The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on society, leading to a rapid closure of businesses, places of work, worship, social engagement, schools and universities. Sport is often seen – along with the arts – as a trivial pursuit, categorised under ‘hobbies’ or things to do once the serious business is over. However, this critical commentary argues that sport and sports events play a crucial social role even under normal circumstances. To this end we analyse the impact of Covid-19 on three areas of sport: first, the nature of elite sport played ‘without spectators’ is discussed and what this means for the necessary ‘feelgood’ factor associated with watching and following it; second, we look at Covid’s impact on the provision of sport for those in less well-off areas, drawing on a case study of Oldham during the pandemic. Finally, we analyse the severe economic and social impact of the pandemic on grassroots sports, including the relationship between mass and elite sport. This commentary seeks to stimulate wider interest on how Covid-19 has changed sport at elite and grassroots level and how the pandemic has led to differential outcomes for people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. Based on the above, the commentary assesses the likely long-term consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic on sport.

Esports is a rapidly growing industry. However, the unidentifiable governance structure of the industry has contributed to a number of integrity-eroding activities. By exploring esports stakeholder dynamics, this paper answers the question, “Is the esports governance model sustainable?” Data were sourced from documentation, focus groups (N = 3) and semi-structured interviews (N = 6). Thematic analysis was conducted using Nvivo. The findings suggest that (1) the current esports governance framework features some attributes of the “lead organisation-governed network”, with the power residing mainly in game publishers; (2) the rising power of other stakeholders in the network seeking to address integrity issues has caused fragmentation of the esports governance framework; (3) esports governance is evolving towards a network administration organisation (NAO) model. Such evolution has a few challenges—most notably, the compliance of game publishers. Given the social impact of the integrity issues, governments should play a main role in facilitating a NAO model.

The concept of ‘sportswashing’ serves as a short-hand way of criticising non-democratic regimes for using investment in sport, sports clubs, and sports events to detract from illiberal practices in their home countries. This article makes a contribution to the extant literature and debates on ‘sportswashing’ in three key ways by (1) showing that, paradoxically, without the encouragement and opportunities afforded by notionally democratic global capitalism and the ‘West’, ‘sportswashing’ strategies would not be available to non-democratic regimes; (2) highlighting the ‘mechanisms’ by which ‘sportswashing’ actually occurs and how it ought to be understood as an initial step on a long-term journey towards ‘soft power’ gains. The article does this by (3) examining two empirical examples of ‘sportswashing’. First, we explore the 2022 Qatar World Cup and the broader international sports investment strategies pursued by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Second, we introduce the WWE partnership with Saudi Arabia to demonstrate that ‘sports washing ’ can be rendered bidirectional such that both participants reap a reputational boost, inverting the presumed reputational damage that otherwise constitutes the main disincentive to participation by Western capital. Such a process embeds non-democratic regimes in the sports industry leading to their becoming ‘normalised’ in international business.

On 18 April 2021, it was announced that 12 of Europe’s leading professional football clubs had formally agreed to form, and partake in, a new ‘super’ league. Officially known as ‘The Super League’, but more commonly referred to as the ‘European Super League’, the competition sought to strongly rival – if not replace – the existing Champions League, the longstanding elite European tournament organised by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). By 21 April 2021, however, nine of the clubs formally confirmed their withdrawal from the ESL, leaving only three clubs committed to the project. In this brief critical commentary, we analyse the European Super League attempt from an economic, social and political perspective. In doing so, we answer three key questions: What were the underlying motivations behind the attempt? Why did the attempt fail to materialise? What next for the future governance of football?

Purpose: In recent years, there has been a decline in the number of cities seeking to host the Olympic Games, with several cities withdrawing from the bid process following referenda. The debate around bidding have hinged on the costs and benefits of hosting events, with little consideration as to the benefits of a bid itself. The purpose of this paper is to identify the ways in which Olympic bids be leveraged for positive outcomes, regardless of the outcomes of the bid.Design/methodology/approach: This research employs a content analysis, examining the 16 bid responses to the question in the International Olympic Committee Candidate questionnaire: “What will be the benefits of bidding for the Olympic Games for your city/region, irrespective of the outcome of the bid?”.Findings: This research found that bid cities do attempt to use the Olympic bid process as a leveraging resource, with four unique opportunities arising from this; national and city pride, Olympism, the formation of networks, and global focus. These provide the opportunities for Olympic bid cities to achieve the following strategic objectives: nation and community building, sport participation, business opportunities, enhancing image and profile, and to push through infrastructural projects.Originality/value: There has been little consideration as to the ways an Olympic bid can be used to leverage positive outcomes for a city or a nation, and therefore this research contributes to the literature on leveraging mega-events. The research also has practical value, in providing potential bidders with information regarding positive outcomes whether the bid is successful or not.

Sport and authoritarianism have long been bedfellows, especially during the Cold War era. ‘Traditional’ authoritarian regimes—most notably the Soviet Union and its satellite states—learnt the art of instrumentalizing sport for political ends from each other. Motives for this included garnering international prestige via excellence in elite sport and showcasing communism as a viable alternative to capitalism. This paper shows how the ‘new’ authoritarian states are now beginning to impact global elite sport through similar sports investment strategies in an array of sports teams, sports sponsorship and sports leagues. Whereas ‘traditional’ authoritarian states sought sporting excellence on the playing field and the recognition this brought with it, the ‘new’ authoritarian states seek to buy into the cultural power and prestige of global elite sport for economic gain, to improve the health of their citizens and for global recognition. We draw on recent examples from Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia to understand why and how ‘new’ authoritarian states pursue sport policies and why this is contested.