Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) has grown into a huge global field of sport-related activity and intervention and is a heavily researched subject in the social scientific study of sport. In this article, we advance the case for a new research agenda in SDP, in part to contribute more fully to sustainable development through substantial societal change. We argue that SDP research should engage with wider literatures and theories, notably on political economy and development; take full account of structural changes within the development sphere; and examine new areas of intervention within SDP per se. To develop our analysis, our discussion is organized into six main parts. We begin by introducing the concept of “Sportland” to reimagine SDP as a strongly institutionalized field of development activity with its own stakeholder networks. Second, we outline the key aspects of prior SDP/Sportland research on which we seek to build. Third, we examine key changes in the political economy and geopolitics of development, which serve to point Sportland scholars toward engaging with fresh literatures in these fields. Fourth, we explore the implications of these changes to retheorize development. Fifth, we detail new ways ahead for Sportland with regard to policy, practice, and research, with particular reference to the position of different organizational stakeholders within SDP. Finally, we consider specific areas of future intervention and inquiry within Sportland that require the attention of researchers. Our analysis is underpinned by many research studies and projects in Sportland which we have undertaken separately or collectively over at least the last decade.

This article examines the diverse forms of public opposition, protest, criticism, and complaint in the United Kingdom on the staging of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. Our discussion draws heavily on empirical research, primarily fieldwork and interviews in East London with local residents, opposition groups, business people, politicians, and other stakeholders. The article is separated into three main parts. First, we explore the setting and political–economic context for London 2012. The main Olympic setting—the London Borough of Newham—features very high levels of poverty and ethnic diversity. We argue that London 2012 represented a form of “festival capitalism” that was part of a broader set of “New Right two-step” policies in poor urban areas, involving initial Keynesian investment, followed by a deeper and far-reaching array of neo-liberal measures. Second, in the main part of the article, we identify and examine, in turn, six forms of public conflict, criticism, and complaint that centered on the Games, specifically national criticisms (e.g., on distribution of Olympic resources), local criticisms (e.g., on lack of jobs and business benefits), issue-specific campaigns (e.g., on the environment), “glocal” protests against specific nations and sponsors (e.g., campaigns against BP, Dow, and Rio Tinto), neo-tribal transgressions and situationist spectacles (e.g., mass cycle rides near Olympic venues), and anti-Olympic forums and demonstrations (e.g., critical web sites, multi-group marches). Third, we set out briefly the importance of conducting research into critics and opponents of sport mega-events, and discuss different arguments on how the social impact of protest movements might have been intensified at London 2012. The findings in this article may be extended to examine critical public responses to the hosting of other mega-events in different settings.

Sport for development and peace (SDP) is a rapidly growing field of activity in which sport is used as an intervention tool in order to pursue wider, non-sporting social goals. Organized into three main parts, this paper examines issues of power, politics, and patronage with respect to the SDP sector's organization and the implementation of programs particularly in the global South. First, drawing on a sociological approach broadly derived from Pierre Bourdieu, we examine how the SDP sector is structured, featuring a variety of stakeholders with different interests and aspirations; we explore in particular the potential influence of relatively marginal campaign groups and new social movements. Second, we identify the complex issues and challenges of patronage and mutuality that arise in international SDP work involving the global North (donor) and global South (recipient) in the post-colonial context. Third, we consider how these issues impact upon the design, implementation, and effects of SDP programs with particular reference to relations of power between the global North and South. We conclude by advancing the case for a “bottom-up”, and more culturally and politically sensitive approach to be adopted by SDP stakeholders, particularly those based in the global North.

This article explores the national and global significance and impact of Beijing’s hosting of the 2008 summer Olympic Games. The discussion is organized into four main parts. First, I locate the 2008 Beijing Olympics in the context of wider processes of globalization; in particular, I explore how China ‘glocalized’ the Olympics, by giving the event distinctive meanings that were then experienced by global television audiences. Second, I employ the concept of ‘soft power’ to explore how, in hosting the event, China sought to advance its international influence and appeal; I introduce the concept of ‘soft disempowerment’ to examine how there may have been some negative impacts for China in staging the Olympics. Third, I discuss issues of security surrounding the Beijing Olympics, given the growing focus on such questions for sport mega-events in general following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Fourth, I outline some of the key issues regarding sporting legacies for China, following the 2008 Olympics, with particular reference to Chinese football.

This paper provides a sociological model of the key transnational political and economic forces that are shaping the ‘global football field’. The model draws upon, and significantly extends, the theory of the ‘global field’ developed previously by Robertson. The model features four quadrants, each of which contains a dominant operating principle, an ‘elemental reference point’, and an ‘elemental theme’. The quadrants contain, first, neo‐liberalism, associated with the individual and elite football clubs; second, neo‐mercantilism, associated with nation‐states and national football systems; third, international relations, associated with international governing bodies; and fourth, global civil society, associated with diverse institutions that pursue human development and/or social justice. We examine some of the interactions and tensions between the major institutional and ideological forces across the four quadrants. We conclude by examining how the weakest quadrant, featuring global civil society, may gain greater prominence within football. In broad terms, we argue that our four‐fold model may be utilized to map and to examine other substantive research fields with reference to globalization.

This paper introduces the Special Issue of the Journal of Consumer Culture on the theme of ‘Global Sport and Consumer Culture'. We begin by briefly setting out how the interrelations of global sport and consumer culture have intensified through three historical stages: first, a ‘take-off' phase from the late 19th century to the mid-1940s; second, an ‘integrative and expansionist' phase from the late 1940s to the late 1980s; third, a ‘transnational hyper-commodification' phase from the early 1990s onwards. We argue that contemporary global consumer sport is underpinned by five ‘large-scale transnational processes', which are globalization, commodification, securitization, mediatization, and postmodernization. We explore how a variety of substantive themes subsequently emerge within global consumer sport, which are diversely referenced by the papers in this special issue; these themes include social structures and divisions, celebrity culture, the making of sport consumers, and the glocal aspects of global consumer sport. We conclude by outlining the contents of the seven papers contained within this Special Issue.