Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Sport is one of the most consequential domains in contemporary social life and the organizational landscape (Dowling et al., 2023). It is a site where economic interests, political ambitions, and social identities intersect; where questions of governance, legitimacy, ethics, and corruption become visible; and where boundaries between markets, civil society, and the state are continually negotiated. Although deeply embedded in organizational practice and public life, its systematic study within organization studies has only recently accelerated (Fonti et al., 2023), prompting a surge of sport-focused research (e.g., Aversa et al., 2022; Helms & Patterson, 2014; Micelotta et al., 2018; Munir et al., 2021). Viewed as “a microcosm of societal dynamics” (Aversa et al., 2025, p. 145), sport settings provide a unique lens for examining contemporary societal, technological, and cultural transformations and their organizational implications (Day et al., 2012).

Yet sport-related scholarship remains dispersed across organizational research (Wolfe et al., 2005). This sub-theme thus seeks to convene scholars who view sport not merely as a metaphor for organization or as an interesting application field, but as a fertile empirical and theoretical site that can inform, challenge, and extend dominant paradigms in organization studies. We invite work that positions sport as a distinctive field in its own right—one in which key issues of power, identity, coordination, legitimacy, and institutional change are magnified and accelerated. Several developments make sport an especially promising case for organizational inquiry:

First, sport is a rapidly expanding global industry and a leading entertainment genre. Growing digitalization, financialization, and mediatization are reshaping organizational forms and value creation (Firth et al., 2025). Streaming platforms like DAZN and YouTube disrupt traditional broadcasting and revenue models, while analytics tools transform decision-making and athlete evaluation. The rise of betting platforms (e.g., DraftKings, FanDuel) has created new data-driven ecosystems that blur boundaries between sport, finance, and entertainment. Together, these shifts make sport a paradigmatic setting for studying professionalization, commodification, and organizational transformation (Millington & Millington, 2015).

Second, sport is deeply entwined with geopolitical and domestic politics (Beissel & Andrews, 2022; Bitektine et al., 2025). Mega-events act as instruments of nation branding and conflict diplomacy, exemplified by Qatar’s 2022 World Cup and the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Federations such as FIFA and the IOC function as quasi-global governance bodies balancing commercial and political pressures, visible in recurring host-selection controversies. Domestic politics similarly shape sport through regulatory and symbolic conflicts, including debates over athlete protests, public funding for elite sport, and taxpayer-financed stadiums.

Third, fan communities and grassroots sport movements underscore the social embeddedness of organizations and the performative construction of collective identities (Hanappi-Egger, 2024). Supporter groups such as Dortmund’s Yellow Wall or Boca Juniors’ La Doce show how rituals and choreographies generate emotionally charged identities. Fan mobilization has also become a potent force of resistance, evident in protests against the 2021 European Super League and the #GlazersOut campaign. Initiatives such as “Football Welcomes Refugees” use sport to express political commitments and promote inclusion. These cases illustrate how emotions and moral claims shape participation and resistance (Nigam et al., 2025).

Fourth, sport is a crucial empirical setting for examining misconduct, corruption, and legitimacy repair (Gibel & Überbacher, 2025). Scandals involving governance failures, financial irregularities, and human rights abuses reveal dynamics of institutional complexity, decoupling, and moral justification. Professional cycling’s long doping crisis, culminating in Lance Armstrong’s fall, illustrates how anti-doping regimes can be systematically bypassed. Such cases provide rich ground for theorizing accountability, transparency, and field resilience amid crisis and change.

Finally, sport increasingly contributes to a broad range of pressing issues from sustainability and inclusion to peacebuilding and humanitarian action (Piggott et al., 2024). Competitions like Formula E and SailGP position themselves as laboratories for sustainable technology and low-carbon innovation. Inclusion initiatives, such as the UEFA Women’s Football Strategy, the NBA’s racial-justice programs, and the International Paralympic Committee’s disability-sport campaigns, show how organizations use moral legitimacy to advance equity and representation. Examining how sport organizations mobilize legitimacy, manage multistakeholder expectations, and implement transnational initiatives offers insights into broader societal issues.

We welcome theoretical, empirical, and conceptual contributions engaging with, but not limited to, the following themes:

• Organizational and institutional dynamics of professional sport industries

• Theorizing sport as a field of global governance and geopolitical negotiation

• Digitalization, datafication, and the transformation of sporting practices and physical performance

• Sport fandom and grassroots movements as organizational forms and moral communities

• Corruption, legitimacy, and governance reforms in sports organizations

• Sport’s role in advancing (or obstructing) sustainability, gender equality, diversity, inclusion, and peace

• Cross-sectoral and comparative analyses linking sport to broader organizational phenomena

This sub-theme aims to establish sport as fertile empirical terrain and theoretical laboratory for organization studies, a setting in which enduring questions about power, identity, change, and morality can be reimagined.
 

• Aversa, P., Furnari, S., & Jenkins, M. (2022). The primordial soup: Exploring the emotional micro-foundations of cluster genesis. Organization Science, 33(4), 1251–1699.
• Aversa, P., Moliterno, T. P., Rockmann, K. W., Bothner, M. S., Sharapov, D., & Eckardt, R. (2025). Exploring new playing fields: Sports settings and management theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries, 11(2), 145–151.
• Beissel, A., & Andrews, D. L. (2022). Sport, globalization, and glocalization. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and society (pp. 173–193). Oxford University Press.
• Bitektine, A., Dolbec, P.-Y., Martins, M., & Kruidenier, S. (2025). Temporary regulations and institutional change: Insights from the Brazilian World Cup experience. Academy of Management Journal, 68(6). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.1135
• Bothner, M., Kang, J., & Stuart, T. (2007). Competitive crowding and risk taking in a tournament: Evidence from NASCAR racing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(2), 208–247.
• Day, D. V., Gordon, S., & Fink, C. (2012). The sporting life: Exploring organizations through the lens of sport. Academy of Management Annals, 6, 397–433.
• Dowling, M., Robertson, J., Washington, M., Leopkey, B., Ellis, D., Riches, A., & Smith, L. (2023). “Like ships in the night” and the paradox of distinctiveness for sport management: A citation network analysis of institutional theory in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 37(6), 403–416.
• Firth, C., Portell, G., Hashem, M., & Parkin, D. (2025). From passion to profit: Unlocking value in sports. Kearney Analysis. https://www.kearney.com/industry/media/article/from-passion-to-profit-unlocking-value-in-sports
• Fonti, F., Ross, J. M., & Aversa, P. (2023). Using sports data to advance management research: A review and a guide for future studies. Journal of Management, 49(1), 325–362.
• Gibel, R., & Überbacher, F. (2025). Political drift as organizational response to institutional complexity: The case of FIFA. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2025(1).
• Hanappi-Egger, E. (2024). Passion and profit: The dynamics of soccer fandom and management. Springer.
• Helms, W. S., & Patterson, K. D. (2014). Eliciting acceptance for “illicit” organizations: The positive implications of stigma for MMA organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1453–1484.
• Micelotta, E., Washington, M., & Docekalova, I. (2018). Industry gender imprinting and new venture creation: The liabilities of women’s leagues in the sports industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 94–128.
• Millington, B., & Millington, R. (2015). “The datafication of everything”: Toward a sociology of sport and big data. Sociology of Sport Journal, 32(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2014-0069
• Munir, K., Ansari, S., & Brown, D. (2021). From Patañjali to the “Gospel of Sweat”: Yoga’s remarkable transformation from a sacred movement into a thriving global market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(3), 854–899.
• Nigam, A., Amis, J., & Logue, D. (2025). People as institutions or why Taylor Swift rules the world. Organization Theory, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877251398547
• Piggott, L. V., Hovden, J., & Knoppers, A. (2024). Why organization studies should care more about gender exclusion and inclusion in sport organizations. In S. Clegg, M. Grothe-Hammer, & K. S. Velarde (Eds.), Sociological thinking in contemporary organizational scholarship (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 90, pp. 201–226). Emerald Publishing.
• Suarez, F., & Montes, J. (2019). An integrative perspective of organizational responses: Routines, heuristics, and improvisations in a Mount Everest expedition. Organization Science, 30(3), 573–599.
• Wolfe, R. A., Weick, K. E., Usher, J. M., Terborg, J. R., Poppo, L., Murrell, A. J., Dukerich, J. M., Core, D. C., Dickson, K. E., & Jourdan, J. S. (2005). Sport and organizational studies: Exploring synergy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 182–210.
• Wright, A., & Zammuto, R. (2013). Wielding the willow: Processes of institutional change in English county cricket. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 308–330.
• Zhang, L. (2017). A fair game? Racial bias and repeated interaction between NBA coaches and players. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 603–625.