What happens when everyday life, the 'things we take for granted and usually do not discuss because they work automatically' 1 is suddenly disturbed because it collides with a different 'mass phenomenon'? This is the question to be answered when analysing the 'Vienna School of Football' in the years of national socialism from 1938 to 1945. 2 What are the consequences when established practices, rituals and passions 3 meet other structures, which are imposed out of the blue but all the more radically? To what extent could everyday culture resist the extreme 'culture of national socialism'?Studies of popular culture and everyday life during the years of national socialism have played an important role in coming to terms with that era since the beginning of the 1980s. Such studies have disproved the theory that almost everything in national socialism was 'enlightened', 4 as only the framework and structure of the totalitarian regime were enlightened, but not the way it was dealt with. When writing about the popular phenomena of the nazi era, there is always the danger of trivializing things. 5 During the nazi years, the Holocaust was relevant to Viennese football only to the extent that Jews were banned from participating in public sports, and football was also played in the concentration camps. 6 From a military point of view, from 1941 soldiers on leave formed the core of many Viennese football clubs, and airforce sports clubs played an important role in football during the Third Reich. 7

No abstract

Sports coverage remains dominated by the binary system of gender dualism, which is characterized by a clear delineation based on the assumption that sports reflect corporeality: masculinity is always associated with strength, endurance, power and performance, and femininity with attractiveness. An intersectional perspective that incorporates race, ethnicity, class, gender, homosexuality, inter‐ and transsexuality, as well as nation, continues to be an exception in sports reporting. For this purpose, we surveyed 40 empirical studies, which were mainly conducted as individual case studies. As a result, it can be said that male and female athletes who were not recognizable as White and heterosexual were for a long time represented in the sports media in a mostly negative and discriminatory way or were not even discussed. Only in exceptional cases was there positive reporting. The condition was that the athletes had achieved extraordinary victories while perfectly embodying the typical gender ideal—muscular male athletes or attractive female athletes—and that there was a strategic, mostly national interest, such as when an attractive Black female athlete was able to win three gold medals for the United States during the Cold War. Since about the 1990s, there has been a gradual change in the media representation of athletes. Today, sports coverage of Black and homosexual male and female athletes is, on the surface, often positive. But on closer analysis, discrimination has only become more complicated. The emphasis is still on their presentation as the other, which does not conform to the social norm. If several difference categories overlap, such as male, gay and mixed race, there is still no positive coverage. The change therefore has not kept pace with actual sports practice, where even greater acceptance beyond traditional gender roles is already evident.

No abstract

Journalism was for a long time considered a man's business. But while this has changed significantly in the last few decades, the sports department, whether in a newspaper, on the radio, or on TV, remains one of the last male bastions, still characterized by a system of hegemonic masculinity. The few quantitative surveys that are available on sports departments show that only about one in ten sports journalists is a woman. If other criteria such as race and ethnicity and sexual orientation are taken into account in addition to gender, then one quickly reaches the perceptual limit: sports departments are still male, White, and heterosexual. This is expressed in the macho culture of sports departments, in male‐coded journalistic routines, and in the treatment of non‐White, homosexual, or intersex athletes. The few qualitative studies that have been published on intersectionality on sports departments to date paint a complex, contradictory, and ambivalent picture. Male, White, heterosexual journalists lack self‐reflection and an awareness of the unequal treatment of women or people of other races. Citing workplace professionalism, they reject measures to promote equal treatment in the sports department. They also believe that female or Black sports reporters enjoy extra advantages. With regard to reporting about homosexual athletes, sports reporters have a don't ask don't tell culture . In this way, male and female sports journalists uphold gender dualism and heteronormativity through a latent homophobia in sports reporting. A change in the entire sports‐media complex is therefore not supported by sports journalism.