Nikola's not a Spaniard,he's a Montenegrin … or is he? Contested belonging and national capital in elite athletes

Abstract

Following an interview discussing his sense of national belonging, Nikola Mirotić made the headlines of various sport news outlets. This was not the first time either that the professional basketballer's statements and behaviour had been analysed by the media, as across his career, he has been scrutinised from a national perspective. With three different nations (Serbia, Montenegro and Spain) having a claim over his belonging, Mirotić's media coverage from these countries is analysed, using the theoretical framework of national schemas and national capital. In doing so, this article builds upon and adds to the literature of athletes’ contested belongings; whereas most case studies within the latter have covered instances with only two national claims, which are then emphasised as national and non-national from either entity's perspective, Mirotić's case demonstrates how multiple claims can be applied to a single athlete. This consequently highlights the role of hierarchies in the application of national schemas, as well as stressing the importance of context in claims to national capital.

Keywords

Contested belonging national capital national schemas sport and nationalism media analysis

Athletes’ positions as national symbols have been widely researched (Jansen and Skey, 2020), shedding light on nation-building processes and how these construct perceived outsiders and insiders. However, most of the discussions have focused on cases covering athletes with only two claims of belonging. This article explores the case of Nikola Mirotić, a professional basketball player, highlighting how multiple national schemas can operate in the assessment of belonging, as well as stressing the importance of context in the scrutinisation of individuals with claims to national capital.

To address this aim, the article will initially discuss the literature on sport and national belonging, leading to the discussions of schemas and national capital. Then, the nations linked to the case study (Serbia, Montenegro and Spain) will be outlined, followed by this article's methodology. Subsequently, Mirotić's media description will be analysed, discussing key events and applying the theoretical framework. Lastly, the conclusion will summarise the article's findings and offer avenues for future research.

Sport and nationalism

The relevance of sport in connection with nationalism has been explored at length in previous literature. This article is more specifically concerned with contested belonging, with how athletes are nationally categorised by the public of the countries which they have a claim to. Consequently, belonging is understood from a social relations perspective, where the athletes are being categorised, rather than self-ascription being the focus.

Within the literature on contested belonging, different approaches have been adopted in its analysis. For instance, Jansen and Skey (2020) have analysed perceptions about the naturalisation of British athletes. Meanwhile, Black et al. (2021) have looked into how former professional tennis player Rusedski has been othered in the British context. Sporting individuals as the focal point of national debates has also been researched elsewhere, with Gibbons (2015), Han et al. (2023), Whigham and Black (2020) and Skey (2015) carrying out that type of research on football player Almunia, naturalised Chinese football players, Scottish athletes at international sporting events, and England's national managers respectively.

These case studies have shown how nation-building operates differently depending on the project at hand. Alumnia's case reflected the uncertainty around the construction of the English nation, with some members of the public understanding it from an ethnic perspective, whereas others viewed it as a more inclusive concept, which could be contingent on merit (Gibbons, 2015). The latter was also observed in Jansen and Skey's (2020) research, with athletes trying to increase their belonging by appealing to national material. Meanwhile, the debate around naturalised Chinese players demonstrated that there was a difference between athletes seen to have blood ties and those who did not (Han, 2023). While all these articles looked at fans’ opinions, Skey (2015) and Black et al. (2021) have focused on the media's application of national frameworks. Thus, Skey (2015) highlighted the importance of temporal considerations in understanding belonging, whereas Black et al. (2021) emphasised the extent of supervision in assessing one's belonging. As for Whigham and Black (2020), they have stressed the connection between sport and politics, where athletes’ political stances vis-à-vis Scotland's referendum were scrutinised across sporting competitions. The article at hand aims to build on this literature, adding a basketball case study, a context which has not featured as prominently.

Schemas and national capital

Since the case study is concerned with the contestation of an athlete's national belonging, the theoretical concepts adopted aim to reflect the phenomenon's interpretational dynamics. Thus, this article makes use of Brubaker et al.'s (2004) conceptualisation of ethnicity as cognition, as well as Hage's (1998) national capital. From the former, ethnicity is understood through schemas, which are defined as ‘mental structures in which knowledge is represented’ (Brubaker et al., 2004, p. 41). Given their cognitive nature, they cannot be observed directly but are rather assumed to be how individuals understand events, concepts and individuals which surround them.

Schemas are also described as an interactional concept, whereby their presence only comes into play when they are triggered by certain events. This means that schemas are not just about categorising individuals but are also used in the interpretation of actions and circumstances which surround them. Their social characterisation is further emphasised by the fact that while individuals associate certain core ideas to them, the lack of complete information on any given situation means that their peripheral and complementary ideas are subject to changes as new information gets acquired through further interactions. Following from this description of schemas, ethnicity represents a possible type of schema applied to the interpretation of social actions. Accordingly, what is referred to when discussing the ethnicisation of something is actually the increased likelihood of ethnic schemas being used to understand the event at hand, thereby overshadowing other interpretive approaches (Brubaker et al., 2004, pp. 42–44).

When referring to dynamics around ethnicity, the concept does not only concern this term in itself but also encompasses other concepts such as the nation and race. As argued by Brubaker (2004, pp. 66–67), these terms are not about tangible groups, but are rather about processes of categorisation. This line of thought has also been adopted by other scholars, such as Jenkins (2008) and Terrier (2015), who argue that these concepts relate to the categorisation of events and individuals through national schemas, enforcing practices of inclusion and exclusion. Thus, since ethnicity, the nation and race all refer to the same practices, the focus shifts away from the definitions of these groups towards what their processes entail. This is where schemas come into play, as they are central to categorisation.

Schemas relate closely to the ‘terms of practical categories, […] discursive frames, […], political projects and contingent events’ which emphasise that processual dynamic (Brubaker, 2004, p. 11). Despite the usefulness of these ideas, schemas were adopted as the main concept due to their emphasis on individuals’ interpretations, as well as highlighting the importance of circumstances, including activation opportunities.

The notion of national capital contributes to the formulation and characterisation of the schemas which will be discussed. While schemas may be ordered under various norms, the idea of national capital directs its understanding. Drawing from Bourdieu's concepts of cultural and symbolic capital, the nation is defined as a field where ‘national belonging […] constitutes [its] symbolic capital’ (Hage, 1998, p. 53). In other words, the accumulation of national capital serves to prove one's belonging to a nation, where its supposed dominant category is said to recognise the individual as such (Hage, 1998).

Accordingly, an individual's assessment of belonging usually matches their national capital. If they demonstrate strong socialisation in a nation's culture, or its inter-recognised points of reference, such as by displaying it through their appearance, communicative forms and behaviour, then they are viewed as more national than a migrant without the stereotyped physical look, even if the latter has also adopted the language and attitudes. The assessment of one's belonging is done on a case-to-case basis, with individuals starting at various levels based on their background. Nevertheless, this is subject to change as the evaluation of one's belonging is a continual process, where one may gain or lose national capital across time through their actions (Hage, 1998, pp. 53–54).

By combining schemas and national capital, this article takes on a new approach to the analysis of athletes’ belonging. The notion of schemas will be used to understand Mirotić's actions as being open to interpretation, consequently categorising the athlete in the eyes of the media. Meanwhile, the idea of national capital will serve as a circumscribing framework for those schemas.

Conceptualisations of the nation

While schemas concern individuals’ interpretations of the world which surrounds them, the wider idea of the nation refers to imagined collectives. So how are they connected? Following from Džankić's (2014a, p. 351) discussion of schemas, ‘[nation] building is the process of harmonising the boundaries of the state and those of national identity’. Here, the state is used as a general concept that is about a polity, being interchangeable with other political entities (Džankić, 2014a, p. 351). Consequently, nation-building entails the shaping of individuals’ perceptions as being part of a larger group based on constructed and practised similarities. Accordingly, since schemas are ‘culturally [more or less widely] shared mental constructs’, (D’Andrade, 1995 from Brubaker et al., 2004, p. 41) those associated to the nation, given their political nature, are likely to be the product of structured projects.

Given this understanding of nation-building, the contested nature of the project is unquestionable, with various actors having their own takes and approaches regarding the subject. However, given the primacy of state actors in their capacity to influence their citizens’ daily lives through laws and regulations, thereby entrenching boundaries around the definition of the political community (Edensor, 2002, p. 20; Malešević, 2019, p. 55; Terrier, 2015, p. 39), preference will be given to nation-building dynamics performed at that level. In doing so, it is argued that these actors engage with the idea of the nation-state, where the state's existence is justified through the nation, entailing nation-building. Descriptions of the latter highlight which actions are important in assessing one's belonging, though it should be noted that they are not outlined in their full complexity.

Serbia

Following Yugoslavia's dissolution and ousting of President Milošević, various ideas concerning the new Serbian project emerged. However, certain aspects came to dominate its characterisation. For one, it is overarchingly viewed as an ethnic concept, with Orthodox Christianity being a significant foundational block (Jovanović, 2014). Linked to this, the importance of Kosovo is central to the project, as it combines national and religious aspects together (Jovanović, 2014, p. 114).

Other interpretations of Serbian nation-building exist, such as a ‘civil, atheism-based Yugoslav-dom’ (Jovanović, 2014, p. 89), but it remains that most of the state symbols find their material in the aforementioned characteristics, thereby highlighting their primacy (Jovanović, 2014, pp. 104–105). For instance, the ethnic characterisation can be observed in the Constitution's Article 1 which ‘defines Serbia as “a state of Serbian people [including those abroad] and all citizens who live in it”’ (Jovanović, 2014, p. 92). Meanwhile, the religious aspect is observable in the State's sponsoring of the Serbian Orthodox Church's (SOC) activities (Radić and Vukomanović, 2014).

Additionally, Serbia's nation-building has incorporated an aspect of rebuilding its image after the fall of Yugoslavia. Given Serbia's negative perceptions on the international scene due to the 1990s wars, its nation-building actors have sought to rehabilitate its image (Brandt and Fine, 2022), mainly by focusing on its achievements in various fields (Malešević, 2017).

In doing so, sport has been instrumentalised to contribute to Serbia's nation-building (Malešević, 2017). Prominent athletes are routinely promoted by state actors as representatives of the nation. One telling example of this was President Vučić's response to tennis player Novak Đoković's detention prior to the 2022 Australian Open, where the politician described Australia's treatment of the athlete as an affront to Serbia itself (Volcic et al., 2023). Thus, across the twenty-first century, ideas of prestige and sport have been central to Serbia's nation-building (Malešević, 2017).

Montenegro

Serbia and Montenegro, having both previously belonged to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), share some common points of reference in their definitions of the nation. While there are various debates about Montenegro's nation-building project, in the context of this article, it is understood to be a contemporary concept, emerging from political processes which have taken place since the Democratic Party of Socialists’ (DPS) split in 1997 (Džankić, 2014a, p. 352). Subsequently, the Montenegrin nation-building project has been understood as a civic one, defined in opposition to ‘the Other’, a position described as being held by Serbs (Džankić, 2014b, p. 126). Thus, the definition of Montenegrin-ness appeared to mainly be constructed around being inclusive of everyone except for Serbs (Baća, 2018).

Despite the characterisation of Montenegro's project as mainly existing in its opposition to Serbia, there are also aspects which are seen as weaker considerations in defining someone as a Montenegrin, such as speaking the Montenegrin language (Džankić, 2013). Yet, these markers are not always necessary, since the Montenegrin categorisation is constructed around the concept of inclusiveness, which is meant to contrast with the Serbian categorisation and its religious and ethnic requirements.

The differentiation between Serbia and Montenegro is also observable in the field of sport. In Popovic's (2019) discussion of Montenegro's national football team, he argues that the selection is a reflection of the country's civic nation-building; the team's players are argued to be Montenegrin citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or creed, thereby appealing to a ‘modernist approach to nationalism’ (Popovic, 2019, p. 103). Hence, diaspora members are explicitly excluded to favour this construction of the Montenegrin nation, since their inclusion would be grounded in ethnic justifications, detracting from a civic definition.

Spain

In the field of nationalism, Spain has often been discussed given the presence of several different entities, in the ‘Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia’ (Martínez-Herrera, 2002, p. 422), with claims to their own separate nationalities within its territory. In response to these, the Spanish state has adopted a decentralised approach, recognising its various entities through different means, such as plurilingualism (Martínez-Herrera, 2002, p. 430). Nevertheless, while the central state does not hold as much power as in a centralised system, it still retains significant prerogatives. For instance, it oversees impactful institutions relating to security, justice and infrastructure building which go beyond single regions (Martínez-Herrera, 2002, p. 431). Given the importance of these areas, the idea is that Spaniards would be able to see the importance of the state, and by extent feel connected to other co-nationals who share the same institutions, emphasising a civic characterisation. While it could be argued that the idea of Spanish-ness may be undermined by the strong presence of other nation-building projects, Martínez-Herrera (2002, p. 432) rather argues that the active recognition of minorities and their capacity for self-determination could decrease individuals’ opposition to a Spanish identity. Furthermore, this plurality in identifications is said to influence the overall make-up of what Spanish-ness means; the European identification has been outlined as a key additive component to it, attaching ideas of Western modernity (Balfour and Quiroga, 2007). Nevertheless, this description of the Spanish nation-building project should not be mistaken for an absence of nationalism; instead, it points to the concept's pluralistic definition, with weaker boundaries to be included within that imagined community.

This understanding of Spanish nation-building has been reflected in the realm of sport. For instance, Goig (2008) has argued that its national football team has, in recent years, been characterised by a pluralist approach. Hosting a wide range of national claims, these have nevertheless come under a single banner to create a modern conceptualisation of Spain with a common goal.

Methodology

The methodology is based on previous research that has been carried out with similar research objectives (Black et al., 2021; Black and Whigham, 2020). Drawing from Black et al.'s (2021) argument, the analysis of news gives insight into the logic of nationalist ideologies; news outlets’ selection of topics and their explained contextualisation reflects how nations are understood. This holds true for sporting news as well, which provides rich material to understand how the nation is conceptualised (Black et al., 2021, p. 16).

Thus, various online news sources discussing Mirotić's actions and career decisions were analysed. Given his contested belonging, the sources are from all three countries linked to him, namely Serbia, Montenegro and Spain. Novosti, Mondo, Telegraf, and N1 were used for Serbia, Portal Analitika, Café del Montenegro, Pobjeda and Vijesti for Montenegro, and Diario AS, El Mundo, El Pais as well as El Confidencial for Spain. The selection of news outlets was meant to represent a mix of political perspectives. All the articles using the tag ‘Nikola Mirotić’ were sorted through manually, covering the length of his senior career (2008-ongoing). Subsequently, articles which referred to Mirotić's belonging or linked him with national events were initially identified. In doing so, the targeted nations’ schemas were confirmed. In Serbia's case, articles which referred to Mirotić alongside the Serbian Orthodox Church and helping ‘his community’ were retained. For Montenegro, this meant looking at cases where Serbian and Montenegrin national ideas were mentioned. Meanwhile, Spain's case was about his performances and their descriptions. Following this identification of national schemas, the newspapers’ articles were further analysed by focusing specifically on articles which mentioned the previously identified schemas. Consequently, this meant going through specific events in Mirotić's career.

Mirotić's background

Nikola Mirotić was born in February 1991 in Podgorica, Montenegro, which was then a part of the SFRY. His basketball journey started with Real Madrid where he joined the junior team between 2006 and 2008. He then played for the senior team until 2014.

In 2014, Mirotić signed a three-year contract with the Chicago Bulls. His first season was a success as he made an appearance at the NBA's All-Star Weekend and finished second in the Rookie of the Year Award. In September 2017, he signed a contract extension with the Bulls. He then played in the NBA until 2019, joining the New Orleans Pelicans and Milwaukee Bucks following various trades.

After the 2019 season, Mirotić decided to return to Europe, signing with FC Barcelona. Then, at the end of the 2022–2023 season, the Spanish club terminated his contract, making him a free agent. Mirotić received many offers, with Greek teams, Real Madrid and Partizan all being linked to him. In the end, Mirotić signed with Olimpia Milano, where he is still currently playing.

On the international scene, Mirotić has represented Spain at the junior level, winning a bronze medal and a gold medal at the 2010 and 2011 FIBA Europe U20 Championship respectively. Following a period where it was uncertain as to which senior national representation Mirotić would choose, having the option to change for Montenegro or Serbia, he ended up staying with Spain. He subsequently won a gold medal at the EuroBasket 2015 and a bronze medal at the 2016 Olympics. The latter was his last international tournament, as he officially stated that he had retired at that level in 2019.

Mirotić's national schemas

Across Mirotić's career, his actions have been analysed under different national schemas in assessing his belonging. This section will explore how the different nations linked with him applied those.

Serbia

Prior to representing Spain's senior side in 2015, Serbia had reportedly sought for Mirotić to play for its representation. However, even after he decided to play for Spain, his decision did not completely exclude him from the Serbian categorisation. Instead, Serbian media appeared to point fingers at Serbia's basketball association, blaming it for the player's decision (Mondo, 2015).

Thus, from a Serbian schema perspective, his links to Serbian Orthodoxy, despite having a claim to being Montenegrin and representing Spain, was deemed sufficient for news outlets to describe him as a Serb. This appeared to increase once Mirotić returned to Europe in 2019, when his actions were further interpreted through national schemas. For example, several sources emphasised that Mirotić had used his free time to visit monasteries in Kosovo (Ninkovic, 2025), thereby engaging with understood cultural elements of the ethnonational categorisation. Consequently, this increased his perceived national capital, making Mirotić worthy of being a Serb. This was further compounded by the fact that Novak Đoković (L, 2024) also recognised his act. This approval by someone who holds national capital to the extent that they are able to make decisions on who belongs and who does not, which Hage (1998, p. 55) coins as ‘governmental belonging’, only increased Mirotić's status within the categorisation.

Mondo also emphasised Mirotić's Orthodox identification in other instances. For example, another article discussed how the former Metropolitan Bishop, Amfilohije, had attempted to recruit the athlete for the Montenegrin representation (Mondo, 2024). These articles were often accompanied by pictures of Mirotić displaying religious symbols, such as holding the pinched three-finger symbol which refers to the Holy Trinity. In doing so, national schemas were once again activated.

This description of the athlete as a Serb was also apparent in other news outlets, with Novosti (Paunić, 2021) emphasising his Serbian characterisation through his Orthodox faith as well as his donations to the Serbian people. Elsewhere, N1 (Janičić, 2020) reported on his contributions to Serbs across Europe, thereby playing into the ethnic conceptualisation of the nation, as well as highlighting his perception of Serbia being his home (Todorović, 2022). Reports from Telegraf (e.g., Lazarević, 2025) adopted the same discourses, highlighting his religious faith, as well as describing his games against Belgrade teams as playing in front of his ‘home’ crowd. Concerning his decision to join Milan, it was reported that Mirotić highlighted the Serbian Orthodox community living there (G, 2024). Thus, his actions promoting Serbian symbols, its community and Orthodoxy consolidated his status as belonging.

Within the Serbian national framework, Mirotić's assessment as belonging was akin to Han et al.'s (2023, p. 19) observations of ‘blood naturalized athletes’, where ethnicity was the underlying characteristic. Thus, at the beginning of his career, he did not have to prove this aspect since it was seen as a natural characteristic of the athlete. However, the fact that he actively engaged with elements of nation-building further served to increase his national capital, and therefore his belonging to the Serbian nation.

Montenegro

Whereas Serbian news outlets generally described Mirotić as belonging to the Serbian nation, the Montenegrin articles had a more mixed approach. Prior to his decision to represent Spain at Eurobasket 2015, when there was still a possibility that he could play for Montenegro, several articles (e.g., Vuckovic, 2013) depicted him as a Montenegrin. The culmination of his belonging to Montenegro was the NBA All-Star Game. Representing the Rest of the World team and discussing which country he belonged to in the build-up to the event, he replied that he was from Yugoslavia whilst wearing the Montenegrin flag on his shirt. Thus, he seemed to gain Montenegrin national capital, whilst detracting from the Spanish one. His statement and actions at the event even led certain Montenegrin reports to speculate about what the line-up of their representation would be with Mirotić.

There is no doubt that our team would have a hellish trio [speaking of Vučević, Peković and Mirotić], which even the best national teams would fear. (CdM, 2015)

However, once the door was closed on representing Montenegro, reports linking him to the Serbian and Spanish nations increased, with the Montenegrin ones decreasing. In regard to Serbia, he was often associated with the SOC, for example, by highlighting his participation in Orthodox religious processions (Portal Analitika, 2020). As for Spain, his role in the national team was emphasised. For instance, in speaking about the 2017 EuroBasket, Vijesti (2017) highlighted how he thought that playing for Spain was a privilege. His belonging to the Spanish nation was further stressed by including a quote where he sent his support to Spain, despite the latter playing against Montenegro.

This understanding of Mirotić as a non-Montenegrin was also observed in other instances. For example, while other Montenegrin-associated basketball figures, such as coach Duško Ivanović, are referred to as ‘ours’ by certain news reports (CdM, 2024), Mirotić is never referred to in this way. Here, the difference appears to lie in Ivanović having proved his belonging by supporting Montenegro's independence in the build-up to its 2006 referendum (Mondo, 2006), marking a clear boundary between Serbia and Montenegro. In contrast, articles reporting on Mirotić have rather highlighted his appeal to both categories, if not more to the Serbian one. For example, when Mirotić was greeted by Red Star fans in Belgrade, CdM (2019) chose to highlight his statement relating him to Serbia:

I'm truly beyond grateful to the Red Star fans, to our people, to Serbia. […] This will only strengthen my faith and desire to help our people.

Similar approaches were adopted in other Montenegrin reports, with Pobjeda (2023) referring to coach Duško Vujošević as ‘ours’ in conjunction with him criticising the SOC, thereby positioning himself as belonging despite his Serbian citizenship.

Across the Montenegrin sources, the main point in framing Mirotić as not belonging was his decision to not represent the Montenegrin selection. For instance, Gasanovic (2019) decided to headline Mirotić's decision to not play for Montenegro through a quote from the Basketball Federation of Montenegro's former sports director, Mitrović.

He is more Spanish than Montenegrin - seeing as he decided to play for Spain. The fact that he got a Spanish passport at the age of 16 and that it was out of interest - so that he can advance better in his career - that's another thing.

Thus, the report framed him as being motivated by selfish ambitions, thereby overlooking any sense of Montenegrin national pride. Consequently, some distance was put between him and Montenegro. This was also put onto display in Pobjeda, which outlined Montenegrin athletes in the Euroleague and chose to describe Mirotić as a Podgorica-born Spaniard, while referring to Radebau as a Montenegrin representative from America due to the latter's participation in the national selection (Joncic, 2022). In fact, across these articles, Mirotić's links to Montenegro were only observable through references to his Podgorica upbringing.

Mirotić's framing as a mercenary was further emphasised through his decision to not join Partizan, saying that the athlete had given his word to the club and broken it. The Serbian club had reportedly reached an agreement with Mirotić, but he was said to have withdrawn from it due to personal threats. The matter was not only perceived as a sporting matter, with Serbian President Vučić reportedly having called the player himself to assure him that his family would not be in danger. The intermixing of politics and sport in the potential transfer was further highlighted when Obradović, Partizan's head coach, reported that Mirotić had been pressured out of the transfer by certain unnamed politicians and SOC members (B, 2023). Consequently, the reported importance of the Church in his decision-making further added to his links with the Serbian nation.

The analysis of schemas in Montenegrin news demonstrated that despite one's nominal citizenship and seemingly apparent links to the nation, the athlete's actions could detract from them, losing national capital to the extent of no longer being considered a part of the nation. It also showcased that athletes’ actions were not only considered within the field of sport but also outside of it, as seen in Jansen and Skey's (2020) discussion about athletes attempting to prove their belonging. This was particularly relevant when it came to actions which appealed to the nation-building's material, which in Mirotić's Montenegrin framework was about his links to Serbian Orthodoxy.

Spain

Mirotić's belonging to the Spanish nation was also noted to shift across time. At the beginning of his career, Mirotić was described as being ready to defend the ‘red jersey’ (Íñiguez, 2013), having been socialised in Spain since he was 15 (Mora, 2013) and having already represented Spain at the youth level. Consequently, certain Spanish reports had initially outlined as unquestionable that Mirotić saw himself as a Spaniard and therefore held enough national capital to be a part of the senior national representation.

However, his subsequent decisions to not participate in the 2013 EuroBasket, despite being called upon, was met unfavourably, and raised questions about his belonging.

Playing for the Spanish national team is a job, not to mention an unparalleled source of pride. […] It's not a question of freedom. Unilaterally refusing to play for Spain should have consequences. (Gardón, 2013)

This was further compounded by his bearing of the Montenegrin flag at the All-Star game (Rodríguez, 2015a). However, the criticism was dropped later in that same year, when the basketballer represented Spain at EuroBasket 2015. That tournament represented the peak of his belonging, as he played a significant role in Spain winning the gold medal. During the celebrations, Mirotić's statements about feeling Spanish and celebrating by singing the song ‘Yo Soy Español, Español, Español’ further cemented his belonging, prompting El Confidencial to say that despite being from Montenegro, it was clear that he felt Spanish and that others should follow his lead (Ojeda, 2015).

Like any true Spaniard, his favourite dish is paella. (González, 2015)

Therefore, Mirotić ticked off all the boxes which could increase his belonging to the Spanish nation, ‘[demonstrating] a degree of cultural affinity and commitment [and being] successful’ (Jansen and Skey, 2020, p. 1205).

He then went on to strengthen his status with a bronze medal at the Rio Olympics in 2016. During that period, there was no doubt about his belonging. Even when he missed out on the 2017 EuroBasket due to contractual reasons, he had seemingly accumulated enough capital in the previous years to not be questioned, with reports claiming that he would not hesitate to root for Spain, even when playing against Montenegro (Delgado, 2017).

His time in the national team coincided with his years in the NBA. As such, he was routinely included in the coverage of the league's Spanish players. Across those reports, he was often talked about as Pau Gasol's sidekick, having shared the same team as him on multiple occasions. Gasol was framed as a player who was naturally Spanish, whereas Mirotić, who had been naturalised, was not discussed in the same way. Consequently, this highlighted the contrast between athletes of different types of belonging, with Mirotić being viewed in the passive belonging categorisation, where he could prove his belonging but not affect the definition of the overarching categorisation itself (Hage, 1998, p. 55). Mirotić also actively deferred to Gasol, demonstrating that he understood his importance for Spain, therefore increasing his own national capital. Meanwhile, Mirotić drew comparisons with Ibaka, a Congolose-Spanish player, with whom he often competed for the sole roster place allowed for naturalised players in international competitions (El Confidencial, 2015). Mirotić's comparisons with other players within the Spanish media subsequently pointed to the notion of national capital and the hierarchisation of belonging.

As time went on and his absence from the national team was prolonged, doubts about his belonging returned, with discourses about his decision to not play at the 2019 World Cup embodying that (Ojeda, 2019). In fact, the 2016 Rio Games had been his last tournament with Spain. Consequently, his disappearance from the Spanish national team led to the Spanish media describing him more as Montenegrin than Spanish.

As observed in other case studies (Jansen and Skey, 2020), Mirotić's belonging appeared to be based on characteristics which were action-dependent, with success playing a significant role. This effectively reflected Oonk's (2022) description of thin citizenship; the athlete was given the opportunity to prove himself as belonging to the nation through his performances, both on the court and outside of it. This observation corresponds to the Spanish nation-building description outlined above, which was goal oriented in the realm of sport.

Links between schemas

Mirotić's case shows that depending on the nation-building projects and their corresponding schemas, athletes’ perceived belonging vary, with different actions being scrutinised. This highlights the importance of context. While this could be expected, given different nations’ claims of uniqueness and differentiation, thereby justifying their sovereignty, there were also instances where Mirotić's scrutinisation led to the national schemas’ convergence towards the same events.

At times, these national frameworks were even observed to interact with one another. Given Serbia and Montenegro's mutually intelligible material, points of reference used in their respective discourses about Mirotić were assumed to be understood in both instances. For example, when articles linked him with Đoković or used religious references, the athlete's portrayal highlighted national schemas relevant to both Serbian and Montenegrin frameworks. These had opposing impacts on the perceived national capital but nonetheless focused on the same type of events. In addition to each other's competing national claims, the Spanish categorisation was also accounted for in those reports. Thus, depending on the highlighted action, the national capital could also be attributed to this third categorisation.

The same was not observed in Spanish news reporting. The only other national claim which was linked with Mirotić was the Montenegrin one, and the latter was only a marginal consideration, and sometimes even overlooked completely. This was observable through the importance of schemas and their reference points, such as the use of the colour red (Íñiguez, 2013); while the Spanish outlets saw red as a symbol of their own national team, they did not consider that Montenegro is also defined by that colour.

Two events highlighted these dynamics between frameworks: an incident at the 2015 EuroBasket, and Mirotić's recent interview about his career. While the respective national media often discussed different actions, these two instances appealed to all three countries, highlighting how different national schemas could produce different narratives from the same event. Furthermore, the comparison of the two mentioned events provides snapshots of schemas at different moments in time, highlighting the importance of context. Mirotić's international team choice was also the object of discussion for all three nations. However, the story about his decision was extended over a longer period of time, consequently showing changing interpretations, whereas the two events were more precise actions, thereby reducing the variation in interpretation due to time.

Event 1: EuroBasket 2015

Following Spain's defeat against Italy at the 2015 EuroBasket, Mirotić was filmed ripping down a Serbian flag. With national flags being understood as the nation in itself, rather than mere representations of it (Jaskulowski, 2016), this created controversy amongst the Serbian fans. Addressing the backlash, Mirotić apologised in media interviews and online, saying that he had not realised what he was doing during a period of heightened emotional sensitivity.

When discussing Mirotić's incident with the Serbian flag, the Serbian and Montenegrin reports (e.g., Portal Analitika, 2015; SK, 2015) described the event in a way where the controversy of the action was understood, thereby allowing them to focus on its national symbolism. Thus, references to the event from the Montenegrin schema perspective implied knowledge of the Serbian one, and vice versa. Meanwhile, Spanish outlets had to explicitly explain Serbia and Montenegro's relation in order to contextualise the action (Pinilla, 2015). Whereas the nationalised element was undeniable in the Serbian and Montenegrin news reporting, the Spanish media interpreted the event differently; the emphasis was not placed on the nationalised nature of the gesture, but rather on the sporting repercussions, with Mirotić being said to potentially face a suspension (Rodríguez, 2015b). Overall, this event highlights the importance of schema activations and their interactions with one another, the context within which they take place and how schemas shape hierarchies of norms.

Event 2: Career overview interview

Partaking in an interview about his career (SKWEEK, 2025), Mirotić was asked whether he felt Spanish, having previously represented the country. He answered: ‘No, I never felt like a Spanish guy, I always felt I was a Montenegrinian [sic], Serbian Orthodox guy, even [though] I was playing for Spain’. He went on to explain that he nevertheless thought of Spain as his second home, due to his professional development and his personal ties, with his son having been born there.

In the interview, Mirotić engaged with three different national schemas. From the Spanish angle, despite claiming a passive homely belonging (Hage, 1998), overall, he seemed to be subtracting from his national capital by denying his primary link to the nation (Diario AS, 2025). On the side of the Serbian and Montenegrin national schemas, Mirotić's contested national belonging was observed from a discursive perspective. Having done the interview in English, his statements were subsequently translated, appearing to be done in a way which suited the respective news outlets’ perspectives. Thus, certain Serbian news outlets, such as Novosti (2025), translated his statement as having claimed he was a Serb from Montenegro. Meanwhile, Montenegrin news outlets translated it as him being a Montenegrin, Serbian Orthodox, which implicitly highlighted the latter.

From the interview, three different national schemas were applied, with different results emerging. To the Spanish media, the negative statement was the focus, whereas the Serbian media emphasised the religious statement. Meanwhile, for the Montenegrin media, just including the Serbian Orthodox aspect served to weaken his claim about being Montenegrin.

Conclusion

In accordance with the idea of triggers for schemas and the use of nation-building frameworks (Brubaker et al., 2004), Mirotić's assessment in terms of belonging was activated by different types of events to different national claims. Thus, under the Serbian claims, acts which related him to Serbian Orthodoxy were highlighted, whereas for the Montenegrin ones, commitment to the nation through sport and opposition to the SOC were noted as missing. Meanwhile, the Spanish reporting focused on the athlete's representation of the national team and his performances around it.

The differences in the athlete's judgement were not only observed in how the media highlighted different actions, but also when the same actions were discussed. When Mirotić's actions appealed to all three nations at the same time, the interpretations varied according to the national schemas applied. In Serbia and Montenegro's case, the media tended to highlight the same aspects, given their shared nation-building material, but with opposite effects. Meanwhile, Spain adopted a different focus. This showed that various nation-building projects could interact with one another, or not at all, depending on the extent of the nation-buildings’ inter-intelligibility.

While previous research on athletes’ national belonging features some of these dynamics, it has usually covered cases with claims to only two different national frameworks, emphasising the distinction between national and non-national (Black et al., 2021; Han, 2023). Meanwhile, Mirotić provided a focal point to three different nation-building projects, allowing for the direct observation of how several national frameworks operate differently, even when dealing with the same material.

Consequently, this article has highlighted that a certain action's interpretation of ‘non-nationality’ under different schemas does not necessarily hold the same significance across them. In fact, nuances between different national schemas when it comes to, on the face of it, similar assessments of national capital can reveal certain key dynamics between them. Amongst those, the interplay between different schemas, which shape each other in a dialectical way, can be key to understanding how nationalist ideologies are formulated, shaped and take place on the ground. Ignoring these types of contextual cues would run into the issue of understanding nation-building in a self-referential way.

Furthermore, this article has contributed to answering Skey's (2015, p. 284) research enquiry about the context of nationalism, pertaining to ‘when […] particular categories are utilised’. By highlighting the differences between different schemas at different points in time, Mirotić's case demonstrated that temporal considerations contingent on national schemas could be highly impactful in the (re-)assessment of one's national belonging, thereby emphasising the interactional and processual characterisation of national membership. Thus, this article has underlined the importance of contextualising nationalisation not only along singular variables, but rather to adopt a holistic approach through the lens of schemas to understand nationalism's impact on society.

Pushing this further, the article has focused on different national schemas from different nations, but this could also be done within conceptualised singular nations, where different schemas exist. For example, while this article focused on media sources’ narratives, this does not mean that they were necessarily reflective of the given population's opinions. In fact, on several occasions, the articles’ positions were contested by readers in the comment sections. Consequently, it would be worthwhile to explore their perspectives on Mirotić's belonging. This type of research could draw from Bairner and Han's (2022, p. 345) discussion of digital spaces, which are argued to represent an ideal space to observe sport and nationalism from a bottom-up perspective.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The data used for this article is available online, with the website links being listed throughout it.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical considerations

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Christopher Lam Cham Kee

References

Baća

(2018) Forging civic bonds ‘from below’: Montenegrin activist youth between ethnonational disidentification and political subjectivation. In: Changing Youth Values in Southeast Europe: Beyond Ethnicity. Oxon; New York: Routledge, 127–147.

Bairner

Han

(2022) Sport, nationalism, and national identities. In: Wenner

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Society. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197519011.013.5 (accessed 12 March 2025).

Balfour

Quiroga

(2007) Spain’s international projection. In: Balfour

Quiroga

(eds) The Reinvention of Spain: Nation and Identity since Democracy. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206674.003.0007 (accessed 14 March 2025).

B K (2023) Obradović: Mirotić zbog poziva iz politike i crkve odustao od Partizana. vijesti.me, 5 October. Available at: https://www.vijesti.me/sport/kosarka/676442/obradovic-mirotic-zbog-poziva-iz-politike-i-crkve-odustao-od-partizana (accessed 20 February 2025).

Black

Lake

Fletcher

(2021) An unnerving otherness: English nationalism and Rusedski’s smile. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society 26(4): 452–472.

Black

Whigham

(2020) ‘Team GB’ or ‘Team Scotland’? Media representations of ‘Britishness’ and ‘Scottishness’ at London 2012 and Glasgow 2014. Journalism 21(10): 1450–1467.

Brandt

EES

Fine

(2022) Tarnished nationalism. Rehabilitating Serbia’s reputation on the world stage. Sociologica 16(2): 103–116.

Brubaker

(2004) Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brubaker

Loveman

Stamatov

(2004) Ethnicity as cognition. Theory and Society 33: 31–64.

10.

CdM (2015) Španci ljuti na Mirotića zbog crnogorske zastave. Available at: https://www.cdm.me/sport/kosarka/spanci-ljuti-na-mirotica-zbog-crnogorske-zastave/ (accessed 13 March 2025).

11.

CdM (2019) Mirotić o ovacijama u Pioniru: Ovo će samo da ojača moju vjeru i želju da pomažem našem narodu. Available at: https://www.cdm.me/sport/kosarka/mirotic-o-ovacijama-u-pioniru-ovo-ce-samo-da-ojaca-moju-vjeru-i-zelju-da-pomazem-nasem-narodu/ (accessed 13 March 2025).

12.

CdM (2024) The Mirotic-Napier tandem is fatal for Partizan, Ivanovic’s Baskonia is safe. Available at: https://www.cdm.me/sport/kosarka/tandem-mirotic-nejpir-koban-za-partizan-sigurna-ivanoviceva-baskonija/ (accessed 13 March 2025).

13.

D’Andrade

(1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Delgado

(2017) Llull, Mirotic… y las bajas. Available at: https://as.com/opinion/2017/08/31/portada/1504215629_223546.html (accessed 15 March 2025).

15.

Diario

(2025) Mirotic: “Nunca me he sentido español”. Available at: https://as.com/baloncesto/euroliga/nunca-me-he-sentido-espanol-n/ (accessed 19 March 2025).

16.

Džankić

(2013) Cutting the mists of the Black Mountain: cleavages in Montenegro’s divide over statehood and identity. Nationalities Papers 41(3): 412–430.

17.

Džankić

(2014a) Reconstructing the meaning of being “Montenegrin”. Slavic Review 73(2): 347–371.

18.

Džankić

(2014b) When two hands rock the cradle. In: Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in South Eastern Europe. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 115–137.

19.

Edensor

(2002) National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Oxford; New York: Berg Publishers.

20.

El Confidencial (2015) Mirotic anuncia que está a disposición de Scariolo para jugar el EuroBasket. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/baloncesto/2015-06-08/nikola-mirotic-seleccion-espanola-de-baloncesto-eurobasket-scariolo_874803/ (accessed 14 March 2025).

21.

Gardón

(2013) Renunciar a la selección. El País, 15 July. Madrid. Available at: https://elpais.com/elpais/2013/07/13/opinion/1373737373_863522.html (accessed 18 March 2025).

22.

Gasanovic

(2019) KSCG o Mirotiću: Nije tačno da je neko procijenio da nije dobar, uradili smo sve da igra za Crnu Goru. Available at: https://www.vijesti.me/sport/kosarka/406280/kscg-o-miroticu-nije-tacno-da-je-neko-procijenio-da-nije-dobar-uradili-smo-sve-da-igra-za-crnu-goru (accessed 14 March 2025).

23.

Gibbons

(2015) Fan debates on English national identity surrounding the Almunia case. Soccer & Society 16(2-3): 344–359.

24.

Goig

(2008) Identity, nation-state and football in Spain. The evolution of nationalist feelings in Spanish football. Soccer & Society 9(1): 56–63.

25.

González

(2015) Un equipo con mucha química. Available at: https://as.com/baloncesto/2015/09/21/mas_baloncesto/1442786442_493069.html (accessed 15 March 2025).

26.

G S (2024) Nikola Mirotić pred Zvezdu: ‘Imamo srpsku zajednicu, crkvu i idemo na liturgiju, Petrušev je sjajan’. Available at: https://www.telegraf.rs/sport/kosarka/4012958-nikola-mirotic-pred-zvezdu-imamo-srpsku-zajednicu-crkvu-i-idemo-na-liturgiju-petrusev-je-sjajan (accessed 13 March 2025).

27.

Hage

(1998) White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Annandale: Pluto Press.

28.

Han

(2023) Can they represent the nation? Nationalism, national identity, and naturalized athletes in Chinese football. National Identities 25(4): 339–355.

29.

Han

Tang

Bairner

(2023) Citizenship without identity? Instrumentalism, nationalism and naturalization in Chinese men’s football. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 59(2): 10126902231199580.

30.

Íñiguez

(2013) Nikola Mirotic, ante la gran duda de jugar con España o hacerlo con Montenegro. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/baloncesto/2013-06-22/nikola-mirotic-ante-la-gran-duda-de-jugar-con-espana-o-hacerlo-con-montenegro_657714/ (accessed 14 March 2025).

31.

Janičić

(2020) Nikola Mirotić kreće u novu humanitarnu misiju. Available at: https://n1info.rs/sport-klub/kosarka/a676873-Nikola-Mirotic-krece-u-novu-humanitarnu-misiju/ (accessed 12 March 2025).

32.

Jansen

Skey

(2020) Who can represent the nation? Elite athletes, global mega events and the contested boundaries of national belonging. Sociology 54(6): 1194–1211.

33.

Jaskulowski

(2016) The magic of the national flag. Ethnic and Racial Studies 39(4): 557–573.

34.

Jenkins

(2008) Rethinking Ethnicity, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

35.

Joncic

(2022) Počinje Evroliga: Pet, ambasadora“ Crne Gore, Efes želi stopama Jugoplastike i Rige. Available at: https://www.pobjeda.me/clanak/pocinje-evroliga-pet-ambasadora-crne-gore-efes-zeli-stopama-jugoplastike-i-rige (accessed 13 March 2025).

36.

Jovanović

(2014) Serbia and the symbolic (re)construction of the nation. In: Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in South Eastern Europe. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 87–114.

37.

Lazarević

(2025) Nikola Mirotić se slikao sa popom pred meč sa Zvezdom: Tu je i igrač crveno-belih koji je pozajmljen u Italiju. Available at: https://www.telegraf.rs/sport/kosarka/4069385-nikola-mirotic-se-slikao-sa-popom-pred-mec-sa-zvezdom-tu-je-i-igrac-crveno-belih-koji-je-pozajmljen-u-italiju (accessed 13 March 2025).

38.

L S (2024) Novak Đoković poslao poruku Nikoli Mirotiću zbog Prizrena: “Živ bio brate, hvala ti”. Available at: https://www.telegraf.rs/sport/kosarka/3841361-novak-djokovic-poslao-poruku-nikoli-miroticu-zbog-prizrena-ziv-bio-brate-hvala-ti (accessed 13 March 2025).

39.

Malešević

(2017) From sacrifice to prestige: visualising the nation in 19th and 21st-century Serbia and Croatia. Visual Studies 32(3): 212–223.

40.

Malešević

(2019) Grounded Nationalisms: A Sociological Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Martínez-Herrera

(2002) From nation-building to building identification with political communities: Consequences of political decentralisation in Spain, the Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia, 1978–2001. European Journal of Political Research 41(4): 421–453.

42.

Mondo (2006) Blok za nezavisnost: Zaokružite ‘da’. Available at: https://mondo.rs/Info/Srbija/a23197/Blok-za-nezavisnost-Zaokruzite-da.html (accessed 13 March 2025).

43.

Mondo (2015) Ko je kriv što Mirotić ne igra za Srbiju? Available at: https://mondo.rs/Sport/Kosarka/a773299/Nikola-Mirotic-ne-igra-za-Srbiju-zbog-propusta-KSS-tvrdi-Lakic.html (accessed 2 May 2025).

44.

Mondo (2024) ‘Amfilohije je zvao Nikolu Mirotica’ Crnogorski novinar otkrio detalje: Vodili su se razgovori na svim nivoima. Available at: https://mondo.rs/Sport/Kosarka/a1940435/amfilohije-radovic-zvao-nikolu-mirotica-da-igra-za-crnu-goru.html (accessed 11 March 2025).

45.

Mora

(2013) Mirotic, español de segunda. Available at: https://as.com/opinion/2013/03/02/portada/1362182146_181479.html (accessed 15 March 2025).

46.

Ninkovic

(2025) ‘Ja sam Crnogorac, srpski pravoslavac’: Mirotića pitali da li je Španac, objasnio im sve do detalja! Available at: https://mondo.rs/Sport/Kosarka/a2022491/nikola-mirotic-je-srbin-pravoslavac.html (accessed 11 March 2025).

47.

NOVOSTI (2025) MIROTIĆ: Nikada se nisam osećao kao Španac, već kao Srbin iz Crne Gore. Available at: https://www.novosti.rs/sport/kosarka/1447433/nikola-mirotic-srbija-pravoslavlje-spanija-reprezentacija-najnovije-vesti/komentari/posalji (accessed 12 March 2025).

48.

Ojeda

(2015) Mirotic: ‘Gracias por hacerme sentir un español más’. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/baloncesto/eurobasket/2015-09-21/celebracion-espana-eurobasket-mirotic-gasol_1030025/ (accessed 14 March 2025).

49.

Ojeda

(2019) La odiosa comparación de Serge Ibaka y Nikola Mirotic con los Gasol. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/baloncesto/2019-07-09/serge-ibaka-nikola-mirotic-pau-gasol-marc-seleccion-scariolo_2114771/ (accessed 14 March 2025).

50.

Oonk

(2022) Sport and nationality: towards thick and thin forms of citizenship. National Identities 24(3): 197–215.

51.

Paunić

(2021) VELIKI JE SRBIN NIKOLA MIROTIĆ: Košarkaš Barselone ljubio ikonu u Pioniru. Available at: https://www.novosti.rs/sport/kosarka/957404/veliki-srbin-nikola-mirotic-kosarkas-barselone-ljubio-ikonu-pioniru (accessed 12 March 2025).

52.

Pinilla

(2015) Nikola Mirotic pide perdón tras romper una bandera de Serbia. Available at: https://as.com/baloncesto/2015/09/09/mas_baloncesto/1441763247_748666.html (accessed 27 February 2025).

53.

Pobjeda (2023) Vujošević: Porfirije samo potvrdio moje sumnje o Mirotiću. Available at: https://www.pobjeda.me/clanak/vujosevic-porfirije-samo-potvrdio-moje-sumnje-o-miroticu (accessed 13 March 2025).

54.

Popovic

(2019) Who play for the national football team of Montenegro, Montenegrins or ‘Montenegrins’? Sport Mont 17(1): 101–103.

55.

Portal Analitika (2015) VIDEO - SKANDAL: Mirotić pocijepao srpsku zastavu! Available at: https://www.portalanalitika.me/clanak/200746–video-skandal-mirotic-pocijepao-srpsku-zastavu (accessed 27 February 2025).

56.

Portal Analitika (2020) Mirotić u litiji ka Podgorici (FOTO). Available at: https://www.portalanalitika.me/clanak/358986–mirotic-u-litiji-ka-podgorici-foto (accessed 14 March 2025).

57.

Radić

Vukomanović

(2014) Religion and democracy in Serbia since 1989: the case of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In: Ramet

(ed) Religion and Politics in Post-Socialist Central and Southeastern Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp.180–211. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137330727_8 (accessed 11 March 2025).

58.

Rodríguez

(2015a) Mirotic y su lío con su nacionalidad al jugar el ‘All Star’… con la bandera de Montenegro. elconfidencial.com, 14 February. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/baloncesto/nba/2015-02-14/mirotic-y-su-lio-con-su-nacionalidad-al-jugar-el-all-star-con-la-bandera-de-montenegro_712219/ (accessed 20 February 2025).

59.

Rodríguez

(2015b) Serbia disculpa a Mirotic, pero cree que romper su bandera ‘es un acto inaceptable’. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/baloncesto/eurobasket/2015-09-09/nikola-mirotic-bander-serbia-eurobasket_1008093/ (accessed 27 February 2025).

60.

SK (2015) Skandal u Berlinu: Nikola Mirotić pocepao srpsku zastavu! Available at: https://n1info.rs/sport-klub/kosarka/a91175-Skandal-u-Berlinu-Nikola-Mirotic-pocepao-srpsku-zastavu/ (accessed 27 February 2025).

61.

Skey

(2015) ‘What nationality he is doesn’t matter a damn!’ International football, mediated identities and conditional cosmopolitanism. National Identities 17(3): 271–287.

62.

SKWEEK (2025) NIKOLA MIROTIC EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW - BEST IN CLASS PODCAST EPISODE 7. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0jtoN44to (accessed 19 February 2025).

63.

Terrier

(2015) Aspects of boundary research from the perspective of longue durée. In: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Boundaries: Conceptualising and Understanding Identity Through Boundary Approaches. Oxon; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.28–56.

64.

Todorović

(2022) Mirotić: Srbija je moj dom. Available at: https://n1info.rs/sport-klub/kosarka/mirotic-srbija-je-moj-dom/ (accessed 14 March 2025).

65.

Vijesti (2017) Mirotić: Srećno, znam da ćete da eksplodirate. Available at: https://www.vijesti.me/sport/kosarka/70674/mirotic-srecno-znam-da-cete-da-eksplodirate (accessed 13 March 2025).

66.

Volcic

Matovinovic

Andrejevic

(2023) Conflicting responses to Djokovic’s deportation: citizenship, the rule of law, and commercial nationalism. International Journal of Communication 17: 5690–5707.

67.

Vuckovic

(2013) Mirotić: Igrajući za Real, predstavljaću i Crnu Goru i Španiju. Available at: https://www.vijesti.me/sport/kosarka/270815/mirotic-igrajuci-za-real-predstavljacu-i-crnu-goru-i-spaniju (accessed 14 March 2025).

68.

Whigham

Black

(2020) London 2012, Glasgow 2014 and athletes as political symbols – the precarious positioning of athletes within the evolving contemporary politics of the United Kingdom. European Journal for Sport and Society 17(1): 47–65.