Nothing but medals? Attitudes towards the importance of Olympic success

Abstract

States intervene increasingly in financing and organization of Olympic elite sport in order to maximize national success in the medal table. In Germany and many other countries too that includes practices that have been criticized as unacceptable in democratic societies: funding of medal-promising sports only, early selection and specialization of young athletes, authoritarian tendencies in sport policy, etc. Are those efforts reflected by a strong desire for medals within the population? Is national success regarded as so important that even critical measures are accepted? And would that indicate more general tendencies to nationalistic or authoritarian attitudes? These and other questions were addressed in a survey carried out in Germany in 2012 (N = 899). Results show that medals are indeed perceived as important, especially in lower educational levels, but by far not as important as sticking to sporting values and the rules of fair play. Multivariate analyses reveal that the desire for medal success is highly dependent on the belief in and perception of the Olympic competition. For most of the respondents that does not legitimize unfair practices or exploiting athletes, but partly the struggle for medals is also linked with a limited understanding of fair play and nationalistic or authoritarian attitudes.

Keywords

authoritarianism elite sport national pride Olympic medal table sporting success

State intervention in elite sport

Unlike in authoritarian regimes, sports policy in democratic countries has to legitimate its expenses and practices to the public. Usually it does so by claiming several social or political functions that successful elite sport would fulfil (Grix and Carmichael, 2012). In Germany, for instance, sports associations as well as state authorities argue that Olympic medals would foster international representation and prestige for the nation, would have a role-model function by conveying social values and encouraging the population to participate in sports actively, and would contribute to national identity and social cohesion (BMI, 2005; DOSB, 2012). That does not only raise the question of whether these functions are indeed fulfilled through medals, but also which means are accepted for the end of national success.

Increasing state intervention in funding and organization has been criticized as a major cause for the aberrations of elite sport. Already in 1982, Heinilä had theorized the dynamics of international sport as a process of “totalization”. The national sport systems would “(…) try to mobilize and utilize all relevant resources in order to guarantee success in international competitions” (Heinilä, 1982: 240–241). Such resources included, among others, investment in elite sport facilities and infrastructure, employing coaches and athletes as state servants (e.g. in the army or police) to enable professional training, funding of medical and other research to improve elite sport, etc. Several scholars have argued that these dynamics of state intervention in international competition have produced some of the crucial problems of contemporary sport, maybe even more than professionalization has: “If fair play is on the ropes, it is representational sport, not money, which landed the hardest punch” (Guttmann, 1986: 184). Higher involvement and investment by the state would come along with authoritarian policies and practices, as expectations for revenues in terms of success raised (Heinilä, 1982). That would increase pressure on athletes and make competition more serious (Dunning, 1986).

Recent developments in Germany support this notion. While state-aided doping had usually been considered as a characteristic of the German Democratic Republic’s (GDR’s) strategy for medal success (Spitzer, 1998) only, latest research (Spitzer, 2013) indicates that doping was at least tolerated partly by officials of the Federal Republic of Germany’s (FRG’s) sport system, in order to save face in the Olympic medal table competition. Another characteristic assumed for the Eastern sport system only was an imbalance of mass sport and elite sport, which was criticized even in the GDR itself, despite citizens’ limited opportunities for protest (Grix, 2008; Messing and Voigt, 1982). Recently, a similar critique was directed at the current system, when the Table Tennis Association claimed that in Germany funding would concentrate on medal success, while starkly neglecting the relevance of mass sport (DTTB, 2012). Although the Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund (DOSB) asserts that there is no preference for successful disciplines (DOSB, 2012), strategic analysis of past Olympics reveals a focus on medal-promising sports (Gienger, 2008; Kindinger et al., 2010). To privilege different sports and disciplines according to their possible contribution to the medal table, regardless of their tradition, popularity and mass sport appeal, was formerly regarded as being possible in authoritarian regimes only (Teichler and Reinartz, 1999: 597). However, not only are criteria for funding disputed, but especially the way in which they are determined and (not) communicated. Some representatives of sports associations complain about being powerless in negotiations about funding criteria (Emrich et al., 2011, 2013).¹ The latter were only partly revealed in 2012, when journalists had forced the DOSB to do so by legal action. That points to further characteristics of a totalizing sport system: “authoritarian tendencies in the System’s decision-making” and “refraining from giving public information freely” (Heinilä, 1982: 252–254). Finally, there are discussions about early selection, specialization and intensive training of young athletes in elite sport schools, some of which succeeded directly the “Kinder- und Jugendsportschulen” of the GDR (Wiese, 2012). Critics consider the system as an effort to produce future medallists like an industrial good, therefore exploiting young athletes and, by binding them to the sports system, depriving them of other career opportunities (Emrich et al., 2009; Prohl and Emrich, 2009).

The German example illustrates tendencies that have been observed in many other countries, too, and that have been described as “exceptional growth in state intervention” (Hargreaves, 1992: 128), as “sporting étatisme” (Allison and Monington, 2002: 133), as “convergence” of Eastern and Western sport systems (Beamish and Ritchie, 2006: 85–104) or as a “global sporting arms race” (De Bosscher et al., 2008). The aim of maximizing medal success and many of the practices initially established in socialist countries, which were considered as unacceptable for democratic societies in times of the Cold War, have been adopted and are kept up by Western countries.

In this study, we ask if these current trends in sports policy are reflected in public attitudes on the aims and means of Olympic elite sport. Starting from sports governing bodies’ focus on medal success, we observe the meaning ascribed to the medal table among the German population. Has the end of national success become so important that it justifies all, or at least more means than before? If so, does such a stance on sports indicate similar attitudes towards society, that is, does the acceptance of “totalizing” practices for national sporting success reveal nationalistic or authoritarian tendencies in general (Prohl, 2012)? Or if not, which other attitudes affect the desire for medals and how do they contribute to the prevalence of the “global sporting arms race”?

Meaning of medals, means for success

Social scientific research has addressed the Olympic medal table basically from two perspectives. As shown above, it has been theorized as a central aim of international competition and thus as a trigger for crucial structural and financial developments in sports. Furthermore, it has been used as an indicator in many studies on socioeconomic and political factors leading to sporting success (see the overview by Emrich et al., 2012, 2013). However, studies addressing the meaning and importance of the Olympic medal table for the population are rare. Only Breuer and Hallmann (2011; see also Hallmann et al., 2013) have in particular addressed the issue empirically, pointing to some aspects of representation and identification (see below). However, there is extensive international research dealing more generally with possible effects of elite sport on national identity, covering a broad range of cases and perspectives (e.g. Allison, 2002; Bairner, 2001; Houlihan, 1997; Smith and Porter, 2004; Tomlinson and Young, 2006).

Summed up in general, literature shows first of all that sportsmen and -women have been and still are objects of national identification. “Sporting events such as the Olympic Games and the World Cup provide the only peacetime occasions where whole nation-states are able regularly and visibly to unite” (Dunning, 1986: 223). Representation in elite sport competitions may contribute to nation building, by giving the population a feeling of international recognition and self-confidence, especially in states that are relatively poor or young (Allison and Monington, 2002; Morgan, 2000; Topic and Coakley, 2010). While in many professional sports nationality has become increasingly unimportant for fans (who support Tiger Woods, Dirk Nowitzki or Manchester United no matter if they are compatriots or not), and despite globalization and migration having partly changed the meaning of nation and made identification more complex for many (Smith and Porter, 2004: 1–9), large parts of elite sport remain predominantly structured by competition between nations (Reicher, 2013). Looking at the Olympics, there are of course events such as the 100 m finals, which are viewed all over the world even if, as the last two times, only athletes from four countries are represented. However, several disciplines become meaningful to spectators only if there are participants with whom to identify, and then the compatriot seems to be the likeliest object. “National identity is the most marketable product in sport” (Allison, 2002: 346) – without it, public interest and thus advertising and funding of some sports could be endangered (Hargreaves, 1992). So not only the states have an interest in Olympic elite sport. Conversely, officials and associations of the latter use national identity and the medal table to raise attention and to legitimize subsidies by the state.

Sporting success and national pride

As seen, literature provides many different examples that elite sport can be an object of national identification and foster social cohesion within a population. However, a more specific and crucial question is, under which circumstances it does so. Several empirical studies from different countries have addressed the question of how important elite sport success is for national identification, especially for national pride. First of all, results show that sport is one of the central fields from which national pride derives. With data from the 1995/1996 International Survey, Evans and Kelley (2002) showed that in many parts of the world people are proud of their countries‘ sporting achievements; only pride in scientific and technological achievements scored higher. Recent surveys in the Netherlands even showed sports on top, with about three quarter of the respondents feeling proud of the country’s achievements (Elling et al., 2012; Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010). When comparing different countries, Evans and Kelley found that not only the most successful ones were proudest about their sporting achievements, but also smaller ones such as New Zealand or Ireland. That Eastern European countries showed significantly less pride might be a hint for disapproval of the former successful, but questionable, communist state sport systems (Evans and Kelley, 2002: 319–322).

Concerning effects of sporting success on national pride, results from different studies and countries are heterogenous, especially for the influence of socio-demographic factors. That might be explained not only by differences between the populations, but also by different methodological approaches. In a German study, about two thirds of the respondents stated that it would make them proud if German athletes win many medals at Olympic Games or World Cups (Breuer and Hallmann, 2011). In the US General Social Survey of 1996 and 2004, a slightly higher share of 75% agreed with the statement “when my country does well in international sports, it makes me proud to be an American” (Denham, 2010). Dóczi (2012) found that in the Hungarian population 85% were proud of their athletes’ achievements, while only 39% were said to be disappointed with “below-par performances”. While he asserted that a greater percentage of men than of women (57% versus 45%) was very proud of sporting achievements, neither Denham nor Breuer and Hallmann found significant gender differences in this respect. The latter noticed a higher general interest in elite sport among men (68% versus 48%). Differences between age groups were not found by Dóczi, but by Denham, who saw higher pride on sporting success with higher age. Instead, Breuer and Hallmann registered a u-shaped relation, with those under 30 and over 70 years proudest about medals. Similarly ambivalent are results on the impact of education: in the German study, higher educational levels were less proud of medals than lower ones (59% versus 70%); for the US that effect was only significant among men, while in Hungary results were upside-down, with the highest educational levels being prouder than lower ones (87% versus 79%). For the Netherlands, Elling et al. (2012) found no significant differences according to gender, age or education concerning pride on sport, but higher national pride in general with higher age, lower educational level and among men. People actively participating in sports did not show higher national pride in general, but were more proud of the country’s sporting achievements than non-active respondents (Elling et al., 2012). Finally, according to Denham, pride in sporting success rises with the frequency of following sports on TV. Van Hilvoorde et al. (2010) found higher national pride in general among people following sport events.

Apart from addressing it with a direct question, the relation of sporting success and national pride has also been analysed indirectly. Ahlheim and Heger (2008) prepared a time-series analysis with measurements before, during and after the 2006 Football World Cup for the item “How proud are you to be German?” from the Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften (ALLBUS) panel. Results showed a successive increase of national pride, from 20% of the population being proud or very proud before the tournament to 46% after the quarter-final victory of the German team. When it was defeated in the semi-final, pride immediately dropped again to 28% and reached 22%, about the initial value, one month after the tournament (Ahlheim and Heger, 2008: 46). These results are also supported by Mutz (2013), who found similar effects on patriotism and nationalism during the 2012 European Championships in a smaller student population from Germany. Long-term data from the Netherlands showed a weaker effect during major sport events of 2008–2010 (Summer and Winter Olympics, World and European Football Championships), but also confirm that an increase of national pride is only temporary (Elling et al., 2012; Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010). Taking into account the above-mentioned results on specific pride on sports, the authors come to the conclusion: “The extent of national pride determines the sporting pride experienced more than that sports achievements lead to an increase in national pride” (Elling et al., 2012: 19).

The medal table as a source of pride?

The literature review shows that many people are proud of their nation’s sporting success and that there are at least temporary effects of success on national pride in general. However, for our case this has to be specified. Unfortunately, only in one survey was national success explicitly operationalized as Olympic medals: “It makes me proud if German athletes win many medals at Olympic Games or World Cups” (Breuer and Hallmann, 2011). The problem is, firstly, that the item leaves uncertain what respondents consider as many medals, and secondly, that Olympic Games and World Cups are mixed.

As Van Hilvoorde et al. (2010) have described, different types of competitions and events go along with different patterns of identification. While during the big soccer tournaments the whole nation, literally, is bound to the fortune of its one team, the Olympics provide many competitions and many chances for success for the leading countries. A single medal – and the athlete winning it – can be forgotten quickly, if there is no particular story that makes it memorable. “It is not the medals themselves that create a sense of belonging, but merely the stories related to some of the outstanding performances” (Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010: 9). This story-telling capacity will furthermore depend on the discipline in which and the country for which a medal is achieved. As Polley (2004) pointed out, not every sport can claim that a majority of the population identifies with it, and neither can any sport (not even soccer) claim that everyone identifies with it. So medals will have a different meaning according to a discipline‘s national popularity, tradition and former success.

Concerning the specific meaning of the Olympic medal table index, that leaves us with hardly any empirical evidence, but some theoretical assumptions. “Feelings of national pride (…) can only slightly be heighted by outstanding performances by athletes, let alone ‘bought’ by investing more money in an elite sports system to increase the amount of Olympic medals” (Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010: 99). As an abstract ranking, the medal table lacks the “story-telling capacity” of singular events and might be less suitable to foster identification and pride than other international competitions.

Success at any price?

Apparently many people are happy or proud of national sporting success. But which means are considered as necessary and acceptable in order to achieve it? And what do such attitudes towards sports reveal about general sociopolitical attitudes? Some empirical studies have asked for the willingness of the population to pay for funding of Olympic elite sport in general or for medal success in particular (see the overview in Breuer and Hallmann, 2011), also in dependence of the perceived (mis-)behaviour of athletes (Breuer and Hallmann, 2013).² Apparently, that does not say much about the population’s attitudes towards structural means of sporting success or the role the state should have. Again, we cannot draw on extensive empirical data, but on some theoretical considerations.

As discussed above, the “global sporting arms race” implies tendencies to a “totalization” of sports, leading not only to increasing state intervention and subsidies, but also provoking neglect of mass sport and of disciplines not promising medals, state-funded doping or unwillingness to prosecute, tendencies to authoritarian decision making, exploiting athletes for national success, etc. For the latter, totalization means a greater dependency on the sport system, higher pressure to succeed and thus incentives for using illegal and unfair practices. If such practices and means are considered necessary, that points to an understanding of sport according to which success is sought at any price, while rules and respect – for both opponents and “own” athletes – are merely obstacles. It has been claimed that such an idealization of winning and contempt of the loser derives from fascist ideology (Tännsjö, 2000). We would put it more carefully and specifically: if success orientation in sports turns into seeking victory at any price, it is likely that it corresponds with authoritarian attitudes, that is, submission to the strong, aggression against the weak, “useless” or deviant (Adorno et al., 1950: 671). Moreover, if national success is sought at any price, it is likely to correspond – by the same logic of international competition that shall positively influence national identity – with nationalism. It has been argued whether patriotism and nationalism in sports (Dixon, 2000; Gomberg, 2000) and in general can be separated. If that is assumed, the former is usually understood as identification with or pride in one’s country and its achievements, while the latter also includes a negative, deteriorating or hostile attitude towards other nations. Empirically, both concepts can be differentiated, but are not completely independent (Wagner et al., 2012). Some studies have shown that sporting success not only triggers the politically requested, “harmless” patriotism, but also increases nationalistic sentiments (Ahlheim and Heger, 2008; Mutz, 2013).

Methods

To achieve information about the public perception of the relevant issues, we designed a standardized online questionnaire, which was tested and validated with data from a student population. It contained questions about the following topics: importance and meaning of the medal table; interest in and reception of the Olympics; expectations towards athletes in terms of success and in terms of behaviour (doping, fairness, etc.); attitudes towards funding and organization of elite sport; identification with compatriot athletes; opinion on role-model function of athletes, etc. To these items focusing on the topic, we added (a) slightly shortened versions of existing scales for authoritarianism (Lederer, 2010), nationalism and patriotism (Weiss et al., 2010) and (b) socio-demographic variables and information about the respondents’ own sport activity (including frequency, organization, participation in competitions). Average time to answer the complete form was about 20–25 minutes (Mean: 22 m 28 s).

Initially, data collection was intended to be carried out via an open web survey only, which was scheduled from May to October 2012, that is, from two months before to two months after the Olympics in London. A link to the questionnaire was posted on the websites of selected regional German newspapers.³ To avoid some of the expectable problems of such a partly self-selective sample (Bethlehem and Biffignandi, 2012: 303–327), the survey was also announced in the print editions of the newspapers – in order to attract groups using the web less or not at all – and there preferably in a general section – in order to attract people not interested in sports, too. However, as response rates showed the suspected biases (over-representation of younger and highly educated people), we added a printed form of the questionnaire, with which further data was collected especially among under-represented groups in selected social settings in Hesse and Saarland. Accordingly, the survey period was prolonged until December 2012, and an item controlling for recognition and influence of post-Olympic discussions was added. Also, variables for the instrument used (online or printed) and the date of response were included from the beginning, so that controls for effects of the survey form and temporal effects could be applied where necessary.

The online survey website had 2047 visits; 722 of the visitors (35.3%) started the questionnaire. Cases having completed less than half of the pages or less than half of the items were excluded, making up for a total of 550 online interviews (completion rate: 76.2%). For the additional survey, 940 questionnaires were distributed, 372 (39.6%) of which were returned. Of these, a further 23 were excluded as incomplete, resulting in 349 interviews in written form. Altogether, a sample of N = 899 interviews was realized. Concerning the distribution of socio-demographic characteristics (Table 1), the sample is slightly selective: compared to the German total population, higher educational levels and lower age groups are over-represented; accordingly, the rate of active sports participation is higher in the sample than in the population.

Table 1.

Sample: socio-demographic characteristics.

Age group	N	%	Educational level	N	%
<26 years	220	25.7	Lower	270	32.2
26–35 years	162	18.9	Medium	257	30.6
36–45 years	104	12.1	Higher	312	37.2
46–55 years	179	20.9	Gender
56–65 years	114	13.3	Male	472	54.7
>65 years	77	9.0	Female	391	45.3
Immigrant origin	89	10.3	Participating in sports/physical activity	684	79.4

As first steps of analysis, we proceeded with descriptive statistics – for which we dispensed with adjustment weighting techniques, as explaining variables were unknown for most of the respective items – and standard bivariate analysis, such as comparison of means, percentage differences and correlation analysis. To identify factors leading to a strong desire for medal success, we used multinomial ordered logit regression models (Kühnel and Krebs, 2010).

Results

Table 2 shows that about half of the respondents considered it important that Germany wins as many Olympic medals as possible. Taking the characteristics of the sample and the results for socio-demographic variables into account, we would assume a slightly higher importance of medals for the population as a whole.

Table 2.

Is it important to you that Germany wins as many Olympic medals as possible?.

	Completely unimportant	Rather unimportant	Undecided	Rather important	Very important
Frequency	87	113	236	328	132
Percentage	9.7	12.6	26.3	36.6	14.7

The results of a variance analysis show that age clearly had a significant effect on the perception of national success, with the youngest and oldest groups considering it more important (Table 3). As expected, the higher the educational level, the lower the importance of medals. However, both effects are weak. Somewhat surprising, gender did not have a significant effect, and neither did income, immigrant origin and coming from East or West Germany. There were no differences between physically active and non-active people, but those who are or have been taking part in sports competitions considered medals slightly more important. (Mean: 3.42 versus 3.17; p < 0.01; Eta² = 0.009).

Table 3.

Importance of medals by age, educational level and gender.

Age group	Mean	SD	Educational level	Mean	SD
<26 years	3.61	1.08	Lower	3.53	1.10
26–35 years	3.19	1.18	Medium	3.38	1.09
36–45 years	3.17	1.14	Higher	3.13	1.25
46–55 years	3.24	1.18	p < 0.01; Eta² = 0.021
56–65 years	3.12	1.19	Male	3.37	1.23
>65 years	3.63	1.12	Female	3.29	1.08
p < 0.01; Eta² = 0.032			Not significant

(1 = completely unimportant; 5 = very important).

Apparently, medals are important for many, but what do they mean? We asked participants about their impressions of a country ranked highly in the medal table (Table 4). Results show strong scepticism against a positive representational function. Only a minority considers a country ranked highly likeable or – contrary to the claim that a strong economy must be strong in sports as well (DOSB, 2012: 2) – as fabricating high-quality products, too. The belief in these functions correlates with the perceived importance of medals. A negative view, according to which success would imply unfair or ruthless practices, can neither be supported. Rather, respondents were of the opinion that a good position in the ranking does not mean that much, and makes a country neither better nor worse – accordingly these attitudes correlate negatively with the perceived importance of medals. However, the questionnaire also included an open question, if any nations or athletes performing in the last Olympics were particularly kept as good or bad memories. With China (N = 59) and Russia (N = 11), rather successful nations were remembered negatively, most frequently because of criticism of their sport systems and doping suspicions. Great Britain was the country that was positively remembered most frequently (N = 15), both because of its sporting performance and qualities as host nation.

Table 4.

Interpretations of the medal table.

A country ranked highly in the medal table…	Agree/strongly agree (%)	Correlation (Spearman) with importance of medals
…fabricates high-quality industrial products, too.	16.4	.233*
…is likeable/sympathetic to me.	17.2	.264*
…is highly regarded in the whole world.	31.3	.240*

…does not stick to the rules as strictly as others do.	16.9	–.060
…subjects everything to success.	27.3	–.036

…is neither better nor worse than others.	60.9	–.183*
…is not necessarily better off economically.	61.8	–.144*

significant for p < 0.01.

Medals proved to be important for many, but does that indicate a “success-at-any-price” attitude and authoritarian or nationalistic attitudes? Asked how important they consider different aspects of Olympic athletes’ performances, again about half of the respondents (53.8%) stated that they expect athletes to win medals. But almost everyone (96–97%) wanted them to stick to fair play, to be good examples (role models) for younger people and to achieve results without doping. That indicates that those considering medals important nevertheless expect that written and unwritten rules of proper sportsmanship are obeyed.

This impression somewhat changes when looking at other attitudes connected with medal success orientation (Table 5). Results reveal weak or moderate, but nonetheless significant, correlations with a limited understanding of fair play, a readiness to instrumentalize athletes as mere medal producers and a tendency to play down current problems of elite sport. For the relationship with socio-political attitudes, the same can be stated. Going along with higher importance of medals – again relatively weak or moderate, but significant – are higher scores on the authoritarianism and nationalism scales.

Table 5.

Importance of medals and elite-sport related and socio-political attitudes.

	Unfairness	Instrumentalization	Awareness of problems	Nationalism	Authoritarianism
Corr. (ρ)	.285	.355	–.252	.334	.293
Sig.	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
Items used for scalesUnfairness: In elite sport, you should always exhaust the limits of what is formally permitted + In elite sport, you may commit minor infringements the referee does not see + To be successful, you should not care too much about your opponent.Instrumentalization: I expect from athletes… …that they subject anything to success + …that they concentrate on sports exclusively + …that they do everything the coach tells them.Awareness of problems: What do you think are current threats to sports? Exaggerated Nationalism + Commercialization + Doping + Corruption.Nationalism: How proud are you to be German + If only one country should rule the world, Germany would do better than any other + You should help other countries only if your own has an advantage.Authoritarianism (Unlike all others, the scale has 7 instead of 5 response categories): The most important personal quality is obedience to authorities + Current crime and sexual immorality make it inevitable to take rigorous steps against certain people + The key to good life is discipline and submissiveness + What we really need is not civil rights, but law and order.

However, these results are not strong enough to characterize the desire for medals plainly as based only on nationalistic attitudes and as acceptance of unfair or authoritarian means. Rather, it must be assumed that many people are not aware of the practices involved in the “global sporting arms race”, as many of these are not visible in the Olympic events themselves (Beamish and Ritchie, 2006: 136–144). Therefore, the importance of medals is not necessarily only an expression of accepting any means for success, but can also be based on the belief that fairness of the competition and compliance to the rules are granted. Such assumptions were addressed with a scale that asked, firstly, for respondents’ expectations towards athletes and, secondly, for the degree to which the expectations were met.⁴

In Table 6 the medians show that athletes meet respondents’ expectations for being good examples in terms of skills and determination for performance, national pride and patriotism, but failed to do so in all other aspects, amongst them fairness and especially sport without doping. Do these estimations affect the importance of medal success? Correlations in the last column give a first indication: the more expectations for fairness, doping, tolerance, etc., are disappointed, the less important medals are considered; being disappointed with athletes’ national pride and patriotism goes along with a stronger desire for medals. To analyse these correlations more closely, an ordered regression was calculated (Table 7), with the importance of medals as the dependant variable, the discrepancies between expectations and observations as independent variables, and the scales for nationalism and instrumentalization (which were the attitudes with the highest correlations in Table 5) as covariates.

Table 6.

In which respect should athletes be/are athletes good examples? Discrepancy between expectations and observations; correlations with importance of medals.

	Frequencies									Median	Corr. With “Medals important”
	–4	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3	4	Median	Corr. With “Medals important”
Skills for performance	1	3	39	124	388	208	61	8	2	0	.056
Determination for performance	1	3	29	103	362	248	92	4	3	0	.043
Fairness	0	1	5	8	132	291	332	62	12	1	–.238*
Feeling of unity	0	0	12	57	254	315	158	40	7	1	–.051
Sport without doping	0	3	3	3	87	130	350	198	75	2	–.181*
Healthy lifestyle	0	6	9	53	250	280	210	23	10	1	–.146*
Tolerance	0	2	9	28	214	303	240	31	12	1	–.177*
Modesty	1	3	36	98	278	222	135	54	15	1	–.129*
National pride	3	19	76	147	294	186	74	22	13	0	.191*
Patriotism	4	14	89	153	320	164	57	16	5	0	.208*

Positive scores on the scale indicate disappointed expectations (4 = strongly agree that athletes should be good examples, but strongly disagree that they are), 0 means observation matches expectation, negative scores indicate excelled expectations (–4: do not agree that athletes should be good examples, but strongly agree that they are).

(*) Correlations significant for p < .001. Negative correlations indicate that the stronger the disappointment with athletes (concerning the respective aspect), the less important medals are considered; positive correlations indicate that the stronger the disappointment with athletes, the more important medals are considered.

Table 7.

Attitudes explaining importance of medals (ordered regression model).

Reference:Medals very important	Estimate	Std. error	Wald	df	Sig.	95% Confidence interval
Reference:Medals very important	Estimate	Std. error	Wald	df	Sig.	Lower bound	Upper bound
Nationalism scale	.108	.045	5,646	1	.017	.019	.197
Instrumentalization scale	.167	.038	19.288	1	.000	.093	.242
Discrepancy fairness [–3]	–21.838	3.375	41.869	1	.000	–28.453	–15.223
Discrepancy doping [–2]	–2.547	1.239	4.224	1	.040	–4.975	–.118
Discrepancy national pride [–2]	–2.160	.944	5.234	1	.022	–4.010	–.309
Discrepancy national pride [+2]	–1.811	.893	4.116	1	.042	–3.560	–.061

Note: If the score for perceived fairness is three points lower than the score for expected fairness (Discrepancy Fairness −3), the likeliness to consider medals as very important is much lower (Estimate. –21.838). Nationalism scale and instrumentalization scale are covariates.

Pseudo-R-squared (Nagelkerke): 0.32.

With pseudo-R-squared > 0.3 the model fit is satisfying. The discrepancy between expected and observed fairness clearly has the strongest effect. No other factor than strong disappointment with athletes’ fairness makes it more unlikely to consider medals as very important. For doping, the same tendency can be observed: if expectations are clearly not met, medals will not be considered as important. That means the belief in appropriate, sportsman-like behaviour of athletes is an important factor for the desire for medals among the population; success has to be achieved rightfully. Apart from that, the perception of national pride has an interesting effect. On the one hand, as expected, excelled expectations in this respect reduce the likeliness to think medals are important. If national pride is considered as rather irrelevant, so is sporting success as a means to it. However, on the other hand, disappointed expectations concerning national pride have a negative effect on the importance of medals, too. An interpretation could be that for some their strong desire for national pride cannot be fulfilled by merely winning medals, as sporting competitions are not serious enough to raise “true” national pride.

Discussion

Results have shown that about half of the respondents, especially younger people and lower educational levels, take an interest in the Olympic medal table and consider national success as important. However, in line with others (Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010), our study did not support the assumption that it is medals in general that increase national pride, nor do they fulfil the reclaimed representational function. Rather, possible benefits in terms of identification or representation are to a great deal dependent on the perception of athletes’ behaviour, compliance with sporting values and the rules of competition. Only a minority believes that a good position in the medal table makes a country likeable or indicates more general qualities, such as economic capability. In accordance with this sceptic estimation of an additional value, respondents are regarding medal success as less important than sticking to the rules and values of sport. Those who are disappointed with current sport in this respect, especially concerning fairness and doping, are significantly less interested in the medal table. That could be interpreted as a critical perception of the developments linked to the “global sporting arms race”. Conversely, results indicate that accepting any means for success as well as nationalistic and authoritarian attitudes correlate moderately with the perceived importance of medals. However, even among those with a strong desire for Olympic success, a majority does not explicitly accept “totalizing” and unfair practices. The relation is too weak to classify the focus on medals plainly as an expression of ruthless achievement orientation and nationalistic ambitions. Probably this perspective on the Olympic medal table is described best as an expression of an empty nationalism, a striving for international recognition and prestige by gaining merits, but according to mutually accepted standards and compliance with rules (Reicher, 2013: 303–326). This notion can be supported with the finding that the likeliness to consider medals as important is higher if expectations towards sporting values are met. Apparently, there is a relatively strong belief that Olympic competition still meets the expected standards and not too many unacceptable practices are involved, even if that might seem ignorant or naïve for critics of recent developments.

But if the medal table competition is not too serious in the population’s view, how can its importance be explained? The answer lies in the attention it is given in public debate, as Reicher (2013: 145–172; see also Gebauer, 1996) soundly explains, with media practices that have enforced a nationalization of sporting competitions as a technique to attract interest by offering objects of identification. But why has it become so important as an indicator for sports policy? Our results indicate that there is neither, as sometimes assumed, overwhelming public pressure for success at all cost, nor is it attractive as an efficient means to the aspired political ends. That suggests the assumption that sports governing bodies themselves are the driving force. During the Cold War, particularly in Germany, they were clearly refusing any political intervention. Ironically, today their call for increasing state funding is based on the claim to fulfil political tasks.

Conclusion

Although controlled for and irrelevant for most of the – rather constant – attitudes measured here, the survey mode may have caused time effects concerning some questions. Furthermore, the discussed characteristics of the sample may partly limit the data’s validity for the population. However, as we achieved similar results to other studies for some similar questions, it can be assumed that the possible bias is a minor one. Representative time-series data would of course be desirable – because debates on elite sports and principles of its funding have been and are still taking place. However, the most urgent task for future research certainly is an international approach to the issues at stake. As the “sporting arms race”, which is triggering some of the current aberrations of elite sports, is global, and the most frequent argument for maximizing medal success is international prestige, means and effects of elite sport success should be studied in comparative and cooperative research involving different countries.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Adorno

Frenkel-Brunswik

Levinson

. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ahlheim

Heger

(2008) Nation und Exklusion. Der Stolz der Deutschen und seine Nebenwirkungen. Schwalbach: Wochenschau.

Allison

(2002) Sport and nationalism. In: Coakley

Dunning

(eds) Handbook of Sports Studies. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India: SAGE, pp. 344–355.

Allison

Monington

(2002) Sport, prestige and international relations. Government and Opposition 37(1): 106–134.

Bairner

(2001) Sport, Nationalism, and Globalization: European and North American Perspectives. New York: State University of New York Press.

Beamish

Ritchie

(2006) Fastest, Highest, Strongest: A Critique of Top-Level Sport. London; New York: Routledge.

Bethlehem

Biffignandi

(2012) Handbook of Web Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

BMI (2005) Leistungssportprogramm des deutschen Bundesministeriums des Inneren vom 28. September. Available at: http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Politik_Gesellschaft/Sport/DatenundFakten/FR_Leistungssportprogramm_LSP_05.pdf;jsessionid=C86B2F09FC1C4AA415BFD199EAC50319.2_cid287?__blob=publicationFile (accessed 4 March 2014).

Breuer

Hallmann

(2011) Die gesellschaftliche Relevanz des Spitzensports in Deutschland. Köln: Strauß.

10.

Breuer

Hallmann

(2013) Dysfunktionen des Spitzensports: Doping, Match-Fixing und Gesundheitsgefährdungen aus Sicht von Bevölkerung und Athleten. Bonn: Bundesinstitut für Sportwissenschaft.

11.

De Bosscher

Bingham

Shibli

. (2008) The Global Sporting Arms Race: An International Comparative Study on Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

12.

Denham

(2010) Correlates of pride in the performance success of United States athletes competing on an international stage. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(4): 457–473.

13.

Dixon

(2000) A justification of moderate patriotism in sport. In: Tännsjö

Tamburrini

(eds) Values in Sport. Florence, KY: Routledge, pp. 74–86.

14.

Dóczi

(2012) Gold fever(?): Sport and national identity – The Hungarian case. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(2): 165–182.

15.

DOSB (2012) London 2012 − Erste Bewertungen und Schlussfolgerungen. Erklärung des DOSB-Präsidiums zu seiner 53.Sitzung am 18. September 2012. Available at: http://www.dosb.de/uploads/media/bewertung_london_beschluss_12_09.pdf (accessed 9 September 2013).

16.

DTTB (2012) Schreiben des Deutschen Tischtennisbundes an führende Sportpolitiker. Available at: http://www.tischtennis.de/media/BriefAnalyseFoerderkonzept.pdf (accessed 9 September 2013).

17.

Dunning

(1986) The dynamics of modern sport: notes on achievement-striving and the social significance of sport. In: Elias

Dunning

(eds) Quest for Excitement. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp. 205–223.

18.

Elling

van Hilvoorde

van den Dool

(2012) Creating or awakening national pride through sporting success: A longitudinal study on macro effects in the Netherlands. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Epub ahead of print 22 August 2012. DOI: 10.1177/1012690212455961.

19.

Emrich

Fröhlich

Klein

. (2009) Evaluation of the elite schools of sport: Empirical findings from an individual and collective point of view. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 44(2): 151–171.

20.

Emrich

Klein

Pitsch

. (2012) On the determinants of sporting success – A note on the Olympic Games. Economics Bulletin 32(3): 1890–1901.

21.

Emrich

Klein

Pitsch

. (2013) Wie viele Medaillen für welche Länder? Theoretische und methodische Überlegungen zur jüngeren Forschung zu den Determinanten nationalen sportlichen Erfolgs bei olympischen Spielen. Leipziger Sportwissenschaftliche Beiträge 54(1): 20–51.

22.

Emrich

Pierdzioch

Flatau

(2011) Common Agency und diskretionäre Handlungsspielräume im Umgang mit öffentlichen Finanzmitteln im bundesdeutschen Spitzensport – eine empirische Analyse. In: Emrich

Pierdzioch

Büch

(eds) Europäische Sportmodelle. Gemeinsamkeiten und Differenzen in international vergleichender Perspektive. Schorndorf: Hofmann, pp. 177–196.

23.

Emrich

Pierdzioch

Rullang

(2013) Zwischen Regelgebundenheit und diskretionären Spielräumen: Die Finanzierung des bundesdeutschen Spitzensports. Sport und Gesellschaft 10(1): 3–26.

24.

Evans

Kelley

(2002) National pride in the developed world: Survey data from 24 nations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14(3): 303–338.

25.

Gebauer

(1996) Der neue Nationalismus im Sport. In: Gebauer

(ed.) Olympische Spiele – die andere Utopie der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 264–269.

26.

Gienger

(2008) Zur Zukunftsfähigkeit der Spitzensportförderung in Deutschland. Leistungssport 38(3): 5–12.

27.

Gomberg

(2000) Patriotism in sports and in war. In: Tännsjö

Tamburrini

(eds) Values in Sport. Florence, KY: Routledge, pp. 87–98.

28.

Grix

(2008) The decline of mass sport provision in the German democratic republic. International Journal of the History of Sport 25(4): 406–420.

29.

Grix

Carmichael

(2012) Why do governments invest in elite sports? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4(1): 73–90.

30.

Guttmann

(1986) Sports Spectators. New York: Columbia University Press.

31.

Hallmann

Breuer

Kuhnreich

(2013) Happiness, pride and elite sporting success: What population segments gain most from national athletic achievements? Sport Management Review 16(2): 226–235.

32.

Hargreaves

(1992) Olympism and nationalism: Some preliminary consideration. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 27(2): 119–135.

33.

Heinilä

(1982) The totalization process in international sport. Sportwissenschaft 12(3): 235–254.

34.

Houlihan

(1997) Sport, national identity, and public policy. Nations and Nationalism 3(1): 113–137.

35.

Kindinger

Spitz

Tippelt

(2010) Analyse der XXI. Olympischen Winterspiele. Leistungssport 40(3): 4–17.

36.

Kühnel

Krebs

(2010) Multinomiale und ordinale Regression. In: Wolf

Best

(eds) Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS, pp. 855–886.

37.

Lederer

(2010) Items der Skala “Neuer Allgemeiner Autoritarismus.” In: Glöckner-Rist

(ed.) Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen, Version 14.00. Bonn: GESIS.

38.

Messing

Voigt

(1982) Das gesellschaftliche System der DDR als Grundlage der Leistungssportförderung. In: Ueberhorst

(ed.) Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Band 3/2. Berlin: Bartels and Wernitz, pp. 895–943.

39.

Morgan

(2000) Sports as the moral discourse of nations. In: Tännsjö

Tamburrini

(eds) Values in Sport. Florence, KY: Routledge, pp. 59–73.

40.

Mutz

(2013) Patrioten für drei Wochen. Nationale Identifikation und die Fußballeuropameisterschaft 2012. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 22(4): 517–538.

41.

Polley

(2004) Sport and national identity in contemporary England. In: Smith

Porter

(eds) Sport and National Identity in the Post-War World. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 10–30.

42.

Prohl

(2012) Leistungssport und Zivilgesellschaft in Deutschland. Grundsätzliche Fragen und aktuelle Probleme. In: Schürmann

(ed.) Sport und Zivilgesellschaft. Berlin: lehmanns media, pp. 57–80.

43.

Prohl

Emrich

(2009) Eliteschulen des Sports als Bildungsorganisation einer Zivilgesellschaft. Sportwissenschaft 39(3): 197–209.

44.

Reicher

(2013) Nationensport und Mediennation. Zur Transformation von Nation und Nationalismus im Zeitalter elektronischer Massenmedien. Göttingen: V & R unipress.

45.

Smith

Porter

(eds) (2004) Sport and National Identity in the Post-War World. London; New York: Routledge.

46.

Spitzer

(1998) Doping in der DDR: ein historischer Überblick zu einer konspirativen Praxis. Genese – Verantwortung – Gefahren. Köln: Strauß.

47.

Spitzer

(ed.) (2013) Doping in Deutschland: Geschichte, Recht, Ethik. 1950 – 1972. Köln: Strauß.

48.

Stern Online Magazine (2012) Deutschlands dubiose Goldmedaillenzucht. Available at: http://www.stern.de/investigativ/olympische-spiele-deutschlands-dubiose-goldmedaillen-zucht-1863546.html (accessed 7 November 2013).

49.

Tännsjö

(2000) Is it fascistoid to admire sport heroes? In: Tännsjö

Tamburrini

(eds) Values in Sport. Florence, KY: Routledge, pp. 9–23.

50.

Teichler

Reinartz

(1999) Das Leistungssportsystem der DDR in den 80er Jahren und im Prozeß der Wende. Schorndorf: Hofmann.

51.

Tomlinson

Young

(eds) (2006) National Identity and Global Sports: Culture, Politics, and Spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

52.

Topic

Coakley

(2010) Complicating the relationship between sport and national identity: The case of post-socialist Slovenia. Sociology of Sport Journal 27(4): 371–389.

53.

Van Hilvoorde

Elling

Stokvis

(2010) How to influence national pride? The Olympic medal index as a unifying narrative. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(1): 87–102.

54.

Wagner

Becker

Christ

. (2012) A longitudinal test of the relation between German nationalism, patriotism, and outgroup derogation. European Sociological Review 28(3): 319–332.

55.

Weiss

Donat

Latcheva

(2010) Items der Wiener “Patriotismus- und Nationalismus-Skala.” In: Glöckner-Rist

(ed.) Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen, Version 14.00. Bonn: GESIS.

56.

Wiese

(2012) Kaderschmieden des “Sportwunderlandes”: die Kinder- und Jugendsportschulen der DDR. Hildesheim: Arete.