Taegeuk Warriors with Blue Eyes: A Media Discourse Analysis of the South Korean Men’s Olympic Ice Hockey Team and Its Naturalized Athletes

Imagined Communities and National Identity

Anderson’s (2006) concept of imagined communities refers to a group of people with whom we connect through imagination, but which is not strictly accessible or tangible. What we believe as nations are imagined communities “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their follow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (p. 6). Thus, individuals imagine themselves to be bonded with others within the imagined community, and they become aware of a sense of community, either imagined by self or imbued from outside. The concept of imagined community provides a critical lens that enables researchers to examine how an epistemic nation is constructed through cultural, economic, and political practices. In this study, we extend this concept to the globalized sport context where the nationally dominant discourses promote the construction of national identity (e.g., Hobsbawm, 2012). We consider sport as a cultural entity, and while it does not win territory or destroy regions (Hoberman, 1984), it can “support the construction of a nation which has been imagined” (Cronin & Mayall, 1998, p. 2). Sport also (re)defines a “sense of national boundaries, both through its emphasis on international rivalries and through its exploitative overemphasis on ‘us’ beating ‘them’” (Y. Cho, 2009, p. 349). Hence, the construction of imagined communities is one of sport’s functions. Sport promotes this construction process particularly through symbolizing nations’ prowess and success on the global stage. According to Maguire and Tuck (1998), “sporting competition arguably provides the primary expression of imagined communities; the nation becoming more ‘real in the domain of sport’” (p. 106). In other words, sport clearly contributes to the construction of an “imagined” nation (Hoberman, 1984). Imagined nations constructed through sport represent national identity. People identify themselves with sporting celebrities through watching their struggles and winnings (Mangan, 1998).

As people’s imagined communities make them distinguish us (i.e., people who shared the same national identity) from them (i.e., others who have different national identities), we embrace Choe’s (2006) two distinguished concepts of national identity and citizenship to better situate this study:

Ethnic-centered national identity identifies nationhood with ethnicity and emphasizes the cultural homogeneity of a nation, while state-centered national identity allows for the coexistence of various ethnic groups under a state and emphasizes a common political goal shared by a nation. (p. 89)

Choe (2006) suggested the “nation” is a political group of people who belong to a state while “ethnic group” is a cultural group of people “who share language, culture, and myth of common ancestors” (p. 89). Differing across nations, nationality and ethnicity may signify the same identity in some countries (e.g., South Korea in previous years) while they may not be the same in other nations (e.g., the United States). Following her argument, we use the term national identity in this study as a “distinctive and most important cultural variable” (p. 89) related to the definition of citizenship within a nation. As sport is one of the most universal cultural variables, it has been widely utilized as a tool for identity politics—a tool to address and reaffirm identity (Maguire & Poulton, 1999). For example, sport is used in Scotland to underscore a distinct nationality within the UK (Bairner, 1996) while in Israel it is used to negotiate Jewish ethnic identity and Israeli national identity (Shor & Yonay, 2010). In the case of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 UEFA European Football Championship, Germans’ national pride and belonging were triggered by their identification with the national soccer team (Meier et al., 2019). This variability calls for more research along with the emergence of cosmopolitanism in the field of globalized sport. The present study’s case adds to the literature by demonstrating how strong nationalist sentiments in South Korea have been negotiated in the weight of cosmopolitan nature of the nation’s sport scene.

Transforming Nationalism: Naturalized Athletes

The concept of nationalism is blurry as global interconnectedness intensifies (Appadurai, 1996); nevertheless, it is an important concept to understand one’s identity (Cronin & Mayall, 1998). Breton (1988) defined nationalism as a “component of the process whereby a particular kind of socio-political entity is constructed, maintained, expanded or otherwise transformed” (p. 85). According to Gagnon (1994), the term “nationalism” had been commonly used, “either implicitly or explicitly, to mean simultaneously (and confusingly) ethnic national sentiments or beliefs; political rhetoric that appeals to ethnic nationalist sentiment; and violent conflict that is described and justified in terms of ethnicity” (p. 131). Indeed, it is ambiguous as to whether ideology denoted in nationalism is related to the political-diplomatic or to the ethnic boundary of a nation. Nationality and ethnicity are not considered the same in that as Shin et al. (1999) argued, ethnic cleavages are more fundamental and permanent than other forms due to the strong commitment elicited by ethnic perception. In ethnic nationalism, society is seen as founded on cultural unity, which forms the basis of inclusion and exclusion (i.e., cultural distinctiveness). Thus, the attachment of individuals to the collective entity is “primarily symbolic and socio-emotional rather than pragmatic or utilitarian” (Breton, 1988, p. 87).

According to Muller (2008), ethnic nationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history as people recognized the dominance of ethnonational states (i.e., ethnicity-centered nation-states) and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe. However, more recently, ethnic nationalism was replaced with other types (e.g., liberal or civic nationalism, dual or diasporic nationalism, or cosmopolitanism) even in the historically ethnonational states (e.g., South Korea) as globalization precipitated transnational practices that transcend conventional national borders. These varied concepts are counterparts to ethnic nationalism; liberal or civic nationalism indicates that all people who live within a country’s borders are part of the nation regardless of their cultural or ethnic origin (Smith, 2005); dual or diasporic nationalism denotes that people who are transnational and diasporic (e.g., immigrants) display national commitment to both home and new country (Appadurai, 1996); and cosmopolitanism refers to focusing on the world as a transnational and universal whole rather than on a particular locality within it (Calhoun, 2008). The main shift from ethnic nationalism to these other types of nationalism indicates a change from exclusive approaches to inclusive ones (Smith, 2005). The later three concepts inherently connote elevated diversity as they bring in expanded boundaries of who are “us” and who are not.

In sport, the transformation of nationalism has modified the ways nations build their national team. Recruiting foreign athletes has been one popular strategy enacted to facilitate a nation’s success at international competitions like the Olympics (Maguire, 2011). Athletes who are highly achieving in their competitive performance have practiced “nationality switching” (Jansen et al., 2018, p. 524). The majority of these athletes have included non-Western athletes such as Chinese table tennis players or long-distance runners from Kenya. Jansen et al. (2018) indicated that nationality switching at the Summer Olympic Games mostly happened after the 1990s. In the case of the Winter Olympic Games where Western (i.e., European and North American) countries have been highly competitive and successful, their athletes began to switch nationality to the countries where the level of winter sports success and performance is relatively not as high. In spite of being competitive, athletes who switch nationality have mostly been “unqualified” for the home country’s national team, which pushed them to obtain another nationality to compete at the Olympic Games.

Chiba et al. (2001) coined the term borderless athletes to describe the phenomenon of transcending national borders in the context of Japan’s sport. In 1994, the Japanese Ice Hockey Federation (JIHF) recruited Japanese Canadian athletes to enhance the men’s national team’s performance at the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics. However, under the influence of lingering ethnic nationalism, five consecutive years of residency were required for foreigners to be naturalized while three consecutive years were required for foreigners of Japanese ancestry by Japanese nationality laws. Recruiting athletes of Japanese ancestry was a strategy the JIHF employed to organize a stronger team more quickly as well as to mitigate possible public repercussions against fully foreign athletes without Japanese ancestry. However, as Chiba et al. (2001) noted, Japanese media criticized the recruitment of Japanese Canadian athletes as it was a shortsighted policy enacted at the expense of developing domestic athletes. In contrast, the Russian government’s case at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games shows a shift from ethnic nationalism to other types of nationalism as it aggressively intervened in the recruitment of foreign athletes to achieve sporting success at the event (Gorokhov, 2015). The Russian government amended its strict immigration regulations to recruit competitive athletes and conferred on them citizenship along with huge monetary compensation. The project was ostensibly successful as the Russian national team won 13 gold medals at the Sochi Olympics, including five individual gold medals and three team gold medals won by the naturalized athletes. However, Gorokhov (2015) pointed out a few side effects of this “international mass recruiting” (p. 277). First, sports in which the Russian naturalized athletes won the gold medals, such as short-track skating and snowboarding slalom, became unsustainable in Russia after the Olympics because these sports had not undergone the regular development path and were different from the sports in which Russia has been historically strong. Second, naturalized athletes could not elicit emotional attachment from Russian citizens because the public was aware that the athletes obtained Russian citizenship as a special case regardless of their commitment to the nation.

South Korean Context

Considering the strong commitment to ethnic homogeneity in South Korea, it was a very complicated issue for foreign athletes without Korean ancestry to pursue dual nationalities (Ahn, 2014; N. Lee et al., 2007). According to Lee (2009), the collectivistic idea of the nation, which emphasizes pure Korean bloodline, has fostered solid ethnic nationalism in South Korea. Shin and Chang (2004) found the roots of ethnic nationalism are grounded in the country’s history of Japanese colonial ruling when Koreans intensely stressed their unique ethnic, cultural, and national heritage to resist the Japanese assimilation policy. Due to the strong commitment to ethnic nationalism, only the athletes who had Korean ancestry (i.e., athletes with mixed blood) or solid connection to South Korea (e.g., athletes from families whom immigrated and lived in South Korea for generations or athletes who got married to a South Korean citizen) had been approved for naturalization until 2013, when Brock Radunske, an ice hockey player from Canada and without Korean ancestry, was approved for the special case of naturalization for exceptional foreign talents. Briefly mentioned above, Korean studies scholars have argued that South Korea has exhibited some signs of modification to its strong ethnic nationalism such as economic and social reform to reposition itself along the process of globalization (Jun & Lee, 2012). Among varied areas, sport has been a contested space where some celebrities with outstanding achievement were granted South Korean national identity without much difficulty while individuals in other areas were denied. ⁶

For example, the case of Guus Hiddink, Dutch soccer coach who led the South Korean national team to the semifinals in the 2002 World Cup, was evidence of a significant shift in South Koreans’ understanding and definition of national identity and citizenship. His contribution to the national team as well as to the nation made him a national hero of South Korea who became the first foreigner (i.e., without Korean ancestry and any previous connection to the nation) ever to be awarded honorary national citizenship (for further discussion, see N. Lee et al., 2007). In 2006, Hines Ward, a Korean and African American football player, received intense media attention after he was named the Most Valuable Player of the Super Bowl XL. South Korean media and public celebrated his achievement in the National Football League. Mixed blood Koreans, particularly those who have African American ancestry, have experienced discrimination in South Korea. Ward’s case showed how national identity was “reproduced, transformed, and sometimes destructed as a result of globalization” (Jun & Lee, 2012, p. 110). Similar to Hiddink’s case, Ward’s outstanding achievement in one of the world’s best sport leagues helped the South Korean public consider him as one of “us” (for further discussion, see Ahn, 2014 and Jun & Lee, 2012). The case studies of Michelle Wie and Lydia Ko, Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) players, both born to Korean parents who immigrated to the United States and New Zealand respectively, found that it was their exposed Koreanness (e.g., whether they kept South Korean citizenship, whether they speak fluent Korean, whether they were willing to represent South Korea at international competitions) rather than athletic achievements that South Koreans used to affirm them as Koreans (Chang et al., 2019; S. W. Nam, 2015). These previous cases demonstrate that there is no rule of thumb whether an individual with athletic talents is accepted or not accepted: sometimes it is their exceptional athletic talent (e.g., Hiddink); sometimes it is both their achievement and Korean ancestry (e.g., Ward); at other times, it is their ethnic commitment to South Korea (e.g., Wie and Ko).

In comparison, the case of Viktor Ahn (formerly Ahn Hyun-soo) demonstrates an interesting but intricate dynamic of nationality and public reaction. Ahn, a world-class short-track skater who won multiple gold medals, had represented South Korea at the Olympics and world championships until he became a naturalized Russian citizen in 2011 (Grassie, 2017). Ahn renounced South Korean citizenship due to the conflict with the Korean Skating Union as well as the provision of opportunity to compete in the United States and the Russian Olympic teams (Borden, 2014). The Russian government permitted Ahn to bypass the naturalization process along with providing substantial monetary compensation. Ahn’s winning three golds and one bronze at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics stirred the South Korean public sphere. South Korean media and online discussions at web portals both displayed public support for Ahn’s Olympic success derived from two competing nationalisms: His successful cosmopolitan action to move beyond national borders was supported; at the same time, his ethnicity as Korean was still celebrated (J. Kim, 2018; Park & Lim, 2014; Yi, 2015).

Although Ahn’s case evidences the complex transition period South Korea has experienced in terms of its nationalism (S. Cho & Lee, 2018), foreign athletes have still failed to be naturalized despite their athletic competitiveness (Lim, 2017). For instance, Ênio Oliveira Júnior (soccer) and Wilson Loyanae Erupe ⁷ (marathon) had encountered public criticism from South Koreans due to their lack of Koreanness and Korean ancestry (Chung & Chang, 2019). Particularly, the case of Erupe, a Kenyan-born marathoner, who applied for South Korean citizenship to compete at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games but was denied for multiple reasons, is in stark contrast to the case of the naturalized ice hockey players. Choi’s study (2020) shows that Erupe’s Black identity and the symbolic status of marathon as a national sport in South Korea may have impacted the decision of denial despite Erupe’s athletic talent. Although sport generates relatively flexible citizenship and belongingness in the globalized world, it is still viable that different cases—denials and approvals—represent the selectiveness of cultural logics with regard to a nation’s citizenship practices. As such, literature on the naturalization of athletic talents in South Korea has focused on individual athletes who constructed and crystallized cultural meanings and ideologies (Choi, 2020). The case of naturalized ice hockey players, therefore, provides a unique discussion as it was the naturalization of a group of athletes in one discipline. Unlike other failed cases (e.g, Erupe), these players did not have Korean ancestry, and this aspect was not highlighted in the naturalization process. Also unlike other successful cases (e.g., Ward and Hiddink—although these were the cases of honorary citizenship), these players did not have world-class athletic careers; they were not the star players in the National Hockey League, Canadian national team, or the U.S. national team. We focus on the specific articulations by South Korean media on how these uneasy conditions were narrated.

Building upon the literature on naturalized athletes for the Olympics in the South Korean context, the following research questions were developed to guide the present study: (a) What were the discernible and persistent themes in the discourses South Korean media produced and disseminated when covering the case of naturalized athletes on the South Korean men’s national ice hockey team?; and (b) How were the South Korean national identity and ideology of nationalism deconstructed and reconstructed through the discourses?

Method

We used Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1999, 2010) in order to contextualize the intersection of transnational athletic migration, citizenship, race, and Koreanness by analyzing how the South Korean media outlets reported on the naturalized ice hockey players. CDA has been widely utilized in sport media studies as it enables a systematic textual analysis through which themes are inductively identified and power relations and ideologies that shaped discourses are uncovered (Bimper & Harrison, 2017; J. Kim, 2018; Yoon & Wilson, 2016). In a sense, sport offers a critical window through which to better understand the dominant ideology (e.g., racial and ethnic identity, national identity, collective sense of belongingness, and power relations) that has been contested. Moreover, the media is particularly influential in transforming forms of nationalism and reconstructing national identity (Chen & Mason, 2018; Shor & Yonay, 2010). In this way, as Fairclough (2010) argued, (media) texts are one form of social interaction and a significant subject of investigation to gain a deeper understanding of broader social structures such as the production of national identity. Fairclough also stated, “language is widely misperceived as transparent, so that the social and ideological ‘work’ that language does in producing, reproducing, or transforming social structures, relations, and identities is routinely ‘overlooked’” (Fairclough, 1999, p. 204). Therefore, studying discourse unpacks dominance, hierarchy, and inequality in a society because discourse, as a form of social practice, reflects and reproduces the existing structure and power (Fairclough, 2010).

CDA considers media messages (language) seriously as media representations are multifaceted social construction (e.g., framing and selection of words). Researchers can critically examine media texts as CDA helps them examine media representations and their discursive power and practices (e.g., Fairclough, 2006). Similarly, van Dijk (1993) insisted that CDA can help social scientists understand the power of discourse in shaping perspectives and positions within a society. Considering that the naturalization of foreign ice hockey athletes was an important part of South Korea’s nation-building project targeting the (then) upcoming 2018 PyeongChang Olympics and that a part of the project was establishing a new (revised) national identity—a new (revised) imagined community—that can embrace naturalized athletes without Korean ancestry, CDA is a suitable method to unpack how the social structure and power have operated beneath the South Korean media discourse.

Data Collection

To analyze the South Korean media discourses, more than 150 news articles and reports from South Korean newspapers were collected. These news articles were retrieved from South Korean web portals Naver (http://news.naver.com) and Daum (http://media.daum.net), which source stories from various South Korean media outlets. Naver and Daum are South Korea’s top Internet news portals, while Naver has been positioned as the leading company with a market share of 80% and more specialized search tools (Economist, 2014; T. Kim & Kim, 2016). We included Daum in our search to check and compare stories, consequently increasing the accuracy of the search process. Daum is the first South Korean web portal, started in 1999, and the second largest web portal in South Korea following Naver (J. Kim, 2018).

We also collected 18 news reports in video formats from Naver and Daum. These video reports were available on the databases for public access, and many of them included interviews with the naturalized athletes. The news and video reports were selected from a variety of sources including the major South Korean press companies, ranging from general dailies like JoongAng Ilbo to public broadcasting companies like KBS (Korean Broadcasting System). To widen the range of data, we reviewed media outlets with diverse political orientations, from conservative (e.g., The Chosun Ilbo) to moderate (e.g., Segye Ilbo) to more progressive (e.g., The Hankyoreh). Additionally, we included news and video reports in English to diversify the sources of data. These English reports were produced by English-language newspapers or television networks based in South Korea (e.g., The Korea Times), and thus they mostly deal with social, cultural, and political issues inside the nation. All of these media sources were found through the two web portals: Naver and Daum.

We searched the databases using keywords in Korean, and translated here in English, such as naturalized athletes (“귀화선수”), ice hockey naturalization (“아이스하키 귀화”), special case of naturalization (“특별귀화”), and Olympic naturalization (“올림픽 귀화”). We did not limit the search by year. Instead, we included any reports that emerged from the search. We continuously compared the search results from the two web portals (Naver and Daum) to check the level of consistency between them. Except for the order of presentation of the search reports, the two portals yielded identical search results when using the aforementioned keywords. Initially, we collected a total of 158 reports published between March 2013, when the first naturalization was approved, and October 2016, when the sixth naturalization was approved. Among the initially collected reports, 26 were excluded for analysis due to two reasons: (a) irrelevancy of the reports and (b) appearance of the same reports multiple times. Overall, 132 reports were included in the analysis while 114 of them were originally published in Korean. We acknowledge a limitation here due to the possibility of missing some reports that did not show up in either database. Data collection took place between May and October 2016.

Data Analysis

We employed CDA (Fairclough, 2010) as the primary data analysis technique to understand how media texts operated to make particular perspectives more visible than others with the case of foreign ice hockey athletes’ naturalization. CDA allowed us to keenly analyze media descriptions, the process of media production articulating a particular characteristic, and the intertextuality referred to in hegemonic ideology that the discourse has tended to naturalize (Fairclough, 2010). First, we organized all textual data into themes with particular focus on how South Korean media navigated within the intersection of nation-building, nationalism, national and ethnic identity and newly imagined Koreanness, all of which are in relation to the national ice hockey team and their naturalized athletes. The guiding questions for the process of theme-building included: “What meanings and representations are prioritized?” and “Is the discourse reinforcing, altering, or producing any social and cultural meanings?” The first and second authors handled the analysis process by each reviewing every report collected. To create an iterative analysis process (Whiteside & Roessner, 2018), they continuously reviewed the results and interpretations to reach standards of “accountability for the knowledge that is produced (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002, p. 119). They also met with the third author regularly to discuss the progress and the analysis as well as to confer about interpretations. When discrepancies emerged, the authors debated the interpretations until an agreement was reached.

The first author, a trained Korean-English language interpreter, translated relevant data, mainly titles and important quotations, from Korean into English, after the analysis was completed in Korean. The translated data were then reviewed by the second author, who is also fluent in Korean and English. The first and second authors also engaged in Brislin’s (1970) back-translation process; Korean was first translated into English, and then the translated English was translated back to Korean. Furthermore, cultural interpretation is important in this case as media discourses are profoundly imbued with cultural nuances and criticalities (K. Y. Kim, 2012; Yoon & Wilson, 2016). As such, the first and second authors, both South Korean, provided this cultural interpretation.

Findings and Discussion

Our media discourse analysis revealed three key themes related to our two research questions. Regarding the first research question, there were three discernible themes. First, the discourses underlined the significance of the South Korean team’s Olympic success for the nation, which provided a legitimate reason for the recruiting of foreign athletes. Second, the naturalized athletes were described as “saviors” for the team. Lastly, the discourses presented the naturalized athletes’ acculturation to Korean culture by emphasizing their commitment to the nation. In essence, we show how South Korean media actively provided explicit legitimation to their naturalization rather than asking critical questions. In doing so, the media discourses reframed and expanded the boundary of South Korean national identity and nationalism. Regarding the second research question, we intersect the three themes with varied concepts of nationalism such as dual, ethnic, and civic nationalism to discuss the shift and hybridity of South Korean nationalism.

Legitimation 1: South Korea Needs Olympic Success

Often, media (re)configure nationalism to build national cohesion at the time of global sport events like the Olympics (Y. Cho, 2009). South Korean media, as well, shed nationalistic light on the prominence of the 2018 Olympics. The first discourse was about how the event would play a significant role for the future of South Korea as a host, particularly for the nation’s winter sport development. The home Olympics were framed as one of the most pressing national agendas to which government and citizens must contribute whatever they can. Considering men’s ice hockey is the most attended and popular event at the Winter Olympics (Jenkins, 2018), the discourse of Olympic success naturally revolved around the success of the South Korean men’s ice hockey team. The discourse of Olympic success centered on the necessity of rebuilding the men’s ice hockey team. Seoul Economic Daily (June 19, 2016) reported that men’s ice hockey is the most critical issue for the 2018 Olympics:

Jacque Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, visited South Korea to check the preparation process of the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics. He paid the biggest attention to men’s ice hockey. He individually visited with Chung Mong-Won, president of the KIHA, to ask specific details of the South Korean men’s team.

Naver Sports (April 18, 2014) emphasized that throughout the Winter Olympic history, the host nations’ men’s ice hockey teams had never failed to qualify for the Olympics. It wrote: “From the 1924 Chamonix Games to the 2014 Sochi Games, all hosting teams were qualified and competed at the Olympics. If South Korea cannot make it, we will end up showing the case of a host excluded from a party.” To summarize, media discourse emphasized two important tasks to be accomplished by South Korea; success of the Olympics in general and success of the men’s ice hockey team. Thus, to elevate the performance level of the team to be competitive with ice hockey powerhouses (e.g., Canada, United States, Russia, Finland, among others), the South Korean government and the KIHA were willing to adopt any strategy that would help the team win the Olympic Qualification.

As the IIHF abolished the provision of automatic berths for host nations in the Olympics after the 2006 Torino Games, the South Korean men’s national team had to obtain the qualification by raising its world ranking up to 18th by 2016. Although only 12 teams qualify for the Winter Olympics, the IIHF suggested that if the South Korean men’s team could achieve 18th in the ranking, the IIHF and the IOC would secure a spot for the team at the 2018 Olympics (Jung, 2014). In March 2013, the ranking of the South Korean men’s national team was 28th. It meant the team had to beat more than 10 teams to raise the ranking. However, according to JoongAng Ilbo (December 11, 2014), it would be extremely difficult to climb up the world rankings within this limited time because the gap between the traditional powerhouses and the growing teams (e.g., South Korea and Japan) was too large for the to overcome. Thus, climbing in the ranking was viewed as an almost impossible task by the media.

Then, the media began to discuss the strategic suggestions provided by the IIHF to the KIHA. The list of strategic suggestions was covered in detail by many media reports, including recruiting a foreign head coach and assistant coach, recruiting at least seven foreign athletes, and reorganizing the budget. The reports actively discussed that the highest priority recognized by the IIHF was an immediate recruitment of at least seven foreign athletes who were born and played in the powerhouse countries, with the ultimate goal of their naturalization. Newsis (October 2, 2013) explained: “Due to the poor base with only two domestic professional men’s ice hockey teams, the recruitment and naturalization of foreign players are considered to be the only way to strengthen the team in a short period of time.” Strong emphasis was placed on the fact that although naturalization of foreign athletes is a suggestion on the surface, it actually was a prerequisite by the IIHF in exchange for the qualification that would be given to the South Korean men’s team. Yonhap News Agency (November 20, 2016) explained the results:

Among the three requirements suggested by the IIHF, the second was recruiting seven foreign players with specific positions: One goalie, three defensemen, and three forwards.…After the KIHA accomplished all three requirements, the IIHF approved the qualification of the South Korean men’s team for the 2018 Olympic Games at the general meeting in 2014.

By reporting that satisfying the IIHF’s suggestions was the right thing to do for the nation’s Olympic success, the media perpetuated a potential avenue for the naturalization strategy to avoid possible negative repercussions by the South Korean public.

Once the IIHF’s suggestions were framed as requirements of necessity, the media began to extend the discussion to a much more positive interpretation. The 2018 Olympics were framed as an opportunity to develop South Korean ice hockey, as reported in Seoul Economic Daily (June 19, 2016): “The Olympic Games in our nation could be a great opportunity to build a robust system of ice hockey, including not only athletes but also coaching staff and referees.” The media reports emphasized that the Olympic project included the revision of the South Korean nationality law that had a goal to recruit foreign athletes more easily. Olympic success was regarded as important as revising federal laws, which is usually a matter that takes time, effort, and legitimation. The Korea Times (March 23, 2015) articulated: “In 2011, the government revised the nationality law to give skilled immigrants South Korean citizenship. Since then, 70 foreigners have acquired citizenship.” More specific information regarding what would be considered as a “skill” in the law was also provided in The Korea Times (September 11, 2016): “The government revised the Nationality Law to accept foreign talent in science, technology, sports [emphasis added] and other fields.” This connection to the law continued to feature in reports dealing with the naturalization of foreign athletes. The naturalized athletes’ skill and talent was necessary for the development of South Korean men’s ice hockey, through which the nation’s success and excellence would be represented at the 2018 Olympics.

The media also referred to other Olympic host nations’ cases to demonstrate that recruiting foreign athletes has been common particularly for Olympic preparation. The Chosun Daily (April 29, 2016) recounted that “Japan naturalized eight foreign ice hockey athletes for the 1998 Nagano Olympics. Great Britain as well naturalized 15 athletes for the 1994 IIHF World Championships, which was not even held in the nation.” Naver Sports (April 18, 2014) also mentioned Japan’s case:

For the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics, Japan naturalized seven players even though the team was automatically qualified for the Olympics. An automatic berth for host nation’s men’s ice hockey team was available back then. However, they made the decision to build an Olympic success. With a great performance of the naturalized athletes, then-called “seven samurais,” the Japanese men’s team recorded one tie and four losses in the Nagano Games.

The Olympic success discourse was formed and reinforced to legitimize the special case of athlete naturalization and to mitigate any negative repercussions from the South Korean public. The major focus of the discourse was on the nationalistic argument that “our” nation of South Korea needs this naturalization to be successful at the upcoming Games. In 2011 when South Korea began Olympic preparation, the South Korean government started to approve holding dual nationalities by the nationality law (N. Lee, 2010). Before 2011, athletes who wanted to obtain South Korean nationality must have given up their original nationality. However, to recruit more skilled athletes into the national team, the South Korean government loosened the nationality law. Maguire (1999) and Roche (2000) argued that an increasing number of nations have been using sport for building a national identity and in promoting nationalism. Particularly, the Olympic Games provide a space where nations develop both international and national representation (Y. Cho, 2009). The concept of Olympic nationalism explains that the event acts as the most significant space for nations to elevate their international recognition as well as to promote their own citizens’ patriotic nationalism, as the event is operated in an extremely nationalistic fashion (J. W. Lee & Maguire, 2009; Tomlinson, 1996). The Olympic success discourse formed by South Korean media actively engaged with promoting Olympic nationalism. Within this discourse, the success of the South Korean men’s ice hockey team was equated with the success of the nation itself. The team’s success, which was relatively minor considering the number of events at the Olympics, was nonetheless elevated to representing the status of the nation as a successful country.

According to J. W. Lee (2015), historically there have been three types of South Korean nationalism: Postcolonial anti-imperialistic nationalism, pan-ethnic Korean nationalism, and South Korean state patriotic nationalism. The state patriotic nationalism is the root of the Olympic nationalism as it has deeply influenced the nation’s sport development policies and practices. Hosting and excelling at major international sport events like the Olympic Games were important aspects of upholding the state patriotic nationalism. The Olympic success discourse confirms that state patriotic nationalism and Olympic nationalism are still important parts of South Korean nationalism. On the other hand, upholding nationalism with the naturalized athletes demonstrates that state patriotic and Olympic nationalism challenged, reconfigured, or overrode ethnic nationalism, as Olympic success was presented as a more significant issue than regulating and limiting athletes’ ethnicity to Koreanness. As Choe (2006) discussed, nations with conspicuous state-centered national identity put importance on achieving national projects and committing to national interests. South Korea, which previously represented a strong ethnic-centered national identity, was gradually shifting into building a state-centered identity due to its dedication to the national project—having success at the home Olympic Games.

Legitimation 2: Naturalized Athletes will Help South Korean Ice Hockey Excel

The second discourse highlighted the naturalized athletes’ exceptional contribution to the South Korean men’s ice hockey team. A substantial number of interviews of government officials, especially from the Ministry of Justice which governs the naturalization processes, and the officials of the Korean Olympic Committee and the KIHA were quoted in the reports. The reports consistently delivered very positive opinions and expectations shared by the officials. The Korea Times (March 23, 2015) mentioned: “The Ministry of Justice said it has approved their [foreign athletes’] naturalization to help our nation better compete at the 2018 Olympics.” Another example is The Korea Times’ report (September 11, 2016): “The Korean Olympic Committee has said foreign-born players would help improve the overall competitiveness of South Korean athletes in winter sports, particularly those where few South Korean athletes have excelled in previous Olympics.” Lastly, Aju Business Daily (March 31, 2016) quoted a KIHA associate: “The six naturalized players will bolster our ice hockey performance.” By reporting positive perspectives of the officials with authority, South Korean media formed another legitimation discourse that naturalized athletes would significantly contribute to the South Korean men’s ice hockey team as well as to South Korean sports in general. The media actively engaged in framing the naturalized athletes as “talented professionals.” These framing practices operated as a way of inducing and encouraging public approval and support for the naturalization process itself as well as for the naturalized athletes.

As a way of concretizing the discourse, the media equated the presence of the naturalized athletes on the team with the team’s improved international competitiveness. Yonhap News Agency (November 20, 2016) reported: “Currently there are six naturalized athletes playing on our men’s national ice hockey team. One from the United States and five from Canada, they pulled up the level of South Korean ice hockey very quickly.” At the 2016 IIHF World Championships and at the 2016 Euro Ice Hockey Challenge, the South Korean team beat Japan, Austria, and Hungary for the first time. Reporting these historical moments, South Korean media highlighted the contribution of naturalized athletes to the success, as exemplified by Yonhap News Agency:

Our men’s national ice hockey team beat Japan for the first time in the last 34 years.…In this Championship, naturalized athletes scored six goals, which was more than half of the total of 11 goals our team scored. The goalie, our chief gatekeeper, was also a naturalized athlete originally from Canada.

JoongAng Ilbo (April 14, 2015) reported on a game against Estonia at the 2015 IIHF World Championships: “Naturalized athletes have become the core performers of the national team…Mike Testwuide and Michael Swift made the most contribution to today’s victory.” While highlighting the achievements of naturalized athletes, domestic athletes born in South Korea received limited attention from the media even though they scored three goals at the game (IIHF, n.d.).

Delving into the discourse’s more specific details, we found that there were three particular logics behind credits given to naturalized athletes. First was the fact that they were born, raised, and trained in one of the ice hockey powerhouses, namely the United States or Canada, where they acquired advanced playing skills and built up extensive game experiences. Munhwa Daily (November 7, 2016) reported: “As naturalized athletes from the United States and Canada, advanced countries in ice hockey, have joined our national team, its performance level has been remarkably enhanced.” Canada and the United States were also named as “the home of ice hockey” where advanced systems, coaching staff, and resources are much more available than South Korea. Segye Daily (January 1, 2015) wrote: “Naturalized athletes play North American style advanced ice hockey they learned from the home of the sport, the United States and Canada, and this is giving us hope. Our team is expected to excel at the 2018 Olympics.” Within this configuration of advanced (i.e., developed) and non-advanced (i.e., underdeveloped) hockey systems, South Korean ice hockey and the performance of domestic athletes were implicitly downgraded to being rudimentary. The media rhetorically labeled South Korea with relatively negative words including “wasteland of ice hockey,” “un(der)developed,” “periphery,” “long way to go,” and “an ice hockey desert.” Meanwhile, the homelands of naturalized athletes were described using words such as “advanced,” “developed,” “the home,” and “the center” of ice hockey.

The second logic was an emphasis placed on the naturalized athletes’ previous careers they developed before coming to South Korea. Brian Young had a playing career in the NHL, and Matt Dalton, Mike Testwuide, and Brock Radunske had been drafted in the NHL although they did not play on the ice. In addition, five athletes, including Dalton and Testwuide, had played in either the American Hockey League (AHL) or the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL, the Russian professional ice hockey league). This logic was often accompanied by the first logic because of the overlapping geographical boundaries of the leagues (NHL and AHL) with the athletes’ homelands. South Korean Media frequently mentioned that naturalized athletes were drafted in the NHL and that they had played in higher-level leagues where they obtained superior playing techniques. Their career in the advanced leagues was evidence of their skill and performance, which would ultimately contribute to the development of South Korean ice hockey. Sports Chosun (April 28, 2016) exemplified this point:

When screening the athletes’ applications for naturalization, how much they will and can contribute to the development of South Korean ice hockey was considered the most. Brian Young had experiences in the NHL. Earlier in his career, he was drafted by the Edmonton Oilers and played 17 games. Other players had played in AHL and European leagues.…Their performance and capacity have already been approved at the world’s best league.

Yonhap News Agency (November 20, 2016) provided detailed information on Dalton’s previous career in the KHL:

From Ontario, Canada, Dalton was drafted by the Boston Bruins, one of the NHL’s most prestigious teams. Although he did not have a chance to compete on the ice, he later joined and played for three years in the KHL, which is the second most advanced league in the world.…Dalton’s naturalization is expected to play a great part in strengthening the national team’s defensive power.

Testwuide’s previous career was even deliberately manipulated to highlight his athletic capacity. Although he was not drafted in the NHL but signed a two-year entry-level contract with the Philadelphia Flyers (Elite Hockey Prospects, n.d.), South Korean media reported that he was drafted by one of the NHL teams. KookMin Daily (March 23, 2015) outlined:

Testwuide’s naturalization was a part of the strengthening project for the men’s national ice hockey team. He was drafted to the NHL’s Philadelphia Flyers in 2010. In the AHL, he scored 34 goals and assisted 39 goals during three seasons.…Recognizing his excellent career and playing skill, head coach Paek requested Testwuide’s naturalization to the Ministry of Justice.

Along with the first logic, the second logic embodies the hierarchical configuration of ice hockey, putting the homelands of naturalized athletes in a superior position and South Korea in an inferior position. Leagues in North America (NHL and AHL) as well as in Europe (KHL) were described as a site where advanced athletes showcased powerful upper-level hockey. The media produced a favorable expectation that the naturalized athletes’ performances would add advanced skills and techniques to the South Korean national team. Their previous careers in the North American and European leagues were praised as a source and a proof of their superiority.

The last logic points out the superior physicality and strengths of naturalized athletes. This logic was often supported by an implicit comparison with domestic athletes who were assumed to be less tall and less strong. The media provided specific numbers when they introduced the superior physicality of the naturalized athletes, usually referring to their heights and weights. When Radunske became the first naturalized player on the team in 2013, Hankook Daily (March 27, 2013) highlighted that Radunske is 196 cm tall and will be the tallest player on the team. Later in 2016, when Testwuide’s naturalization was approved, The Hankyoreh (March 8, 2016) led with a title line of “196 cm sweeping on the ice,” and related:

The naturalized forward, Mike Testwuide, has overwhelming hardware: his body. He is 196 cm tall and weighs 95 kg. This superior physicality drives his capacity to score more than others. His joining our national team is significantly contributing to pulling up the strength.

The naturalized goalie, Dalton, received positive expectations from the media right after his naturalization was approved. The Kyunghyang Shinmun (November 16, 2014) reported: “Matt Dalton, from Canada, is a tall goalie with a height of 187 cm and a weight of 89 kg. After his joining the national team, our goalpost will be stronger than ever before.”

Stuart Hall (2016) critically pointed out that “discursive ‘knowledge’ is the product not of the transparent representation of the ‘real’ in language but of the articulation of language on real relations and conditions” (p. 167). This processed discourse articulated the relationship between the developed and the underdeveloped in the sport of ice hockey—respectively, homelands of the naturalized athletes and South Korea. The media’s positive expectation about the future of South Korean ice hockey was derived from their belief in the power of the hockey “center” and potential contribution. The expectation was going to be satisfied by the naturalization of foreign athletes, who allegedly came to South Korea to pass down their advanced skills and experiences learned from the “center” of ice hockey. Here, what was implicitly delivered with the discourse was that these athletes were racially white, the typical stereotype of great ice hockey players. Ice hockey has been considered as a predominantly white sport that symbolizes whiteness and masculinity (Allain, 2008; Robidoux, 2001). As Twine and Gallagher (2008) pointed out, white foreigners have the privilege and power that transmit white cultural products to Asian countries. In this case, white naturalized athletes delivered the sport of ice hockey to South Korea, where their physical superiority is credited as strong, tall, big, tough, aggressive, and unbreakable compared to their relatively weaker counterparts—South Korean-born athletes (Poniatowski & Whiteside, 2012). Cho (2014) argued that citizenship is complexly and selectively granted. Compared to Erupe, a Kenyan-born marathoner who applied for South Korean citizenship, white athletes did not have much difficulty in being granted South Korean citizenship and accepted by the public. Choi (2020) indicated that flexible citizenship practices are constituted and complicated by intricate negotiations with race, gender, class, sexuality, and nationality. While Erupe’s blackness was considered insufficient condition to be a South Korean, the hockey players’ whiteness was the opposite. We see that the South Korean domestic racial structure that “prefers and normalizes white identity” (Choi, 2020, p. 374) continues to remain and operate in the context of athlete naturalization and citizenship practices.

In another vein, we argue that this discourse was embedded with the concept of neoliberalism in the era of neoliberal globalization (Fairclough, 2006; Spector, 2007). Naturalized athletes’ origin, career, and superior physicality were emphasized as justifiable reasons for which the Ministry of Justice of South Korea permitted the special case of naturalization. The athletes were qualified as “skilled” by the South Korean nationality law with their talent and expected contribution to the national team. They were described as “exceptions” to the Law, to borrow the concept “neoliberal exceptions” advanced by Ong (2006). Ong (2006) argued that as neoliberalism had been adopted as a governing structure of Asian countries, foreign individuals who can create profit and value are exempted from responsibilities and duties that are obligated to the general public. South Korean government’s revising the nationality law to allow for a special case of naturalization for exceptional foreign talents, which permitted the naturalization of “talented professionals” from abroad, can be considered as a neoliberal reform. Talented professionals were expected to contribute to South Korea through creating different types of values. Thus, they—including the foreign ice hockey athletes—were exempted from regulations and the naturalization test because they were skilled enough to contribute to the nation. The use of “special case,” in this case the naturalization for exceptional foreign talents, epitomizes what Ong (2006) demonstrated as neoliberal strategies to govern and re-engineer a nation’s populations. These strategies allow exceptions to business as usual and reconfigure the citizenship and nationality-related practices. Skilled individuals are guaranteed citizenship (e.g., engineers, high-level athletes), while those whose knowledge and skills are not assigned market value (e.g., migrant women working as domestic maids in many Asian cities) are denied citizenship. What the naturalized athletes had—and what South Korean domestic athletes did not have—was their marketable skills that they obtained from the advanced center of ice hockey, which was assigned a significant market value in South Korea (i.e., the potential to increase the national team’s world ranking).

Legitimation 3: Koreanness

The final discourse focuses on the Koreanness of the naturalized athletes. This discourse was formed through naming of the athletes and detailed descriptions of their pro-Korean behaviors. South Korean media actively created the athletes’ Koreanness through portraying the athletes’ daily life and behaviors as engaged with Korean culture, that is, “being Korean.” After the athletes’ applications for naturalization were approved by the government, the media began to denote the athletes as “Taegeuk Warriors.” Taegeuk is a Korean traditional symbol that is also used as an important element of the South Korean national flag, Taegeukgi. Taegeuk Warrior is not a new word, as the term has been used to describe South Korean national athletes, usually males, for a long time. Because Taegeuk is an exclusive Korean symbol with ethnic nuance, calling the naturalized athletes Taegeuk Warriors was a way of expanding the boundary of the term. The media used the same phrase for naturalized athletes, but with an addition of “blue eyes” to describe their different phenotypes: “Taegeuk Warriors with blue eyes.” JoongAng Ilbo (February 10, 2016) wrote: “Six Taegeuk Warriors with blue eyes declared that they would be the core power of South Korean ice hockey.” By calling them Taegeuk Warriors with blue eyes, the media engaged in inviting the naturalized athletes into the boundary of “our” athletes, consequently producing expanded Koreanness by using texts and symbols.

The naturalized athletes’ pro-Korean behaviors were frequently covered by the media as well. There were several categories to which the media paid attention: (a) the athletes’ new identity as Koreans, (b) their acquisition of Korean language, (c) their intimacy toward Korean culture, and (d) their patriotism and commitment to South Korea. Frequently reported in the media was that the athletes gave themselves new Korean names. Sports Chosun (April, 28, 2016) reported:

Four of them even have their Korean names. Matt Dalton, goalie, is Han Ra-seong (한라성), meaning a strong gatekeeper who guards South Korean team’s goalpost. Brock Radunske is Ra Dong-su (라동수), using the first two letters of his last name as his Korean last name, and Dong-su means that Brock wants to be water of the East. Mike Testwuide is Gang Tae-san (강태산), meaning he will overpower opposing teams. Eric Regan is Han I-geon (한이건), transliteration of his English name into Korean, and the last name “Han” coming from the name of his respective South Korean professional team.

That the athletes were striving to learn Korean was a major story in the media as well. To show the public how well the athletes spoke Korean, a number of videos broadcasting reports were produced in which naturalized athletes were complimented on their ability to speak rudimentary Korean, such as self-introduction or greetings. The images of the athletes wearing Korean traditional clothing, Hanbok, were captured by broadcasting cameras. In the reports, how much the athletes love Korean culture was heavily emphasized. Their love of Korean food, especially spicy food, and their learning of Korean customs and norms were in the spotlight. The Chosun Ilbo (April 29, 2016) wrote: “These naturalized athletes had no tie to Korea. However, for now, they love Korean food like Kimchi fried rice, and they bow when taking their hats off to older people.” By delivering their Koreanness, these reports had a clear goal to alleviate potentially negative public repercussions on the naturalization of athletes without Korean ancestry (e.g., protests and campaigns requesting protection of domestic athletes). Therefore, the discourse ultimately served to expand the imagined community of South Koreans (Anderson, 2006) by blurring the boundary between a Korean with Korean ancestry and a Korean without Korean ancestry. However, the discourse also shows that South Korea still partially held to ethnic nationalism because the athletes’ becoming similar to ethnic Koreans was celebrated.

As discussed earlier, ethnic Koreans have had a very concrete concept of the homogeneity of bloodline (Shin et al., 1999), which had positioned South Korea as an ethnonational state (Muller, 2008). The country has been more multicultural, particularly after 2006 when inbound immigration surpassed the outbound (H. Kim & Kim, 2016), which is why we argue that the status of South Korean nationalism is continuously shifting and thus very complex. Being ethnic Korean has meant that one possesses a homogenous bloodline (i.e., Korean ancestry), speaks the Korean language, and practices (imagined) Korean culture and lifestyle (Ha, 2018). The naturalized athletes did not have a Korean ancestry, and the media instead focused on the other two conditions: their acquisition of Korean language and practice of Korean culture. In doing so, the long-standing belief on the homogenous bloodline of Koreans was compromised—where civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism intersect and negotiate. The demand for bloodline homogeneity had been weakened as racially and ethnically different athletes were approved as part of the country and the national team. South Korea’s imagined community was expanded to accept non-ethnic Koreans. Imagined Koreanness was expanded as it became represented by ethnically different individuals. However, the individuals were asked to eat, wear, greet, and speak like ethnic Koreans, which evidenced lingering ethnic nationalism despite the rising of civic nationalism. The media reports cited were attempts to dilute these athletes’ alienness by stressing their connection with and commitment to South Korea. The naturalized athletes’ alleged commitment to South Korea was needed to harmonize them with Koreanness because they did not have Korean ancestry.

Lastly, the athletes’ patriotism toward South Korea despite the fact that none of them had any ancestral or cultural tie to the country was highlighted by the media. Emphasis was placed on their appreciation of being South Korean and their declaration of Korea as their second homeland. That they put South Korea in a place of the “second” homeland, not the first, did not bother the South Korean media. Rather, it was highlighted that even though the athletes do not have Korean ancestry, they still consider South Korea as “one” of their homelands. In doing so, the media frequently stressed their endeavors to be part of South Korean society and culture, of which they have not been aware before naturalization. The Dong-A Ilbo (April 19, 2013) wrote:

When South Korean athletes were saluting Taegeukgi (South Korean national flag), Radunske saluted naturally and sang “Aegukga” (South Korean national anthem). The South Korean cheering squad said that Radunske is almost a South Korean by looking at his behavior.…Originally from Canada, Radunske is the first naturalized foreign athlete without Korean ancestry competing on the South Korean national team. Before Radunske, all naturalized foreign athletes were either biracial/biethnic Koreans, Chinese Koreans, or with another Asian ancestry.

Their dual commitment, which is explained as an attribute of transnational migration in the literature (Fitzgerald, 2004), is the case of dual nationalism (Laguerre, 1998) as they identified with two distinct nations (i.e., sending and receiving). The media was open to the fact that South Korea was not the only nation the athletes held commitment to; rather, openness was apparent and narrow nationalism was tacitly ousted. On the other hand, the media’s active engagement in emphasizing the athletes’ Koreanization shows an intricate intersection of ethnic and civic nationalism. The athletes were accepted as Koreans without Korean ancestry, but still the media and the public wanted to confirm their ethnic Koreanness. Similar to what Yi (2015) and J. Kim (2018) argued in their studies on Viktor Ahn, we found that there was still a shift of nationalism, or an emergence of a hybrid type of nationalism. Different races and ethnicities could be embraced as part of South Korea, but in the end the confirmation of their ethnic learning and consequently transition is required to be accepted as “us.”

Conclusion

This study aimed to critically explore South Korean media discourses surrounding the naturalization of foreign athletes who thereafter joined the South Korean men’s national ice hockey team. We tried to unpack the process of deconstruction and reconstruction of South Korean nationalism and national identity through the special cases of athlete naturalization. Answering our two research questions, we suggested three themes: A need for Olympic success as a host nation, naturalized athletes’ superior athletic performance and career, and their acculturation into Korean culture. Interesting to note, there was no difference among the media outlets regardless of their political orientations—criticism was not found from the media reports. We suggest that this consistency is related to the role of sport and the social class of White foreigners in South Korea. According to J. W. Lee (2015), sport has been a highly nationalistic practice throughout South Korean history. Sport was an important part in forming “a modern sense of Korean nationhood” and was a cultural scene through which “a specific sense of the nation and nationalism is collectively imagined” (J. W. Lee, 2015, p. 180). The South Korean government’s sport development programs and sport policies have been oriented to elite, high-performance level that is closely related to a nationalistic political mechanism (Cha, 2009; Joo, 2012; J. Lee, 2002). Therefore, when it comes to the national interests such as national teams’ excelling at the Olympic Games, the public and the media join the government to support whatever is needed to achieve the nation’s sporting goal. Also, in this case, that the athletes were racially white might have played a role. Ahn (2014) pointed out that race has rarely been discussed in (East) Asia where nationality has always been a more significant marker of racial differences. The focus on naturalized athletes in this study penetrates the undiscussed racial politics in South Korea, which have positioned white foreigners and celebrities as hip and cool, transnational, and talented that represent “Cosmopolitan Whiteness” (Saraswati, 2010, p. 15). Thus, when reporting the naturalization of athletes from Canada and the United States, the media tended to be more generous and supporting than in reporting the case of other athletes of color.

Theoretically, this discourse analysis of South Korean media on the naturalized ice hockey athletes helps increase our understanding of complex, dynamic yet selective, and multitudinous representations and manifestations of national and ethnic identity, citizenship practices, and nationalism in association with the global migration of athletic talents. In essence, the process of granting South Korean citizenship and expanding the boundaries of national and ethnic identity to embrace North American-born athletes evidences deconstruction of the belief of homogenous bloodline and reconstruction of the South Korean imagined community. The study also helps identify theoretically meaningful yet relatively underexplored sports and the national media’s power to shift the preferred representation of national identity and nationalism. As globalization continues, the form of sporting nationalism is constantly changing. More often than not, by encapsulating foreign-born athletes’ cosmopolitan values as flexible citizenship, national media and their way of reporting imaginatively and narratively symbolize athletes, and as a result they galvanize powerful nationalistic—in whatever forms—fervor. This study delved into this understudied area and argues that media discourses both evidenced and reinforced the process through which traditional ethnic nationalism and sporting nationalism of South Korea had been in fluctuation at the intersection of Olympic success, athletic talent, ethnicity, and imagined Koreanness.

We acknowledge limitations of this study. Given that we collected data from two databases, despite the fact that they are the top two media portals in South Korea, some reports may have been missed from data collection. There could have been loss of meanings in the translation process of the reports from Korean to English. Future research ideas could include examining the aftermath of the 2018 Olympic Games. None of the naturalized athletes won a medal at the Olympics, and a considerable number of them left South Korea; some even gave up their South Korean citizenship. As South Korean media began to criticize the shortcomings of athlete naturalization, investigating the change of discourse can be an interesting future research avenue. Another idea can be examining other cases of athletes’ migration and/or naturalization, particularly in relation to the increasing impact of globalization in international sports. As a growing number of athletes cross national borders and shift their citizenship to be qualified for prime international sport competitions, how exporting nations and importing nations (re)articulate the politics of belonging becomes a more significant area to explore. We hope that this study stimulates further engagement with media discourses which can have a tremendous impact on negotiating different identities and ideologies.