Browse

What happens when modern sports systems in noncore sports nations have undergone extended globalization? In this article, I draw on glocalization theory, particularly Roland Robertson and Richard Giulianotti’s “duality of glocality” to explore the historical developments of the K League, South Korea’s men’s professional football league, launched in 1983. There are many reasons the K League has not yet firmly established its status: (a) the league imposed continuous rule changes on foreign field players while banning foreign goalkeepers, (b) the league introduced a distinct competition structure partially adopted from its Western counterparts, (c) a supporter culture was established which has a similar outlook to that of other supporter cultures but it had a different internal structure, and (d) the league produced media content reflecting local viewer needs while maintaining a structure similar to Western media formats. The notion of a two-step glocalization, the process of heterogenization followed by homogenization with other cultures based on the things that were already heterogenized for a lengthy period, is used to advance the debate on glocalization and to better understand the reasons for the failure to attract K League spectators since its establishment in 1983.

The iconic image of Tommie Smith and John Carlos standing on the podium, with bowed heads, black-gloved fists in the air during the playing of the American national anthem at the 1968 Summer Olympic Games in Mexico City, is a symbol of resistance and the civil rights movement. This symbolic activism was part of a larger movement, the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR) that was led by Dr. Harry Edwards. The movement was designed to be a nonviolent protest against the inhumane treatment of Black men in the United States. While Edwards and several of the track-and-field athletes worked to create awareness of their fight, a small group of rowers out of Harvard University also took notice. The Harvard men’s eight was the crew selected to represent the United States at the 1968 Games in Mexico, and shortly after their selection, a number of the men decided that they too wanted to support the initiative that Edwards had started. In their attempt to prove that they were indeed allies to the Black athletes on the American team, the men met with Edwards and decided to send letters to each person selected to represent the United States at the 1968 Games in Mexico that outlined the plight of the Black American athletes. However, while their intentions may have been honorable, many within the OPHR movement did not agree with the involvement of the Harvard rowers. Several members argued that these privileged White men had no right to be involved and their initiative was unwanted. This raises important discussions surrounding allyship; more specifically what constitutes an ally compared to the “great white hope?” This paper uses Edward’s concept of allyship and the oblivious possessive investment of whiteness and critically examines the Harvard men’s support of the OPHR movement in 1968.