltzer, 2021). ‘A well-known national soccer player is seen at a demonstration against the government’s COVID-19 policies. He appears as a speaker and demands in his speech that there must never be compulsory vaccination.’

Twitter campaign for military armament: the scenario intended to capture right-wing attitudes as all left-wing parties had campaigned for disarmament before the 2021 general elections. In the wake of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, in particular the Green party has changed its position. ‘A well-known national soccer player calls on Twitter for an increase in German arms spending and posts a picture of himself giving the military salute.’

In order to measure the legitimacy of different forms of political speech, respondents were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale whether they believed that the athlete was allowed to engage in that particular political action. In addition, we also asked them to rate whether they personally support this action.

Independent variables

Left–right orientation: the respondents’ political ideology was measured by using a common left–right scale with ‘1’ indicating the furthest left and ‘10’ the furthest right self-categorization (LEFT–RIGHT).

Political activism: respondents were confronted with a set of five distinct political activities and asked if they would under no circumstances participate in such activities (‘1’), might participate (‘2’) or had already done so (‘3’). An explorative factor analysis showed that these three items loaded on one factor and could be combined into one scale. Therefore, we created a new variable representing a respondent’s mean score on the five items (POLITICAL ACTIVISM) (Appendix 1, Table 1).

Political tolerance: following the ‘least liked group’ paradigm (Sullivan et al., 1993), respondents were first confronted with a description of social groups deemed to be controversial (right-wing populists, communists, traditionalist Muslims, Christian creationists, climate change deniers and radical ecological activists). The respondents were asked to think of the group which they disliked the most. Then, the respondents rated, on a 5-point Likert scale, which civic rights (e.g. speaking in public, publishing books) should be granted to this ‘least liked’ social group. The four items loaded on one factor and combined into a scale with high reliability. Accordingly, we created a variable representing a respondent’s mean score on the four items. As the variable proved to be not normally distributed, we created a four-level categorical variable (POLITICAL TOLERANCE).

Sport activity: respondents were asked about their sport activities measured in hours per week (SPORT ACTIVITY).

Sport interest: interest in sport entertainment was measured on the base of three items employing 5-point Likert scales. Respondents indicated whether they followed sport events covered in media, spent money in order to follow sport events in the media or attended sport events in a regular manner. These three items loaded on one factor. Given sufficient reliability of the scale, we calculated the respondent’s mean scores over the three items. The distribution of the variable proved to be strongly right-skewed. Hence, we created a new categorical variable with four levels (SPORT INTEREST).

Control variables: we control for the influence of three variables that are likely to affect legitimacy ratings of political protests, too. One item battery measures conflict avoidance. Respondents were asked whether they perceived conflicts as negative and whether they avoided openly discussing disagreements. The scale is based on three items and has a sufficient reliability (CONFLICT AVOIDANCE). Educational attainment is included, measured by means of the respondent’s highest educational credentials (EDUCATION). Finally, age is included (AGE), as younger generations are more likely to support political activism (Table 1).

Table 1.

Dependent and independent variables.

Variable	Definition	n	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.
LEGITIMACY WALKOUT	Legitimacy of walk-out after racist chants.	977	4.068	1.233	1	5
LEGITIMACY KNEELING	Legitimacy of kneeling against xenophobia.	980	4.110	1.235	1	5
LEGITIMACY RAINBOW	Legitimacy of rainbow armband.	984	4.277	1.165	1	5
LEGITIMACY ELECTION	Legitimacy of social media election campaign.	979	3.494	1.455	1	5
LEGITIMACY COVID PROTEST	Legitimacy of demonstrating against Covid19 policy.	981	3.088	1.538	1	5
LEGITIMACY ARMAMENT	Legitimacy of social media campaign for military armament.	973	2.854	1.499	1	5
SUPPORT WALKOUT	Support for walk-out after racist chants.	978	3.936	1.333	1	5
SUPPORT KNEELING	Support for kneeling against xenophobia.	976	3.732	1.396	1	5
SUPPORT RAINBOW	Support for rainbow armband.	990	3.940	1.389	1	5
SUPPORT ELECTION	Support for social media election campaign.	972	2.173	1.266	1	5
SUPPORT COVID PROTEST	Support for demonstrating against COVID-19 policy.	981	1.848	1.296	1	5
SUPPORT ARMAMENT	Support for social media campaign for military armament.	970	2.002	1.164	1	5
LEFT RIGHT	Self-categorization on a left–right scale.	950	4.642	1.670	1	10
POLITIAL ACTIVISM	Participation in political activism (mean score, five items).	1002	2.200	0.521	1	4
POLITICAL TOLERANCE	Political tolerance (based on mean scores, four items).
Intolerant	Tolerance score ⩾ 1 and ⩽ 1.5.	951	0.171	0.377	0	1
Somewhat tolerant	Tolerance score > 1.5 and ⩽ 2.75.	951	0.358	0.480	0	1
More tolerant	Tolerance score > 2.75 and ⩽ 3.75.	951	0.251	0.434	0	1
Highly tolerant	Tolerance score > 3.75.	951	0.220	0.414	0	1
CONFLICT AVOIDANCE	Mean score on three items on conflict avoidance.	983	2.936	0.866	1	5
EDUCATION	Educational achievement.
No degree	Left school without a diploma.	998	0.005	0.071	0	1
General school	General school diploma.	998	0.223	0.417	0	1
Secondary school	Secondary school diploma.	998	0.236	0.425	0	1
High school	High school graduation.	998	0.172	0.378	0	1
University	University degree	998	0.290	0.454	0	1
Others	Other diploma.	998	0.007	0.083	0	1
Pupil or student	Currently school pupil or university student.	998	0.066	0.249	0	1
SPORT ACITIVITY	Measured as active hours per week.
None at all	0 hours per week.	1000	0.422	0.494	0	1
Some activity	Up to 1 hour per week.	1000	0.178	0.383	0	1
Moderate activity	Between two and four hours per week.	1000	0.301	0.459	0	1
Intense activity	Five hours and more per week.	1000	0.099	0.299	0	1
SPORT INTEREST	Sport interest (based on mean scores, three items).
No interest at all	Sport interest score = 1.	1002	0.194	0.395	0	1
Slightly interested	Sport interest score > 1 and ⩽ 2.	1002	0.413	0.493	0	1
Moderately interested	Sport interest score > 2 and ⩽ 3.	1002	0.220	0.414	0	1
Strongly interested	Sport interest score > 3.	1002	0.174	0.379	0	1
AGE	Categorial variable for age.
14–17		1002	0.063	0.243	0	1
18–24		1002	0.086	0.280	0	1
25–34		1002	0.166	0.372	0	1
35–44		1002	0.174	0.379	0	1
45–59		1002	0.264	0.441	0	1
60 ++		1002	0.248	0.432	0	1

Analytic strategy

The descriptive and bivariate analyses are presented first. Regarding multivariate analyses, we had to take into account that the dependent variables proved highly skewed and violated the normality assumption. Accordingly, instead of ordinary least square regressions, we employed ordinal logistic regressions using the ‘ologit’ command in Stata 16.

Findings

A simple graphic depiction illustrates that a clear majority of respondents perceives athletes’ activism as legitimate (Figure 1). However, respondents regard examples of athletes’ political activism that refer to rather left-leaning or progressive causes – like anti-discrimination and LGBTIQ+ rights – as more legitimate than other claims. The diagrams also suggest that perceived legitimacy relates to support for the content of a claim.

Figure 1.

Legitimacy of and support for different forms of athletes’ political activism.

The bivariate analyses (Table 2) support the idea that respondents are more likely to perceive forms of activism as legitimate when these are congruent with their own beliefs. The correlation is substantially higher for left-leaning or progressive than for other causes. However, the dominant disapproval of the latter forms of activism does not translate fully into perceived illegitimacy. The bivariate analyses further suggest that an ideological self-identification as right is associated with lower legitimacy ratings for progressive political activism. People who are more prone to engage in political activism perceive any form of athletes’ political activism as more legitimate. In contrast, political tolerance only comes into play with regard to the more controversial forms of political activism by athletes. Here, people showing higher levels of political tolerance are significantly more likely to perceive these forms of activism as legitimate. Although respondents with stronger interests in sports tend to perceive athletes’ political activism as less legitimate, the bivariate correlation is only significant in one case. Sport activity seems also only marginally relevant. Most of the findings point to a positive effect of educational achievement on perceived legitimacy and support the idea that younger respondents are more likely to perceive athlete activism as legitimate.

Table 2.

Bivariate correlations between legitimacy of different acts of political activism and independent variables.

Form of athletes’ political activism	Support	Left–Right	Political activism	Political tolerance	Conflict avoidance	Education^a	Sport activity	Sport interest	Age
Walk-out to protest against racist chants	0.697***	-0.181***	0.139***	0.040	-0.094**	0.059	0.001	-0.014	0.011
Kneeling against xenophobia and anti-Semitism	0.686***	-0.242***	0.191***	0.083*	-0.082*	0.096**	0.076*	-0.037	-0.163***
Rainbow armband to support homosexual and transgender people	0.653***	-0.261***	0.139***	0.070*	-0.043	0.098**	0.062	-0.033	-0.193***
Social media election post for Christian Democrats	0.336***	-0.037	0.079*	0.248***	-0.032	0.128**	-0.024	0.001	-0.116**
Participation in anti-COVID19 policy demonstration	0.407***	0.001	0.170***	0.337***	-0.048	0.138***	0.025	-0.029	-0.171***
Twitter campaign for military armament	0.480***	-0.025	0.156***	0.358***	-0.074*	0.168***	0.009	-0.119**	-0.207***

‘Political Activism in Elite Sports’ project (PoleS). Displayed are values for Spearman’s Rho.

Calculated without the categories ‘Others’ and ‘Pupil or student’.

Significance: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The multivariate analyses (Table 3) qualify these findings. First, the results suggest that support for a specific political action is the key predictor for perceived legitimacy of athletes’ political activism. Hence, the basic idea of balance theory that people are more willing to accept political protests which are congruent with their own political beliefs is strongly supported. For forms of athletes’ political activism that are least controversial – walk-out to protest against racist chants, kneeling against xenophobia and anti-Semitism and wearing a rainbow armband to support homosexual and transgender people – the only significant explanatory variable, except support, is political tolerance. Highly tolerant individuals are more likely to consider these forms of activism as legitimate.

Table 3.

Multivariate analyses of legitimacy of athletes’ political activism.

	Walk-out to protest against racist chants	Kneeling against xenophobia and anti-Semitism	Rainbow armband for LGBTIQ+ people	Social media election post for Christian Democrats	Participation in anti-COVID-19 policy demonstration	Twitter campaign for military armament
LEFT–RIGHT	1.007 (0.048)	1.052 (0.054)	0.986 (0.053)	0.842*** (0.036)	0.877** (0.038)	0.903* (0.039)
SUPPORT^a
2	3.939*** (1.328)	4.388*** (1.393)	3.253*** (1.048)	1.870*** (0.332)	1.901*** (0.346)	3.534*** (0.593)
3	11.276*** (3.713)	8.269*** (2.333)	9.838*** (3.019)	3.266*** (0.556)	3.976*** (0.803)	6.363*** (1.132)
4	31.060*** (10.219)	20.334*** (6.043)	21.219*** (6.624)	5.038*** (1.263)	6.758*** (2.038)	7.939*** (2.212)
5 – full support	353.101*** (121.604)	345.366*** (117.476)	160.479*** (52.840)	72.568*** (33.586)	48.547*** (17.300)	80.008*** (35.095)
POLITICAL ACTIVISM	0.882 (0.141)	1.205 (0.199)	1.072 (0.179)	1.385* (0.193)	1.387* (0.195)	1.281 (0.176)
POLITICAL TOLERANCE^b
Somewhat tolerant	0.862 (0.191)	0.756 (0.173)	0.657 (0.161)	0.977 (0.181)	1.047 (0.197)	1.265 (0.238)
More tolerant	0.888 (0.209)	0.926 (0.227)	0.795 (0.209)	1.434 (0.290)	1.879** (0.379)	2.235*** (0.455)
Highly tolerant	1.897* (0.517)	3.119*** (0.898)	2.206** (0.679)	5.056*** (1.156)	8.013*** (1.866)	7.141*** (1.643)
CONFLICT AVOIDANCE	0.871 (0.078)	1.026 (0.099)	0.999 (0.099)	1.047 (0.081)	1.061 (0.082)	0.878 (0.068)
EDUCATION^c
Lower secondary	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.003)	0.957 (0.976)	0.235 (0.219)	0.089 (0.112)
Medium secondary	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.003)	1.087 (1.106)	0.270 (0.251)	0.111 (0.140)
Higher secondary	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.004)	0.979 (1.000)	0.289 (0.269)	0.129 (0.164)
Tertiary education	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.003)	1.305 (1.327)	0.303 (0.281)	0.117 (0.148)
Others	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.001)	0.000 (0.003)	0.525 (0.696)	0.237 (0.293)	0.190 (0.273)
Pupil/ student	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.004)	1.323 (1.421)	0.220 (0.217)	0.091 (0.120)
SPORT ACTIVITY^d
Some activity	0.626* (0.131)	1.281 (0.276)	0.831 (0.189)	0.723 (0.135)	0.883 (0.165)	0.770 (0.147)
Moderate activity	0.701 (0.129)	1.114 (0.212)	0.689 (0.135)	0.766 (0.123)	1.020 (0.161)	1.124 (0.176)
Intense activity	0.942 (0.269)	1.773 (0.554)	2.077* (0.705)	0.849 (0.203)	0.865 (0.201)	0.868 (0.204)
SPORT INTEREST^e
Slightly interested	0.870 (0.191)	0.504** (0.119)	0.759 (0.186)	0.934 (0.177)	0.932 (0.176)	0.643* (0.120)
Moderatly interested	0.727 (0.178)	0.509* (0.133)	0.709 (0.194)	0.830 (0.176)	0.896 (0.190)	0.556** (0.115)
Strongly interested	0.853 (0.221)	0.611 (0.168)	0.764 (0.219)	1.015 (0.230)	1.082 (0.241)	0.506** (0.113)
AGE^f
18–24	0.619 (0.286)	0.913 (0.499)	1.055 (0.682)	0.948 (0.363)	0.702 (0.272)	0.820 (0.327)
25–34	0.938 (0.468)	0.725 (0.410)	0.782 (0.515)	1.004 (0.405)	0.729 (0.300)	0.825 (0.344)
35–44	0.691 (0.343)	0.585 (0.329)	0.912 (0.599)	1.375 (0.559)	0.829 (0.345)	1.172 (0.493)
45–59	0.911 (0.442)	0.567 (0.313)	0.663 (0.428)	1.008 (0.405)	0.695 (0.283)	0.844 (0.348)
60 ++	1.013 (0.499)	0.548 (0.306)	0.539 (0.349)	0.641 (0.261)	0.346* (0.142)	0.488 (0.205)
n	874	877	886	872	882	873
Pseudo R²	0.271	0.288	0.260	0.111	0.145	0.158

Ordinal logistic regression. Displayed are odds ratios (OR standard errors in brackets). ORs > 1 indicate a positive impact of the independent variable, ORs < 1 a negative impact.

Reference category is ‘I do not support that at all.’

Reference category is ‘Intolerant’.

Reference category is ‘No degree’.

Reference category is ‘None at all’.

Reference category is ‘Uninterested’.

Reference category is ‘14–17 years’.

Significance: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

All other explanatory factors only come into play when more controversial forms of athletes’ political activism are involved. For these scenarios – social media election support for Christian Democrats, participation in an anti-COVID-19-policy demonstration and a Twitter campaign for military armament – our hypotheses receive some support. People who are politically more tolerant and identify more strongly as left are more likely to perceive these forms of political activism as legitimate. With the exception of the Twitter campaign for military armament, people who have engaged in political activism themselves are significantly more likely to grant the privilege of political activism to athletes. Respondents who are strongly interested in sports were only significantly less likely to grant legitimacy to the Twitter campaign for military armament.

Discussion and conclusion

Key findings

Our study on the perceived legitimacy of athletes’ political activism in Germany serves to qualify some claims made in the fierce US debate. Germans do not generally disapprove of athletes employing sporting venues as a political stage. In contrast to our theoretical reasoning about sport as a neutral sphere, German respondents perceive highly public forms of athletes’ political activism during competitions also as legitimate. At the same time, our data indicate that the most important factor for the perceived legitimacy of athletes’ political activism is support for the specific political claim.

Germans are willing to accept political activism by athletes primarily in cases where the claim in question is congruent with their own political beliefs and values, which supports ideas of cognitive consistency and psychological balance (Heider, 1958). By implication, tolerance for athletes’ political activism that an individual would not support is clearly limited. Of particular interest is that rather ‘left’ or progressive political claims opposing racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination of sexual minorities are strongly supported. There seems to be little polarization among Germans about the support for these claims, irrespective of the respondents’ ideological self-categorization.

The legitimacy of other forms of athletes’ activism is clearly more controversial. Although a majority of the respondents does not support the content of these claims, the rejection does not fully translate into a denial of their legitimacy. The perceived legitimacy of the more controversial forms of athletes’ political activism depends on a number of individual attitudes. Respondents who identify as politically left or are more tolerant are more likely also to perceive conservative forms of athletes’ political activism as legitimate. The findings suggest that left and more tolerant individuals strongly value free speech as an essential procedural characteristic of democracy and are, thus, more willing to accept controversial opinions (Sullivan et al., 1993).

German versus US debates on athletes’ political activism

In contrast to the US, our findings provide little support for the idea that athletes’ political activism is strongly rejected by dedicated sport fans or will even provoke boycotts by them. Our results should thus serve as a caveat against a simplified transfer of US debates to other contexts. German sport fans appear only slightly more right-wing in terms of ideological self-categorization compared with individuals not interested in sports. A possible explanation might be that European sports were not as politicized and militarized as the US professional sport industry after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 (Falcous et al., 2019). Without denying that sport in general and soccer in particular have been a vehicle for political ideologies and values (Mutz et al., 2022; Seippel et al., 2018), fan identification, in particular within European soccer, has drawn from different ideological sources, such as class pride and ethnic, regional or religious identifications. Even national team soccer is not exclusively linked to a particular – conservative or ethnic-exclusive – vision of the nation (Meier et al., 2018). Although the debate about athletes’ political activism is highly dominated by the specific dynamics of US racial politics (Magrath, 2022), athletes’ activism has been much better received in other contexts (Valiente, 2021). A common theme in the US debate about fans’ responses to the activism of African American athletes has been that whites tend to perceive assertive racial minorities as rejecting conventional beliefs and holding status-delegitimizing worldviews (Cunningham and Regan, 2012). Therefore, resistance against athletes’ political activism has been characterized as ideological fog concealing the support for the political status quo (Serazio and Thorson, 2020). Yet although immigration, xenophobia and racism are also issues in European sports, European sport is less strongly shaped by racial tensions when compared to the United States, where a majority of white fans feel challenged by assertive black athletes. Rather, Germans accept political activism by athletes, especially when it is dedicated to the promotion of rights for ethnic and sexual minorities.

Practical implications

The practical implications of our results for the sport governing bodies are straightforward. There is no general disapproval of athletes’ political activism. The audience – even dedicated sport fans – will accept such activism as long as the claims made are congruent with their political beliefs. Sport governing bodies could afford to permit athletes’ political activism making claims related to hegemonic political values. Yet athletes and sport governing bodies are ill advised to allow controversial forms of political activism. Here, the audience’s tolerance seems to be clearly limited. Experience from Germany suggests that such forms of athletes’ political activism represent a potential threat to the legitimacy of sport organizations. The support of German national soccer player Mesut Özil for Turkish president Erdogan, for instance, provoked a fierce debate about failed integration of immigrants as well as everyday racism among German soccer (Waas, 2023).

Given that values resonate quite differently in world regions and cultures (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005), controversial political activism is likely to create even bigger problems for international sport governing bodies. The appearance of the German national team in Qatar illustrates that countries from the Global North have adopted an activist stance trying to impose a particular interpretation of values on other countries. Sport governing bodies are well advised to consider carefully what forms of athlete activism and which political messages they accept.

Limitations

Our case study comes with limited generalizability as Germany shows many idiosyncrasies. Thus, further studies taking more diverse legacies regarding the nexus between politics and sport into account are necessary to gain a better understanding of the legitimacy of athletes’ political activism. Our scenarios are also not ideally designed because only the progressive claims presented employ athletic competitions as venues for activism. Hence, the study design does not allow for disentangling the independent effect of the use of sporting competitions as political stage by athletes. Future research could also use more controversial protest scenarios in order to explore limits of acceptance.

In addition, athletes’ political activism in niche sports might be differently received. For instance, the captain of the German hockey team wore a rainbow armband ‘as a matter of course’ during the 2023 World Cup in India, whereas the captain of the German handball team did not wear an armband claiming that it would disturb his play. Both decisions went largely unnoticed by the media and the public and – unlike a few weeks earlier at the men’s FIFA World Cup – did not stimulate any controversial discussions. Finally, we did not control for some potentially relevant variables, such as frustration with institutionalized politics (Hay, 2007). In our study, the growing dissatisfaction with the actual practice of institutionalized politics in Germany (Weisskircher and Hutter, 2019) might have contributed to the low popularity of the support of the election campaign of a candidate from the Christian Democrats.

Conclusion

Germans perceive political activism by athletes as legitimate, but only under the condition that the content of the claims made conforms to hegemonic political values. Anti-discrimination and minority rights represent such hegemonic values in Germany. The personal support for a claim and the perception of its legitimacy highly correlate. All other forms of political activism are judged more critically, although Germans do not generally respond with a ‘stick to sports’ attitude when athletes publicly take a political stance. Moreover, stronger left-identified, more tolerant and politically active respondents are more likely to accept athletes’ political activism.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Table 1.

Results of exploratory factor analyses of independent measures.

Construct/Item	Factor loading	Eigenvalue	Variance explained	Alpha
Political tolerance		2.868	71.71%	0.849
Controversial groups should be allowed to publish leaflets and books.	0.934
Controversial groups should be allowed to give public speeches.	0.953
Controversial groups should be allowed to have meetings.	0.919
Government should be allowed to censor controversial groups (reversed coded).	0.493
Conflict avoidance		1.922	64.06%	0.715
I usually avoid having my disagreements with other people openly.	0.794
Conflict is an ugly thing.	0.760
Wherever possible, I would like to avoid conflicts and disputes.	0.845
Political activism		2.301	46.02%	0.693
Participation in a signature campaign, petition	0.645
Participation in an authorized demonstration	0.767
Commenting on a political post on social media	0.587
Participation in a strike	0.686
Participating in a boycott	0.693
Sport interest		2.051	68.37%	0.765
I regularly follow sports events in the media.	0.837
I regularly spend money – for example, on pay TV subscriptions – in order to follow sports events in the media.	0.809
I regularly attend sporting events such as soccer matches, championships or tournaments.	0.834

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Henk Erik Meier

Author biographies

Henk Erik Meier is professor for social science of sport at the University of Münster, Germany. His research focuses on sport policy and governance and sports media.

Markus Gerke is a visiting scholar at Middlebury College, Vermont, United States. His research examines political activism among sports fans and the impact of sports events on attitudes of sports audiences.

Swantje Müller is a research assistant at the Department of Sport Sociology in Giessen. She investigates the public acceptance of athlete activism in elite sports.

Michael Mutz is professor for social science of sport in the Department of Sport Science at Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany. His research focuses on social inequalities of sports participation, mega-sport events and their societal impact, and nationalism in sports broadcasting.

References

Agyemang

Kwame JA

(2012) Black Male Athlete Activism and the Link to Michael Jordan: A transformational leadership and social cognitive theory analysis. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(4): 433–445.

Allison

Lincoln

(2001) Amateurism in Sport. London: Frank Cass.

Andrews

Kenneth T

Beyerlein

Kraig

Farnum

Tuneka Tucker

(2016) The Legitimacy of Protest: Explaining White Southerners’ attitudes toward the civil rights movement. Social Forces 94(3): 1021–1044.

Balbier

Uta Andrea

(2006) Kalter Krieg auf der Aschenbahn [Cold war on the ash track]. Paderborn: Schöningh.

Bergsgard

Nils Asle

Houlihan

Barrie

Mangset

Per

Nødland

Svein Ingve

Rommetvedt

Hilmar

(2009) Sport Policy. London: Routledge.

Broussard

Ryan

(2020) ‘Stick to Sports’ Is Gone: A field theory analysis of sports journalists’ coverage of socio-political issues. Journalism Studies 21(12): 1627–1643.

Brown

Judah

Sheridan

Brandon J

(2020) The Impact of National Anthem Protests on National Football League Television Ratings. Journal of Sports Economics 21(8): 829–847.

Carothers

Thomas

O’Donohue

Andrew

(eds) (2019) Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Cunningham

George B

Regan

Michael R

Jr (2012) Political activism, racial identity and the commercial endorsement of athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(6): 657–669.

10.

Darby

Paul

(2005) Africa and the ‘World’ Cup: FIFA politics, Eurocentrism and resistance. International Journal of the History of Sport 22(5): 883–905.

11.

Ehrhardt

Christoph

(2022) Diplomatischer Flurschaden. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [Diplomatic damage], 30 November, 3.

12.

Elling

Agnes

Hilvoorde

Ivo Van

Dool

Remko Van Den

(2014) Creating or Awakening National Pride Through Sporting Success: A longitudinal study on macro effects in the Netherlands. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 49(2): 129–151.

13.

Falcous

Mark

Hawzen

Matthew G

Newman

Joshua I

(2019) Hyperpartisan Sports Media in Trump’s America: The metapolitics of Breitbart Sports. Communication & Sport 7(5): 588–610.

14.

Foucault

Michel

(1980) The History of Sexuality. Volume I: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

15.

Frederick

Evan L

Pegoraro

Ann

Sanderson

Jimmy

(2018) Divided and United: Perceptions of athlete activism at the ESPYS. Sport in Society 22(4): 1–18.

16.

Frederick

Evan L

Sanderson

James

Schlereth

Nicholas

(2017) Kick These Kids Off the Team and Take Away Their Scholarships: Facebook and perceptions of athlete activism at the University of Missouri. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 10: 17–34.

17.

Gift

Thomas

Miner

Andrew

(2017) ‘Dropping the Ball’: The understudied nexus of sports and politics. World Affairs 180(1): 127–161.

18.

Giugni

Marco

Grasso

Maria

(2022) Protest Participation. In Giugni

Marco

Grasso

Maria

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 396–416.

19.

Grix

Jonathan

Houlihan

Barrie

(2014) Sports Mega-Events as Part of a Nation’s Soft Power Strategy: The cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012). British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16(4): 572–596.

20.

Grix

Jonathan

Kramareva

Nina

(2017) The Sochi Winter Olympics and Russia’s Unique Soft Power Strategy. Sport in Society 20: 461–475.

21.

Hay

Colin

(2007) Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

22.

Heider

Fritz

(1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Horeni

Michael

(2021) Die Welt zu Gast bei Moralisten [The world as a guest of moralists]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 June, 31.

24.

Hutter

Swen

Weisskircher

Manès

(2022) New Contentious Politics: Civil society, social movements, and the polarisation of German politics. German Politics. Epub ahead of print 5 April 2022. DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2044474.

25.

Inglehart

Ronald

Welzel

Christian

(2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Johnston

Mel

Naylor

Michael

Dickson

Geoff

Hedlund

David

Kellison

Timothy

(2021) Determinants of Support and Participation in a Major Sport Event Referendum. Sport Management Review 24(1): 134–155.

27.

Kelman

Herbert C

(2001) Reflections on Social and Psychological Processes of Legitimization and Delegitimization. In Jost

John T

Major

Brenda

(eds) The Psychology of Legitimacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 54–73.

28.

Lehner

Daniel

(2015) Die Unangemessenheit des ‘demokratischen Versprechens’ – zur Brüchigkeit der politischen Rechtfertigungsordnung [The Inadequacy of the ‘Democratic Promise’ - On the Fragility of the Political Order of Justification]. In Maria

Dammayr

Grass

Doris

Rothmüller

Barbara

(eds) Legitimität. Gesellschaftliche, politische und wissenschaftliche Bruchlinien der Rechtfertigung [Legitimacy: Social, Political and Scientific Fracture Lines of Justification]. Bielefeld: transcript, 27–48.

29.

Lenskyj

Helen Jefferson

(2013) Reflections on Communication and Sport: On heteronormativity and gender identities. Communication & Sport 1(1–2): 138–150.

30.

Magrath

Rory

(ed.) (2022) Athlete Activism: Contemporary Perspectives. London: Routledge.

31.

Meier

Henk Erik

García

Borja

(2021) Beyond Sports Autonomy: A case for collaborative sport governance approaches. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 13(3): 501–516.

32.

Meier

Henk Erik

Chababi

Nabila

Raue

Charlotte

Strauss

Bernd

Uhlenbrock

Christina

Utesch

Till

(2018) Fan Identification and National Identity. Sport in Society 22(3): 476–498.

33.

Meltzer

Christopher

(2021) Fragen nach dem Jawort [Questions after the word of consent]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 13 December, 23.

34.

Micheletti

Michele

McFarland

Andrew S

(2016) Creative Participation. Responsibility-Taking in the Political World. Abingdon: Routledge.

35.

Mudrick

Michael

Sauder

Molly Hayes

Davies

Melissa

(2019) When Athletes Don’t ‘Stick to Sports’: The relationship between athlete political activism and sport consumer behavior. Journal of Sport Behaviour 42(2): 177–199.

36.

Mutz

Michael

Gerke

Markus

Meier

Henk Erik

(2022) Imagining the Nation Through Football: German national self-stereotypes before, during and after the 2016 UEFA championship. European Journal for Sport & Society 19(3): 270–290.

37.

Næss

Hans Erik

(2018) The Neutrality Myth: Why international sporting associations and politics cannot be separated. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 45(2): 144–160.

38.

Parrish

Richard

(2003) Sports Law and Policy in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

39.

Rokeach

Milton

(1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: The Free Press.

40.

Saffon

Maria Paula

Urbinati

Nadia

(2013) Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty. Political Theory 41(3): 441–481.

41.

Scanlon

Thomas

(2003) A Theory of Freedom of Expression. In Scanlon

Thomas

(ed.) The Difficulty of Tolerance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6–25.

42.

Schmidt

Samuel H

Frederick

Evan L

Pegoraro

Ann

Spencer

Tyler C

(2019) An Analysis of Colin Kaepernick, Megan Rapinoe, and the National Anthem Protests. Communication & Sport 7(5): 653–677.

43.

Seawright

Jason

Gerring

John

(2008) Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294–308.

44.

Seippel

Ørnulf

Dalen

Håvard B

Sandvik

Morten R

Solstad

Gerd Marie

(2018) From Political Sports to Sports Politics: On political mobilization of sports issues. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 10(4): 669–686.

45.

Serazio

Michael

Thorson

Emily A

(2020) Weaponized Patriotism and Racial Subtext in Kaepernick’s Aftermath: The anti-politics of American sports fandom. Television & New Media 21(2): 151–168.

46.

Suchman

Mark

(1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.

47.

Sullivan

John L

Piereson

James

Marcus

George E

(1993) Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

48.

Thorhauer

Yvonne

(2022) Darf man sich auf Qatar freuen [Can we look forward to Qatar]? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11 November, 32.

49.

Thorson

Emily A

Serazio

Michael

(2018) Sports Fandom and Political Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 82(2): 391–403.

50.

Valiente

Celia

(2021) Elite Athlete Activism for Gender Equality in Sport. In Magrath

Rory

(ed.) Athlete Activism. London: Routledge, 109–119.

51.

Valiente

Celia

(2022) The Impact of Gender Quotas in Sport Management: The case of Spain. Sport in Society 25(5): 1017–1034.

52.

Van Sterkenburg

Jacco

Knoppers

Annelies

(2004) Dominant Discourses About Race/Ethnicity and Gender in Sport Practice and Performance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 39(3): 301–321.

53.

Waas

Sabine

(2023) Failure of Integration or Symbol of Racism: The case of soccer star Mesut Özil. International Migration 61(1): 141–153.

54.

Wann

Daniel L

(1995) Preliminary Validation of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 19(4): 377–396.

55.

Watanabe

Nicholas M

Yan

Grace

Soebbing

Brian P

(2019) Market Disruption as a Regime for Athlete Activism: An economic analysis of college football player protests. Sport Management Review 22(5): 600–612.

56.

Weisskircher

Manès

Hutter

Swen

(2019) Idle Democrats? Talking about politics in Germany. In Saunders

Clare

Klandermans

Bert

(eds) When Citizens Talk About Politics. London: Routledge, 77–95.

57.

Zlobina

Anna

Vazquez

Alejandro Gonzalez

(2018) What is the Right Way to Protest? On the process of justification of protest, and its relationship to the propensity to participate in different types of protest. Social Movement Studies 17(2): 234–250.

The public legitimacy of elite athletes’ political activism: German survey evidence

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical background

The contested legitimacy of athletes’ political activism

Potential determinants of the legitimacy of athletes’ political activism

Research design and methods

Study design

The measures

Legitimacy of and support for athletes’ political activism

Independent variables

Analytic strategy

Findings

Discussion and conclusion

Key findings

German versus US debates on athletes’ political activism

Practical implications

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References