Social media has undergone a remarkable transformation over time and has become an integral part of modern human communication. It evolved from being a tool adopted by individuals for personal communication to a networking platform that captured the interest of large organizations across the globe, leading them to establish dedicated social media departments to achieve their organizational goals. Initially, social media was considered a fad, but its platforms gradually gained traction and popular appeal with their growing and diverse capabilities and features. Organizations started creating social media business pages to share updates, deals, and news with followers. In the beginning, many organizations approached social media management informally, experimenting with various tactics to determine what worked best for their organization and its target audiences. Some relied on traditional communication and marketing techniques, treating social media as an additional channel for distributing messages, while others engaged directly with audiences, providing real-time support, addressing inquiries, and responding to feedback.
Over time, as the popularity of social media grew, organizations began to recognize its significant value. This realization led to the adoption of a more formal approach to social media management, which resulted in the establishment of specialized social media teams or departments within organizations. Today, organizations leverage modern technologies and tools, such as analytics tools, content creation tools, and scheduling tools, to optimize their social media efforts. They also make data-informed decisions based on metrics such as engagement rate, reach, impressions, and conversions. Contemporary social media management practices include content creation and curation, audience segmentation and personalization, paid advertising, influencer marketing, social listening and monitoring, online community management, and platform-specific expertise. Emerging trends also include mobile optimization, live streaming, video-heavy content, data analytics for audience insights, social commerce, and the leveraging of social media influencers. Several factors have driven this transformation over the years, including the shift from dial-up to broadband connections, the transition from desktop to mobile devices, increased data storage capacity, improved digital literacy, the popularity of visual and interactive content, and the move from static to dynamic and live online experiences.
In spite of the rapid proliferation and popularity of social media, critics argue that it poses several threats, including mental health concerns, cyberbullying, data privacy and security risks, copyright infringement, the dissemination of false information and misinformation, and so on. Still the proponents argue that these issues can be mitigated through user awareness, responsible usage, platform regulations, and privacy settings. During the evolution and transformation of social media and its impacts on society over the past two decades, it has brought both opportunities and challenges. This leads to a pertinent scholarly question: To what extent have academic publications explored the realm of sport on social media and the impacts of social media on sport industry? How have such studies evolved? Such a critical investigation of the state and historical evolution of the social media scholarship in sport studies can help clarify assumptions, provide valuable insights, and map future directions. Hence, building upon the study of Abeza et al. (2015) that examined scholarly social media articles in sport studies published between January 2008 and June 2014, this work aims to extend their work and critically review social media research in sport studies published from June 2014 to June 2023. By examining the advancements, strengths, and areas that need improvement, this paper aims to contribute to the ongoing scholarly dialogue and provide valuable insights for future research.
Methods
With the intention of gaining an evidence-informed understanding of the historical development and current status of social media research in sport studies, this work builds upon a census review conducted by Abeza et al. (2015) in the field. However, the focus of this study is on five specific journals: the two leading journals in sport communication, namely the International Journal of Sport Communication (IJSC) and Communication & Sport (C&S), as well as the three leading journals in sport management, namely the Journal of Sport Management (JSM), the Sport Management Review (SMR), and the European Sport Management Quarterly (ESMQ). Singer et al. (2022) acknowledged the SMR, JSM, and ESMQ as the top journals in the field of sport management. Abeza et al.’s review encompassed articles published from 2008 (earliest found) to June 2014, while this study covers a period of 9 years, from June 2014 to June 2023. The study identified 153 original research articles focusing on social media and sport in the five abovementioned journals. Articles pertaining to student research and case studies were included, while other types of publications that did not present original empirical research, such as editorials, interviews, scholarly commentary, conceptual papers, and book reviews, were excluded. Although other publications, including practitioner publications and reports, textbooks and edited volumes, master’s and doctoral dissertations, and conference papers provide valuable information, they were not chosen for inclusion in this study as only peer-reviewed academic journals were considered.
The selection of relevant articles followed a multistep process, as outlined by Baker et al. (2022). Initially, journals published during the study’s timeframe were screened using journal databases, with a focus on the title, abstract, and keyword list of each published article. In the second step, the abstracts were re-read to shortlist articles that were deemed relevant to the study. The lead author and a research assistant independently selected articles relevant to this study. In cases where there was uncertainty about the inclusion of an article, the full texts were read and jointly evaluated. During this later step, six articles were screened and ultimately included. The process identified 153 original research articles, of which 68 (44.4%) were published in the IJSC, 48 (31.4%) in C&S, 14 (9.2%) in SMR, 13 (8.5%) in the JSM, and 10 (6.5%) in the ESMQ. Finally, all selected journal articles were thoroughly read and coded as part of the analysis.
Scholarly knowledge can be assessed by examining its area of research streams or body of literature, the research methods employed, and the use of theory. In this study, two coders (the author and a research assistant) independently conducted the classification of the identified research streams, research methods, platforms, and theories found within the 153 empirical research articles. A codebook, along with corresponding definitions, was developed based on the approach outlined by Abeza et al. (2015) to guide the coding process, which employed both inductive and deductive approaches. Prior to the full analysis, a pilot was conducted to ensure consistency and reliability. The inductive approach was used to categorize the research streams, allowing themes to emerge from the data itself. On the other hand, the deductive approach was used to code the platforms, theories, and methods, and employed predetermined categories based on existing literature and theoretical frameworks. By combining these approaches, this study aims to comprehensively analyze and understand the different research streams, research methods, platforms, and theories represented in the body of empirical research within the field of social media and sport.
Following the inductive approach, the two coders first conducted an independent pilot coding on a randomly selected sample of 10 articles, with two articles chosen from each of the journals. The coders then compared their independently generated coding results from the pilot and discussed any discrepancies until they reached consensus and made necessary adjustments. Subsequently, each coder read through the full length of the remaining articles and classified them into the identified research streams. In cases where an article seemed to fit into multiple research streams, it was assigned to the stream that reflected its main emphasis or primary contribution. Following a deductive approach, the coding of platforms, theories, and methods was conducted using a coding sheet based on the work of Abeza et al. (2015). For example, the coding sheet for the method adopted followed commonly used definitions such as qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and multimethods. Two independent coders then conducted a pilot test on the reliability of the coding sheet after which an intercoder reliability analysis using the kappa statistic was performed (per Neuendorf, 2002). This test determined consistency among raters on each of the platforms (κ = .91), theories (κ = .93), and methods (κ = .91). These scores indicate an acceptable level of intercoder reliability (i.e., coefficients of .80 or greater).
Findings
This section presents findings on the research streams, research contexts, research attention devoted to platforms, theory utilization, and research methods employed. Findings are presented under each subsection below.
Research Streams
The critical review of the literature on social media research in sport studies, encompassing articles published between 2014 and 2023, reveals four distinct research stream categories, namely foundation, features, functionality, and impacts. These categories (see Table 1) provide a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of social media’s influence in the sports domain. The foundation category includes articles that covered the fundamental aspects of social media, including its use, user characteristics, platform adoption, attributes, and perception. The features category articles are those studies that delve into the motivations and acceptance of social media, as well as the determinants of content creation. Similarly, the functionality category articles explored the practical applications of social media in sports, encompassing communication platforms, as an activism platform, a marketing vehicle and its management, a crisis communication medium, and media outlet. Lastly, the studies that fall under the impacts category investigated the wide-ranging consequences of social media use, including its impact on journalism, marketing practices, sport consumption, psychological well-being, race and ethnicity, gender, religion, political issues, and sexual abuse. The summary of the distribution of the research papers by these four research streams is presented in Table 1.
Distribution of Research Papers by Research Stream
| Research stream | Articles | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation | 59 | 38.6 |
| Features | 13 | 8.5 |
| Functionality | 59 | 38.6 |
| Impacts | 22 | 14.4 |
| Total | 153 | 100 |
Foundation
Accounting for 38.6% of the reviewed articles, the foundation category research stream focuses on establishing the groundwork and understanding the foundational aspects of social media in the context of sport studies. These studies explored topics such as the use of social media, characteristics of users, adoption of social media platforms, attributes of social media platforms, and the perception of social media. The studies aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the basic elements and dynamics of social media within the sports context. Among the studies that fall in this category are the work of Geurin-Eagleman and Burch (2016) that examined the ways in which athletes use Instagram as a communication and marketing tool to build their personal brand; Wakefield and Bennett (2018), who investigated factors leading fans to lengthen or shorten the lifespan of their social media content; and Geurin (2017), who explored elite female athletes’ perceptions of new media use relating to their careers.
Features
With only 8.5% of the reviewed articles focusing on it, the features research stream examined the motivations and attitudes driving user engagement with social media and the acceptance of these platforms in the realm of sports. These studies investigated the reasons why users are engaging on social media, examined the constructs of acceptance of social media, and explored the determinants of content creation. The research stream aims to uncover the underlying factors that drive users’ behaviors and interactions on social media platforms related to sports. Among the studies that fall in this category are the work of Spinda and Puckette (2018) that examined the motives for following sports using the social media application Snapchat, Li et al. (2019) that examined the motivational differences in following sport organizations on Twitter and Weibo, and Lewis et al. (2020) that investigated the motivational differences regarding the use of different forms of social media information offerings.
Functionality
In alignment with the proportion of articles (38.6%) that explored the foundational aspect of social media in sport, the functionality research stream encompassed studies that specifically examined the practical aspects and functionalities of social media platforms in the context of sport studies. These studies examined social media as communication platforms within the sports industry, explored the role of social media in activism, investigated its application as a marketing tool and strategy, analyzed the platforms’ management practices, studied social media as a crisis communication tool, and researched its role as a media outlet. Mainly, articles in this research stream attempted to understand how social media platforms can be effectively utilized within the sport industry. The following are some examples: Harrison et al. (2023) explored the advocacy efforts present on social media; Brown-Devlin et al. (2023) examined the extent to which Twitter users mirror the strategies employed by an individual embroiled in a crisis; and Abeza et al. (2019) examined the use, opportunities, and challenges of social media in achieving relationship marketing goals in professional sport.
Impacts
Accounting for 14.4% of the reviewed articles, the impacts research stream focuses on the consequences and effects of social media use within the realm of sport studies. The articles categorized under this research stream investigated the impact of social media on journalism practices; explored the issues and impacts of social media in marketing practices within the sports industry; examined the influence of social media on sport consumption; analyzed the psychological impact of social media use; explored its impact on social aspects such as race, ethnicity, gender, and religion; investigated its role in politics, including free speech and activism; and examined the impact of social media on addressing issues such as sexual abuse. Simply put, articles in this research stream attempted to understand the broader implications and effects of social media use in the sports context. The following are some examples: Lim et al. (2020) examined how the level of humility expressed through athletes’ social media postings and post volume is associated with the athletes’ in-game performance; Kavasoğlu et al. (2023) attempted to understand how Turkish female athletes who are active on Instagram experience cyber violence, the cultural context of that violence, and the ways in which athletes negotiate and struggle with violence; Geurin (2023) examined the social media education provided by national governing bodies of sport; Ahmad and Thorpe (2020) explored the ways Muslim sportswomen are using social media to challenge stereotypical representations and to build community; and Yan et al. (2021) investigated activities of Internet Research Agency bots in the Twitter sphere of the NFL anthem protest.
As shown in Table 2, during the study period, the majority of social media research articles in the field of sport were published in the IJSC (44.4%), followed by C&S (31.4%). Among the top three sport management journals, the SMR (9.2%) consistently published one to three articles a year, totaling 48 articles. Although there was a decline in social media research articles published in the JSM during the study period, the ESMQ increased its publication rate (at least for the past 3 years), releasing three articles a year. Considering the advancement of research questions, the use of theory, the variety of data sources utilized, the richness of data used, and the application of multiple research methods, the social media articles published in C&S deserve high praise.
Number of Social Media Research Articles Published in the Five Journals Over the Period of June 2014 to June 2023
| Journal | Number of social media articles | % |
|---|---|---|
| IJSC | 68 | 44.4 |
| C&S | 48 | 31.4 |
| SMR | 14 | 9.2 |
| JSM | 13 | 8.5 |
| ESMQ | 10 | 6.5 |
| Total | 153 | 100 |
Note. IJSC = International Journal of Sport Communication; C&S = Communication & Sport; SMR = Sport Management Review; JSM = Journal of Sport Management; ESMQ = European Sport Management Quarterly.
Research Contexts
The analysis of different contextual research settings in the reviewed studies reveals that the majority (43.8%) focused on consumers, followed by organizations (23.5%) and athletes (22.2%). The remaining studies (10.5%) examined the context of sport media (see Table 3).
The Principal Research Contexts of the Studies
| Research context | Number of articles | % |
|---|---|---|
| Consumers | 67 | 43.8 |
| Organizations | 36 | 23.5 |
| Athletes | 34 | 22.2 |
| Media | 16 | 10.5 |
| Total | 153 | 100 |
Consumer-focused studies focused primarily on the perspectives and behaviors of sports fans and consumers. For example, Thompson et al. (2017) conducted research on how sport fans perceive the social media presence of events, Kim et al. (2022) explored the impact of social media on fans’ intention to purchase pay-per-view and attend events, and Abdourazakou et al. (2020) studied the use of social networking sites by season ticket holders during live sport consumption. Organizational-focused studies, on the other hand, concentrated on professional and college teams, leagues, and governing bodies. For instance, Hipke and Hachtmann (2014) investigated the development and deployment of social media strategies in sport organizations and Anagnostopoulos et al. (2018) examined how professional team sport organizations use Instagram for branding purposes.
Athlete-centered studies explored various topics related to athletes’ use of social media, including self-branding, and addressed issues such as cyberbullying, humility, and other personal attributes. As an example, Lim et al. (2020) investigated the association between athletes’ in-game performance and the level of humility expressed in their social media postings and post volume. Kavanagh et al. (2019) explored gender-based violence targeting high-profile women in virtual environments, with a particular focus on female tennis players. Finally, media-oriented studies investigated social media in the context of journalism, as a media outlet, or as a communication medium. Oelrichs (2022) studied the use of social media as a source in sports reporting, while Boehmer (2016) examined whether social media has rivaled traditional media in the realm of sports. Another example is a study by Li et al. (2017) which explored the impact of social media on Chinese sports journalists.
Research Attention Devoted to Platforms
As indicated in Table 4, nearly half (45.2%) of the studies reviewed in this work focused on Twitter as their research context or source of data. Following Twitter, studies that encompassed various platforms collectively categorized as social media accounted for 23.5% of the reviewed studies. Over the last 3 years of the 9-year period under study, Instagram garnered increasing attention (12.7%). Facebook captured the attention of approximately one in 10 studies reviewed, representing some level of reasonable significance as a research platform. In total, social media (collectively), Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, encompassed the vast majority (92.2%) of the research focus among the reviewed articles. The remaining platforms accounted for 7.8% of the studies, with Snapchat, Sina Weibo, and Pinterest receiving limited scholarly attention. Some of the articles that centered on two or more social media platforms include the work of Cranmer et al. (2021) who used Twitter and Instagram; Xu et al. (2023) who used Sina Weibo and Instagram; and Weimar et al. (2021), who used Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Social Media Platforms That Received the Attention of the Research Community
| Platform | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social media | 1 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 39 |
| 3 | 8 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 75 | |
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 18 | |||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 21 | |||
| TikTok | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| YouTube | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
| Message board | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Blogs | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Snapchat | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||
| Tumblr | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Online forum | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Total | 6 | 17 | 20 | 14 | 16 | 23 | 15 | 25 | 21 | 9 |
In the study conducted by Abeza et al. (2015), Twitter was the social media platform that received the most attention, accounting for 41.7% of published works, followed by Facebook, which represented 12.5% of the studies, and blogs, which accounted for 10.4%. Studies that covered a combination of Facebook and Twitter, other platforms, or social media in general comprised 28.12% of the published works. As shown in Table 5, this distribution of attention to Twitter and Facebook remained relatively consistent during the first 8 years of social media scholarship and the past 9 years. As mentioned earlier, Instagram has gained increased attention, indicating a rising trend in recent years. On the other hand, YouTube has not yet received significant scholarly attention from researchers in the field of social media in sport. Likewise, the rapidly growing platform, TikTok, has not been used as a source of data or research focus in the reviewed works, with no publications found on this platform. Overall, there has been a significant reliance on Twitter throughout the two decades of social media in sport studies, accounting for an average of 43.5% of the published works.
Focal Platforms Over the Two Study Periods
| Study perioda | ||
|---|---|---|
| Platform | 2008 to June 2014 | June 2014 to June 2023 |
| 41.7% | 45.2% | |
| 12.5% | 10.2% | |
| Social mediab | 28.12% | 23.5% |
| Blogs | 10.4% | 0.65% |
| 12.7% | ||
aThe earlier study is a census review of the social media articles, whereas the current study is a review of articles published in the five journals. bA combination of three or more platforms or social media in general.
Theory Utilization
Of the 153 articles reviewed over the 9 years (2014–2023) covered by this study, only 62% (95 articles) incorporated theories or concepts, models, typologies, and perspectives in their studies. A significant portion of the reviewed articles (38%) did not explicitly mention the theory they adopted. Specifically, 77 articles drew from 28 different theories, while the remaining 18 articles used 18 different concepts, perspectives, models, or frameworks as guiding lenses for their research (see Table 6).
Theories Reported to Have Been Incorporated in the Articles (2014–2023)
| Reported theory | Number of articles | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Self-presentation theory | 11 | Xu et al. (2023) |
| Uses and gratifications | 10 | Hayes et al. (2019) |
| Relationship marketing “theory” | 9 | Abeza et al. (2019) |
| Social identity theory | 8 | Hull (2017) |
| Framing theory | 8 | Johnson et al. (2022) |
| Situational crisis communication theory | 3 | Guo et al. (2023) |
| Balance theory | 2 | Weimar et al. (2022) |
| Gatekeeping theory | 2 | Li et al. (2017) |
| Institutional theory | 2 | Roberts and Emmons (2016) |
| Parasocial interaction theory | 2 | Stamm and Boatwright (2021) |
| Social cognitive theory | 2 | Sanderson et al. (2015) |
| Critical race theory | 1 | Frederick et al. (2022) |
| Diffusion of innovation theory | 1 | Oelrichs (2023) |
| Distraction-conflict theory | 1 | Hayes et al. (2020) |
| Exemplification theory | 1 | Hahn (2019) |
| Exit, voice, and loyalty theory | 1 | Wang and Sant (2022) |
| Human brand “theory” | 1 | Su et al. (2020) |
| Image restoration theory | 1 | Bell and Hartman (2018) |
| Interpellation theory | 1 | Finlay (2018) |
| Interpersonal behavior theory | 1 | Kim et al. (2021) |
| Mediatization theory | 1 | Schallhorn et al. (2022) |
| Network theory | 1 | Vergeer and Mulder (2019) |
| Policy attributes theory | 1 | Price et al. (2022) |
| Resource mobilization theory | 1 | Yan, Pegoraro, and Watanabe (2018) |
| Self-determination theory | 1 | Lee and Na (2023) |
| Social categorization theory | 1 | Fan et al. (2020) |
| Stakeholder theory | 1 | McGehee et al. (2018) |
| Structuration theory | 1 | Yan, Steller, et al. (2018) |
| Total | 77 |
Of the 77 articles that employed theories, 90.3% used the theories as frameworks, 2.8% expanded or extended existing theories (such as uses and gratification theory and framing theory), 1.4% applied a theory to the context of social media in sport (e.g., economic demand theory), and 5.6% integrated or combined theories to achieve their research objectives (e.g., social identity theory and uses and gratification theory [Haugh & Watkins, 2016], social cognitive theory and policy attributes theory [Price et al., 2022], social identity theory and network theory [Vergeer & Mulder, 2019], and social identity theory and balance theory [Popp et al., 2018]).
The current study highlighted some notable observations regarding the use of theories in the field. First, a significant majority of the articles (90.3%) used theories as frameworks rather than expanding or extending existing theories. While using theories as frameworks can provide a useful structure for organizing research and analysis, more theoretical contributions are needed in the field. Scholars should strive to go beyond using theories as frameworks and aim to extend or refine existing theories, particularly those directly relevant to social media in sport. This approach would enhance the theoretical foundations of the field and contribute to the development of novel insights. A limited percentage (1.4%) of articles also applied a theory specifically to the context of social media in sport. Another aspect to consider is the integration or combination of theories to achieve research objectives. While a small percentage (5.6%) of articles employed this approach, it presents an opportunity for further exploration. Scholars should consider adopting a multidimensional theoretical framework that combines theories from different domains, such as social identity theory, uses and gratifications theory, framing theory, and network theory. This integrative approach can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions and relationships within the realm of social media in sport.
It is also worth noting that 11.8% of all the articles reviewed have been guided by different concepts, perspectives, frameworks, and models. These (as shown in Table 7) include such concepts as “space invaders”; national habitus; public sphere; social construction of technology and affordances; perspectives, such as settler colonialism, social capital, third-wave feminism, and organization–public relationship; frameworks such as social construction of identity, generic strategies, critical discourse studies, Foucault’s theorization of power and surveillance, and image-repair typology; and models such as two-step flow of communication, integrated crisis mapping, psychological well-being, and temporal model of sexual abuse with children and young persons in sport.
Concepts, Perspectives, Frameworks, and Models Reported to Have Served as Guiding Lenses
| Guide | Types |
|---|---|
| Concepts | Concept of “space invaders” |
| Concept of national habitus | |
| Concepts of social construction of technology and affordances | |
| Concept of the public sphere | |
| Perspectives | Settler colonialism perspective |
| Social capital perspective | |
| Third-wave feminism perspective | |
| Organization–public relationship perspective | |
| Frameworks | Social construction of identity as a framework |
| Generic strategies as a framework | |
| Critical discourse studies as a conceptual framework | |
| Foucault’s theorization of power and surveillance | |
| Image-repair typology | |
| Models | Two-step flow of communication model |
| Integrated crisis mapping model | |
| Psychological well-being model | |
| Temporal model of sexual abuse with children and young persons in sport as a framework |
Research Methods Employed
The findings indicate that during the period from 2014 to 2023, a slight shift took place in the research approaches used in social media research in sport studies (see Table 8). Quantitative methods remained the dominant approach, accounting for 52.9% of the studies. Qualitative research approaches declined from 43% between 2008 and 2014 to 40.5% between 2014 and 2023. Mixed methods were used in 6.5% of the studies between 2014 and 2023, which increased from the 2.3% that was reported in 2008 to 2014. Regarding the data types employed in the studies, the findings reveal that social media data remained the predominant source, comprising 63.4% of the research data utilized. This suggests a heavy reliance on publicly available data. However, there was an increase in the use of primary data, which accounted for 36.6% of the data types. The data show that there has been a shift in research approaches, with a higher proportion of quantitative methods being employed. However, qualitative methods still play a significant role. In addition, there has been an increase in the use of primary data, alongside continued reliance on secondary data sources.
Research Methods Employed
| Research method | Number of articles | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Research approaches | ||
| Quantitative method | 81 | 52.9 |
| Qualitative method | 62 | 40.5 |
| Mixed methods | 10 | 6.5 |
| Data types | ||
| Primary data | 56 | 36.6 |
| Secondary data | 97 | 63.4 |
| Data collection | ||
| Survey | 28 | 18.3 |
| Experimental | 4 | 2.6 |
| Interview | 24 | 15.7 |
| Focus group discussion | 1 | 0.7 |
| Secondary data/social media data | 97 | 63.4 |
Table 8 also reports on the data collection methods in social media sport management research where content analyses (63.4%), surveys (18.3%), and interviews (15.7%) far exceeded any other method of data gathering during the 9-year period analyzed. Experimental methods ranked fourth (2.6%), followed by focus groups (0.7%).
Discussion and Directions for Future Research
Based on the findings presented above, discussions and directions for future research are covered under the following subsections: research streams, research contexts, research attention devoted to platforms, theory utilization, and research methods employed.
Research Streams and the Field’s Growth
To gain an understanding of the evolution of social media research in sport studies over the past two decades, it will be helpful to conceptualize and consider the different stages of development within a field of study. The development of a field of study can be characterized by distinct stages, which do not follow a linear progression but contribute to the overall growth. These stages, namely the (a) emergence, (b) growth, (c) maturation, and (d) interdisciplinary collaboration stages (cf. Abeza et al., 2014), offer a framework for examining the progression of research.
During the emergence stage, researchers primarily focus on exploring the impact and usage of social media in sport, as well as investigating the emergence of new communication platforms and their early trends and patterns. Notably, doctoral graduates and students of the early to mid-2010s played a significant role in making early contributions to social media literature in sport management research, establishing a solid foundation for further exploration (cf. Abeza et al., 2015). As a field enters the growth (second) stage, more researchers will be drawn to the topic, leading to a broader range of studies and a deeper understanding of the complexities and implications of social media in sport. In this regard, as Abeza et al. (2015) pointed out, the initial census review identified only three articles on social media in sport studies published in 2008. However, subsequent years witnessed a substantial increase in the number of articles, with three in 2009, nine in 2010, 18 in 2011, 19 in 2012, and 31 in 2013. This growth trend indicates a growing awareness and recognition of the significance of social media in the field of sport studies. The small count of three articles in 2008 suggests that social media’s role in sport was not extensively explored or discussed during that time. However, the subsequent years demonstrate a notable rise in the number of articles, highlighting the increasing recognition of the importance of social media in sports-related research. The consistent growth from 2009 to 2013, with a steady increase each year, underscores the growing relevance and significance of social media in this field.
As the field progresses, it enters a stage of maturation. During this phase, the literature on social media in sport studies expands, and researchers begin to establish specific research methods and methodologies tailored to this domain. In light of this, social media scholars’ sport studies start to target particular areas within the field, focusing on subjects such as sport business management (including fan engagement, brand management, sponsorship, and ambush marketing), sociocultural issues (including gender, racism, homophobia, religion, and disability), diversity and inclusion (including representation, education, the use of inclusive language, and policy development), legal issues (including defamation, privacy, cyberbullying, contracts, and intellectual property), crisis communication, and more. At present, the field of social media in sport scholarship is in trajectory to progress to the maturation stage. Looking far ahead, it is anticipated that interdisciplinary collaboration will play a significant role as the field continues to evolve. Researchers from various disciplines, such as sports science, communication studies, sociology, psychology, and data analytics, are likely to come together to study social media in sport.
Considering the brief discussion of the four different stages of a field of study and revisiting the study conducted between 2008 and 2014, one can assess the evolution of social media in the sport field by comparing it with the findings of the current study. According to Abeza et al. (2015), during the early period (2008–2014), 37.5% of the studies focused on the nature of social media which is similar to the 38.6% of articles categorized as foundation in the current study. In addition, 13.5% of the early studies examined defined constructs which is comparable to the 8.5% of articles categorized as features in the current study. Furthermore, 8.3% of the early studies addressed legal and ethical considerations. In terms of social media as a marketing and communication tool, 24% of the early studies explored this aspect, while 9.4% focused on industry applications which corresponds to the Functionality category, accounting for 38.6% of the reviewed articles in the current study. Lastly, 9.4% of the early articles investigated social media issues and impacts, which aligns with the impact category in the current study, accounting for 14.4% of the reviewed articles.
The growth observed in the functionality category and impact category of the research streams (over the past 9 years, from 2014 to 2023), signifies a positive progression of the field. By implication, the scholarship is transitioning from a basic understanding and categorization of social media’s usage, features, and adoption to a deeper examination of impacts in the sport industry, as well as its broader implications for society. This transition is evident in the exploration of various studies conducted in the past 5 years within the field, such as mental health (Chen & Kwak, 2023), religion (Ahmad & Thorpe, 2020), gender (Kavasoğlu & Koca, 2022), race (Kilvington & Price, 2019), activism (Bunch & Cianfrone, 2022), national identity (Humayun, 2023), free speech (Finlay, 2018), protests (Yan et al., 2021), and online harassment (Demir & Ayhan, 2022).
One, therefore, can claim that the social media in sport studies scholarship is not yet fully matured, but there is a clear progress toward the growth and maturity stage. In line with this, as noted by Hardin and Billings (2023), it is crucial to engage with questions that make social media universally relevant to communication and sport phenomena. In this regard, the progress in the field is not solely measured by the increasing number of articles but also by the quality and richness of the published works. Social media in sport scholars are diversifying their research topics, advancing their research questions, employing various research methods to address those questions (as demonstrated by Spinda & Puckette, 2018), and utilizing multiple data sources beyond traditional content analysis and counting (as exemplified by Finlay, 2018). This emerging diversity and richness of data are increasingly contributing to the growth and maturity of the field.
Research Context
The areas of research relating to the four identified research contexts, namely consumer, organizations, athletes, and media in social media sport studies, provide comprehensive coverage of the field. While the identified areas of research provide a solid foundation, there are opportunities for further exploration and development. Hence, it is crucial to critically assess the existing scholarship and identify areas that require further exploration and development. One notable critique of the current scholarship is the limited focus on minor and grassroots sports. While the research has centered primarily on professional sports and elite athletes, it is important to acknowledge the significance of grassroots sports in the broader sporting landscape. Exploring how social media is used in these contexts can provide valuable insights into community building, engagement strategies, and the unique challenges faced by smaller scale sports organizations. Scholars should consider investigating the impact of social media on minor and grassroots sports to gain a more inclusive understanding of the field.
In addition to minor and grassroots sports, a number of other stakeholders deserve attention from the research community. For example, there is a need for further examination of coaches and sporting influencers or personnel as research contexts. Understanding how social media influences their practices, decision making, and interactions within the sporting ecosystem is essential. By studying the experiences of coaches and sporting personnel, researchers can shed light on the evolving dynamics of social media in sport beyond the perspectives of athletes and organizations alone. Furthermore, scholars should strive for a more nuanced understanding of how social media shapes interactions among athletes, organizations, and the media. While existing research has provided valuable insights into these relationships, deeper exploration is needed to uncover the complexities and power dynamics at play. This could involve investigating the influence of social media on the mental health of athletes, their privacy, and misinformation, as well as the ethical implications of these dynamics. By delving deeper into these areas, scholars can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of social media in sport.
Social Media Platforms
In terms of social media platforms as a source of data or research focus, this study’s findings provide valuable insights into the research landscape of social media studies within the field of sport. One notable trend is the increasing attention given to Instagram in recent years, indicating its growing prominence as a research platform. This demonstrates scholars’ recognition of the platform’s relevance in understanding social media dynamics within the sports context. However, a critical point of concern is the limited scholarly attention given to YouTube. Despite its wide user base and influence as a video-sharing platform, it has not received significant research focus in the realm of social media in sport studies. This represents a gap in the existing scholarship, as YouTube offers unique opportunities for exploring sport-related content, user interactions, and the impact on sports communities. Scholars should address this gap and explore the potential of YouTube as a valuable source of data and research focus in future studies. Similarly, the findings highlight the absence of scholarly publications specifically focused on TikTok, a rapidly growing platform known for its short-form videos. Given its immense popularity, TikTok presents an untapped opportunity for studying social media dynamics within the sports domain. Scholars should consider exploring this platform as a source of data and research focus to better understand its impact on the sport world.
The study findings also showed significant reliance on Twitter (an average of 43.5% of published works) as the primary platform of focus across the two decades of social media in sport studies. While Twitter undoubtedly offers valuable insights into real-time conversations, user interactions, and trends, scholars should diversify their research focus and explore other platforms comprehensively. Relying too heavily on a single platform may limit the understanding of the broader social media landscape and potentially overlook unique dynamics and experiences that exist on other platforms. Moving forward, scholars should adopt a more comprehensive and balanced approach to their research on social media and sport studies. This would involve expanding their scope beyond Twitter to include platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Sina Weibo. Embracing a wider range of platforms will enable a more holistic understanding of social media’s impact on the sport industry. By diversifying the platforms under investigation, scholars will be able to uncover new insights, identify emerging trends, and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between social media and sport.
Theory Utilization
This paper’s investigation of social media research in sport studies yielded some important insights regarding the use of theories and highlighted several areas for improvement. Some of the reviewed articles in this work failed to effectively articulate the application and contribution of their chosen theories in a comprehensive and meaningful manner. While they acknowledged that theories guided their work, they did not emphasize the influence of theory in the formation of their conceptual background, research question formulation, or discussion sections. As suggested by Filo et al. (2015), researchers in social media studies within the realm of sport should strive to advance theory by adopting a more integrated approach. This entails articulating how their results and findings contribute to existing theories or the development of new ones.
Furthermore, some articles even misused certain theories, such as the “human brand theory” and “relationship marketing theory.” It should be noted that, for example, there is no standalone theory of relationship marketing. While one may argue a relationship marketing framework is a theory in progress (cf. Abeza, O’Reilly, & Braunstein-Minkove, 2020; Abeza, O’Reilly, Finch, et al., 2020), the same applies to the human brand theory. Scholars should exercise caution before labeling their guiding framework, concept, perspective, or model as a theory. Before designating something as a theory, it is essential, at least, to consider the three key features of a theory and assess whether it meets these requirements. According to Corley and Gioia (2011), a theory is “a statement of concepts and their interrelationships that show how and why a phenomenon occurs” (p. 12). A theory first consists of elements (concepts and constructs) that identify the essential components of the phenomenon under investigation. Second, it provides an explanation of the relationship between these components, and third, it acknowledges that the generalizability of a theory is influenced by temporal and contextual boundaries (Ridder, 2017).
The current study also reported that of the 77 articles that utilized theories, 90.3% used the theories as frameworks, 2.8% expanded or extended existing theories, 1.4% applied a theory to the context of social media in sport, and 5.6% integrated or combined theories to achieve their research objectives. Not all studies are required to propose a theory or be guided by one. As Abeza and Sanderson (2022) emphasized, different scholars, such as quantitative researchers, may focus on testing existing theories, while others, such as qualitative researchers, may develop theories through grounded theory. Consequently, certain theories may help capture subjective interpretations, while others represent objective realities (Abeza & Sanderson, 2022). However, theories play a crucial role as roadmaps, filters, tools, and guides for understanding reality (Griffin, 2012). Yet, as highlighted by Abeza et al. (2015) in their literature review conducted 9 years ago, the essential components of theory construction, including proposing a theory, testing a new theory, critiquing a theory, and comparing theories, were found to be lacking in social media research within the realm of sport management. Surprisingly, even after the passage of 9 years, the scholarship today in this field still fails to incorporate these fundamental elements of theory construction. This underscores the critical need for scholars to actively engage in proposing, testing, critiquing, and comparing theories in their research endeavors.
Hence, as Abeza and Sanderson (2022) underlined, recognizing the unique nature of sport and its dynamic relationship with social media necessitates the development of homegrown theories specific to sport and social media research. Theory development, as noted by Abeza et al. (2014), can be both challenging and intellectually stimulating within academia. A crucial stage in this process involves systematically illustrating the connections between concepts (ideas or notions), as described by Doherty (2013). This step contributes to constructing a theoretical framework or model, which is essential for theory development. Similarly, advancing theory development often requires applying the theory in new contexts to test its relevance in different situations and evaluate its applicability under various conditions (Whetten, 1989). However, Whetten cautioned that the purpose of such application should go beyond reaffirming its usefulness and instead focus on enhancing it as a valuable tool. Overall, the use of theory in the field of social media scholarship in sport studies is an area that requires improvement. The use of theories is crucial for advancing any academic discipline, and therefore, it is vital to propose, test, critique, and compare theories. Investing in theory is the path toward building robust research, and thus, it is important to advance our use of theory.
Research Methods
While the findings in terms of the research approaches and data types in the recent study provide valuable insights into the landscape of social media research in sport studies from 2014 to 2023, there are some potential limitations and areas for improvement. The heavy reliance on the use of social media data as a data source (63.4%) is a major concern because it restricts the breadth and depth of research in the scholarship. Relying heavily on pre-existing data, such as social media content, limits the researcher’s ability to explore emerging or novel phenomena adequately. Incorporating primary data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, and observations, can offer a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the experiences, perceptions, and behaviors of sports stakeholders in relation to social media. Future studies would be highly encouraged to adopt multimethod or mixed-method approaches, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of social media phenomena in sports.
Furthermore, researchers should prioritize the collection of primary data to capture the diverse perspectives and experiences of sports stakeholders. Rigorous methodologies, including reasonably larger sample sizes, representative sampling techniques, and transparent reporting, should be employed to enhance the credibility and generalizability of the findings. Greater use of qualitative study is also encouraged, as the approach allows an in-depth exploration, understanding, and interpretation of social media dynamics within sport management research. The increased use of primary data, which accounts for 36.6% of the data types, is encouraging because it indicates a growing emphasis on collecting information firsthand through surveys, interviews, and observations. By directly engaging with sports stakeholders and examining their social media practices, researchers can gain unique insights into the complex interactions and behaviors within the sports context.
When comparing the data collection methods between the current study’s timeframe (2014–2023) and the period from 2008 to 2014, the following trends are observed: (a) there is a significant spike in the use of content analysis from 50% (2008–2014) to 63.4% (2014–2023); (b) the survey method declined from 29.7% to 18.3% during the same periods; and (c) similarly, the use of the interview method experienced a slight decline from 16.5% (2008–2014) to 15.7% (2014–2023). Overall, greater methodological diversity is required, including qualitative approaches and primary data collection, to deepen our understanding of the intricate interplay between social media and sports.
By incorporating multiple data collection methods, researchers can enrich their findings, capture diverse perspectives, and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities inherent in social media phenomena. An example of a multimethod approach can be seen in a study conducted by Finlay (2018) who employed a textual analysis of the International Olympic Committee social media regulations and related organizational policy documents. This was followed by an analysis of case studies investigating high-profile social media controversies involving Olympians during two games. By utilizing both textual analysis and case studies, the research provided a comprehensive understanding of the social media landscape in relation to the Olympics. Similarly, the work of Lim et al. (2020) demonstrates the advantage of using a variety of data sources. The researchers collected data from various platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, National Football League (NFL) Fantasy Football, the official NFL Website, and Spotrac. These data were then aggregated to create player-week-level panel data, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of player performance in relation to social media engagement. Another example can be found in the work of Sanderson et al. (2020) where interview data were collected from multiple sources, including athletic department staff members, student-athletes, student-athletes’ Twitter content, and media coverage of the campaign being investigated. This multisource approach provided diverse perspectives and insights into the phenomenon under study.
Furthermore, there is an increasing trend in the use of netnography in social media research (e.g., Fenton et al., 2023; Popp et al., 2018). While content analysis is a valuable method for quantitatively analyzing large volumes of online data, netnography complements it by offering a qualitative lens to delve into the social and cultural aspects of online communities. Netnography allows researchers to go beyond surface-level content and explore hidden or underlying meanings behind messages, providing a deeper understanding of the social dynamics within online spaces.
In summary, the study highlights several key points. First, there is a need for further expansion, exploration, and development in the field, particularly in areas besides consumers, organizations, athletes, and the media. Second, scholars should diversify their research focus beyond Twitter and consider the potential of these platforms for studying social media dynamics in the sports domain. Specifically, scant attention is given to YouTube and TikTok as research platforms, despite their wide user base and influence. Third, the utilization of theories in the field requires improvement. Researchers should articulate the application and contribution of their chosen theory more comprehensively and meaningfully, avoiding the misuse of certain theories or labeling frameworks as theories. Furthermore, the study calls for scholars to actively engage in proposing, testing, critiquing, and comparing theories to advance the field. Fourth, there is a need for greater methodological diversity, including the use of qualitative approaches and primary data collection methods. Researchers should adopt multimethod or mixed-method approaches to capture diverse perspectives and gain a comprehensive understanding of social media phenomena in sports. Fifth, while the field still has a long way to go in its development, there are encouraging signs of progression in recent advancements. Notably, some scholars are refining their research questions and embracing the use of multimethod approaches, which demonstrate a commitment to enhancing the depth and breadth of the scholarship. These positive developments indicate a growing momentum and a promising trajectory for the field’s future growth. Overall, these insights highlight areas for improvement and suggest avenues for future research in social media and sport studies.
References
Abdourazakou, Y., Deng, X.N., & Abeza, G. (2020). Social media usage during live sport consumption: Generation gap and gender differences among season ticket holders. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(4), 696–718. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0021
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., & Braunstein-MinkFove, J.R. (2020). Relationship marketing: Revisiting the scholarship in sport management and sport communication. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(4), 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0052
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Finch, D., Séguin, B., & Nadeau, J. (2020). The role of social media in the co-creation of value in relationship marketing: A multi-domain study. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(6), 472–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1540496
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., & Nadeau, J. (2014). Sport communication: A multidimensional assessment of the field’s development. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(3), 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2014-0034
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., & Seguin, B. (2019). Social media in relationship marketing: The perspective of professional sport managers in the MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL. Communication & Sport, 7(1), 80–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517740343
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Séguin, B., & Nzindukiyimana, O. (2015). Social media scholarship in sport management research: A critical review. Journal of Sport Management, 29(6), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSM.2014-0296
Abeza, G., & Sanderson, J. (2022). Theory and social media in sport studies. International Journal of Sport Communication, 15(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2022-0108
Ahmad, N., & Thorpe, H. (2020). Muslim sportswomen as digital space invaders: Hashtag politics and everyday visibilities. Communication & Sport, 8(4), 668–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519898447
Anagnostopoulos, C., Parganas, P., Chadwick, S., & Fenton, A. (2018). Branding in pictures: Using Instagram as a brand management tool in professional team sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(4), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1410202
Baker, B.J., Kunkel, T., Doyle, J.P., Su, Y., Bredikhina, N., & Biscaia, R. (2022). Remapping the sport brandscape: A structured review and future direction for sport brand research. Journal of Sport Management, 36(3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0231
Bell, T.R., & Hartman, K.L. (2018). Stealing thunder through social media: The framing of Maria Sharapova’s drug suspension. International Journal of Sport Communication, 11(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0079
Boehmer, J. (2016). Does the game really change? How students consume mediated sports in the age of social media. Communication & Sport, 4(4), 460–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479515595500
Brown-Devlin, N., Brown, K.A., Britt, B.C., & Adamson, A.C. (2023). What inspired that tweet: A comparative analysis of official and stakeholder-enacted crisis responses during the Urban Meyer/Zach Smith scandal. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479521989308
Bunch, N., & Cianfrone, B.A. (2022). “Posting more than just a black square”: National Collegiate Athletic Association student-athletes’ perceptions of the athletic department’s role in social media, racial justice, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Communication & Sport, 10(6), 1023–1052. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795221091814
Chen, Z., & Kwak, D.H. (2023). It’s okay to be not okay: An analysis of Twitter responses to Naomi Osaka’s withdrawal due to mental health concerns. Communication & Sport, 11(3), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795221141328
Corley, K.G., & Gioia, D.A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486
Cranmer, G.A., Cassilo, D., Sanderson, J., & Troutman, B. (2021). Social media discourse about Division-I football players’ early exit announcements: The role of expressed fandom. Communication & Sport, 9(4), 550–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519874804
Demir, Y., & Ayhan, B. (2022). Being a female sports journalist on Twitter: Online harassment, sexualization, and hegemony. International Journal of Sport Communication, 15(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2022-0044
Doherty, A.J. (2013). Investing in sport management: The value of good theory. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.12.006
Fan, M., Billings, A., Zhu, X., & Yu, P. (2020). Twitter-based BIRGing: Big data analysis of English national team fans during the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Communication & Sport, 8(3), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519834348
Fenton, A., Keegan, B.J., & Parry, K.D. (2023). Understanding sporting social media brand communities, place and social capital: A netnography of football fans. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520986149
Filo, K., Lock, D., & Karg, A. (2015). Sport and social media research: A review. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 166–181.
Finlay, C.J. (2018). National proxy 2.0: Controlling the social media of Olympians through national identification. Communication & Sport, 6(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479516684756
Finlay, C.J. (2018). The right to profitable speech: Olympians, sponsorship, and social media discourse. Communication & Sport, 6(6), 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517739389
Frederick, E.L., Pegoraro, A., & Schmidt, S. (2022). “I’m not going to the f***ing White House”: Twitter users react to Donald Trump and Megan Rapinoe. Communication & Sport, 10(6), 1210–1228. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520950778
Geurin, A.N. (2017). Elite female athletes’ perceptions of new media use relating to their careers: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 31(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0157
Geurin, A.N. (2023). Social media education provided by national governing bodies of sport: An examination of practices for Youth Olympic Games and Olympic Games athletes. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211053627
Geurin-Eagleman, A.N., & Burch, L.M. (2016). Communicating via photographs: A gendered analysis of Olympic athletes’ visual self-presentation on Instagram. Sport Management Review, 19(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.03.002
Griffin, E.A. (2012). A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill.
Guo, S., Billings, A.C., Brown, K.A., & Vincent, J. (2023). The tweet heard round the world: Daryl Morey, the NBA, China, and attribution of responsibility. Communication & Sport, 11(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520983254
Hahn, D.A. (2019). Instagram as exemplar: Examining the presence and likability of subjects and statistics in March Madness posts. International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(4), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2019-0074
Hardin, M., & Billings, A.C. (2023). Much ado about Twitter, Twitch, and more: A maturing research agenda. Communication & Sport, 11(2), Article 657. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795231152657
Harrison, V.S., Bober, J., Buckley, C., & Vallos, V. (2023). “Save Our Spikes”: Social media advocacy and fan reaction to the end of Minor League Baseball. Communication & Sport. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795231151916
Haugh, B.R., & Watkins, B. (2016). Tag me, tweet me if you want to reach me: An investigation into how sports fans use social media. International Journal of Sport Communication, 9(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2016-0044
Hayes, M., Filo, K., Geurin, A., & Riot, C. (2020). An exploration of the distractions inherent to social media use among athletes. Sport Management Review, 23(5), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.12.006
Hayes, M., Filo, K., Riot, C., & Geurin, A. (2019). Athlete perceptions of social media benefits and challenges during major sport events. International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(4), 449–481. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2019-0026
Hipke, M., & Hachtmann, F. (2014). Game changer: A case study of social-media strategy in Big Ten athletic departments. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(4), 516–532. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2014-0022
Hodge, C., Pederson, J.A., & Walker, M. (2015). How do you “Like” my style? Examining how communication style influences Facebook behaviors. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(3), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2015-0052
Hull, K. (2017). An examination of women’s sports coverage on the Twitter accounts of local television sports broadcasters. Communication & Sport, 5(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479516632520
Humayun, M.F. (2023). Construction of mediated national identity through sports journalists twitter feed. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211045990
Johnson, R.G., Romney, M., Hull, K., & Pegoraro, A. (2022). Shared space: How North American Olympic broadcasters framed gender on Instagram. Communication & Sport, 10(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520932896
Kavanagh, E., Litchfield, C., & Osborne, J. (2019). Sporting women and social media: Sexualization, misogyny, and gender-based violence in online spaces. International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(4), 552–572. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2019-0079
Kavasoğlu, İ., Eratlı Şirin, Y., & Uğurlu, A. (2023). A space of one’s own? The tensions of being visible on Instagram for Turkish female athletes. Communication & Sport. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795231154913
Kilvington, D., & Price, J. (2019). Tackling social media abuse? Critically assessing English football’s response to online racism. Communication & Sport, 7(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517745300
Kim, A., Kim, M., Salaga, S., & Zhang, J.J. (2022). Impact of social media on intention to purchase pay-per-view and event attendance: The case of the Ultimate Fighting Championship. International Journal of Sport Communication, 15(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2021-0068
Kim, H.S., Cho, K.M., & Kim, M. (2021). Information-sharing behaviors among sports fans using# hashtags. Communication & Sport, 9(4), 646–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519878466
Lewis, M., Brown, K.A., Hakim, S.D., Billings, A.C., & Blakey, C.H. (2020). Looking for information in all the right places? Outlet types of social media information and National Basketball Association fan desires. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0002
Li, B., Dittmore, S.W., Scott, O.K., Lo, W.J., & Stokowski, S. (2019). Why we follow: Examining motivational differences in following sport organizations on Twitter and Weibo. Sport Management Review, 22(3), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.04.006
Li, B., Stokowski, S., Dittmore, S.W., & Scott, O.K. (2017). For better or for worse: The impact of social media on Chinese sports journalists. Communication & Sport, 5(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479515617279
Lim, J.H., Donovan, L.A., Kaufman, P., & Ishida, C. (2020). Professional athletes’ social media use and player performance: Evidence from the national football league. International Journal of Sport Communication, 14(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0055
McGehee, G.M., Marquez, A.A., Cianfrone, B.A., & Kellison, T. (2018). Understanding organizational and public perspectives on stadium redevelopment through social media: A case study of Georgia State University’s “new” stadium. International Journal of Sport Communication, 11(2), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2017-0108
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
Oelrichs, I. (2022). Just copy and paste? Usage and patterns of social media sources in online articles on sport. International Journal of Sport Communication, 15(4), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2022-0076
Oelrichs, I. (2023). Adoption of innovations in digital sports journalism: The use of Twitter by German sports journalists. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 288–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520961786
Popp, B., Horbel, C., & Germelmann, C.C. (2018). Social-media-based antibrand communities opposing sport-team sponsors: Insights from two prototypical communities. International Journal of Sport Communication, 11(3), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0082
Price, B.L., Farren, G.L., Stoll, J.A., Goldsmith, A., Carroll, M., & Martin, C. (2022). Tinkering with policies in the digital age: How interscholastic athletic directors address social media use by student-athletes. International Journal of Sport Communication, 15(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2021-0092
Ridder, H.G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z
Roberts, C., & Emmons, B. (2016). Twitter in the press box: How a new technology affects game-day routines of print-focused sports journalists. International Journal of Sport Communication, 9(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2015-0113
Sanderson, J., Browning, B., & Schmittel, A. (2015). Education on the digital terrain: A case study exploring college athletes’ perceptions of social-media training. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2014-0063
Sanderson, J., Stokowski, S., & Taylor, E. (2020). #Trending in the right direction: A case study analyzing Temple football’s #SpringBall 18 campaign. International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(1), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0124
Schallhorn, C., Nölleke, D., Sinner, P., Seeger, C., Nieland, J.U., Horky, T., & Mehler, K. (2022). Mediatization in times of pandemic: How German grassroots sports clubs employed digital media to overcome communication challenges during covid-19. Communication & Sport, 10(5), 891–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795221109759
Singer, J.N., Agyemang, K.J., Chen, C., Walker, N.A., & Melton, E.N. (2022). What is Blackness to sport management? Manifestations of anti-Blackness in the field. Journal of Sport Management, 1, Article 232. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0232
Spinda, J.S., & Puckette, S. (2018). Just a snap: Fan uses and gratifications for following sports snapchat. Communication & Sport, 6(5), 627–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517731335
Stamm, J., & Boatwright, B. (2021). We love you, we hate you: Fan Twitter response to top college football recruits’ decisions. International Journal of Sport Communication, 14(4), 530–553. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2021-0031
Su, Y., Baker, B.J., Doyle, J.P., & Yan, M. (2020). Fan engagement in 15 seconds: Athletes’ relationship marketing during a pandemic via TikTok. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(3), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0238
Thompson, A.J., Martin, A.J., Gee, S., & Geurin, A.N. (2017). Fans’ perceptions of professional tennis events’ social media presence: Interaction, insight, and brand anthropomorphism. Communication & Sport, 5(5), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479516650442
Vergeer, M., & Mulder, L. (2019). Football players’ popularity on Twitter explained: Performance on the pitch or performance on Twitter? International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(3), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0171
Wakefield, L.T., & Bennett, G. (2018). Sports fan experience: Electronic word-of-mouth in ephemeral social media. Sport Management Review, 21(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.06.003
Wang, W., & Sant, S.L. (2022). A big data analysis of social media coverage of athlete protests. Sport Management Review, 26(1), Article 393. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2022.2051393
Weimar, D., Holthoff, L.C., & Biscaia, R. (2022). When sponsorship causes anger: Understanding negative fan reactions to postings on sports clubs’ online social media channels. European Sport Management Quarterly, 22(3), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1786593
Weimar, D., Soebbing, B.P., & Wicker, P. (2021). Dealing with statistical significance in big data: The social media value of game outcomes in professional football. Journal of Sport Management, 35(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2020-0275
Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/258554
Xu, Q., Guo, S., & Kim, E. (2023). #Selfies with a mask on: Comparing self-presentation of athletes from the US and China in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795221113307
Yan, G., Pegoraro, A., & Watanabe, N.M. (2018). Student-athletes’ organization of activism at the University of Missouri: Resource mobilization on Twitter. Journal of Sport Management, 32(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0031
Yan, G., Pegoraro, A., & Watanabe, N.M. (2021). Examining IRA bots in the NFL anthem protest: Political agendas and practices of digital gatekeeping. Communication & Sport, 9(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519849114
Yan, G., Steller, D., Watanabe, N.M., & Popp, N. (2018). What determines user-generated content creation of college football? A big-data analysis of structural influences. International Journal of Sport Communication, 11(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2017-0113
