Going for Gold: Social Media and the USOC

Schlereth, Nicholas; Frederick, Evan L.

doi:10.1123/jlas.2016-0016

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The United States Olympic Committee (USOC), for instance, generates millions in revenue from its media and licensing rights and benefits from its nonprofit organization status. It offers limited support to some athletes, through training grants, as well as through small awards for athletes who medal (Schlereth & Frederick, 2017, p. 21). Schelereth and Frederick (2017) argue, “based on the size of the USOC 2016 Olympic delegation of 554 athletes, if the $16,987 [total amount of athlete grants provided by USOC in 2016] was distributed evenly to every athlete, each athlete would receive $30.66” (p. 22).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It offers limited support to some athletes, through training grants, as well as through small awards for athletes who medal (Schlereth & Frederick, 2017, p. 21). Schelereth and Frederick (2017) argue, “based on the size of the USOC 2016 Olympic delegation of 554 athletes, if the $16,987 [total amount of athlete grants provided by USOC in 2016] was distributed evenly to every athlete, each athlete would receive $30.66” (p. 22). These figures make a compelling case for why American athletes led the anti-Rule 40 protests in 2012.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Right to Profitable Speech

Finlay

2017

Communication & Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media has given athletes unprecedented voice and direct access to audiences. To analyze the influence of athletes in the production of mediasport narratives, the focus on mediasport interpellation theory is applied to athletes as both readers and producers of consumerist mediasport hails and is then explored in two case studies. During the 2012 Olympics, a band of athletes launched the #WeDemandChange campaign against Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter, which limits social media speech rights. This impedes financial opportunities because they are unable to blog and tweet about their sponsors if they are not also Olympic sponsors. In 2016, non-Olympic sponsors furthered anti-Rule 40 protests, positioning themselves as covictims. The 2012 and 2016 campaigns framed Rule 40 as a civil rights and speech advocacy issue; however, they primarily focused on building better market conditions for non-Olympic sponsors. In so doing, they obfuscated systemic conditions that contribute to the untenable financial situations described in the protests themselves. Ultimately, it is argued that athletes, as reader-producers who are hailed by and operate within the commercial mediasport complex, are subject to and perpetuate the interpellative power of mediasport and the consumerist ideology it supports.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Right to Profitable Speech

Finlay

2017

Communication & Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rule explicitly forbids any 'demonstration' or 'political, religious and racial propaganda' relating to national security and public order issues during the Olympic Games (Schlereth & Frederick, 2017). Even if it is meant to be peaceful, every 'demonstration' or gathering of sorts may transform into something violent, as history has shown in Munich (Lenk, 1984).…”

Section: National Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Olympic rule 50

Chanda¹,

Sahoo²,

Sahni³

2021

lingcure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Tokyo Olympics, Raven Saunders, Bao Shanju and Zhong Tianshi were questioned by the IOC and got warnings due to their “performance of political demonstration” at the Olympic podium. We saw something similar during the 2012 London Olympic Summer Games when an indigenous boxer of Australia, Damien Hooper, was nearly disqualified from the Olympic competition for entering the ring wearing the Aboriginal flag shirt of Australia. The Olympics has had a history of maintaining a hypocritical form of political neutrality over the years. The Olympic Charter talks about sport being an essential medium in advancing the human rights of various individuals from different countries. However, it also chooses to stay neutral and gives preference to host nations. “Freedom of opinion and expression”, is a fundamental right enshrined in core international and regional human rights treaties and national laws. But it is also to be taken note that this freedom is restricted due to the “legitimate aims” of these treaties and laws. The Olympic Charter has followed suit and enacted a certain rule that prevents athletes from making demonstrations at the Olympic sites under the threat of disciplinary sanctions.

show abstract

Going for Gold: Social Media and the USOC

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

The Right to Profitable Speech

The Right to Profitable Speech

Olympic rule 50

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About