ABSTRACT
In the last decade a growing number of sociologists of sport, as well as other social scientists writing on sport, have used concepts and theories of globalisation to help them understand the significance of the increasing tendency of sport to operate on a world scale (Harvey and Houle 1994; Houlihan 1994; Maguire 1999; Miller et al. 2001). There are many problems in doing so and it would be inappropriate to attempt to deal with all the issues comprehensively here — whether globalisation is a myth, as the 'sceptics' claim, or a new age or world order which is qualitatively different from previous eras; whether it develops in linear fashion towards some predictable end, or is a discontinuous process having unforeseen outcomes; whether it is a homogenising force or generates global heterogeneity and diversity; whether a global culture exists already, or if not to what extent it is a possibility; whether it is more appropriate to conceptualise the global order in terms of Western domination and cultural imperialism, or the expansion of capitalism; whether globalisation is better characterised as an extension of modernisation processes or as a postmodern phenomenon; and whether it can be explained in terms of a single prime cause, or only in multi-causal terms. I take a sceptical position on some of these issues in focusing on the main problem I wish to discuss, namely, the effects of globalisation on national identities and nationalism and the role that globalised sport plays therein. A major drawback in this enterprise, despite the large literature embracing a variety of approaches, is that as yet we have no unified, coherent theory of globalisation. Also, the fact that the term has become an article of faith for many politicians, interest group spokesmen and for broad swathes of the intelligentsia, including a lot of academics, clearly, has not helped.
