Searching for Relevance: The Olympic Games and Action Sports: A Review Essay of Belinda Wheaton and Holly Thorpe, Action Sports and the Olympic Games

Thomas Bach, the current International Olympic Committee (IOC) president, has been a proponent of “updating” the Olympics. His stewardship of Agenda 2020 has placed an emphasis on reaching a new demographic: “I am delighted that Olympic Games in Tokyo will be more youthful, more urban and will include more women” (77). Action Sports and the Olympic Games investigates how the IOC's inclusion of action sports was used to meet the objective of reaching those audiences. In turn, it examines the response to these efforts by different stakeholders within the action sports communities.To be transparent, I have known the authors for many years as we all share an interest in the social-political dynamics of action sports (these include sports that were historically grounded in a more artistic and participant-driven activity such as surfing, snowboarding, and skateboarding). Additionally, I have a high regard for their work as it is always thoroughly researched and skillfully uses theory to bring new insight into these sport/lifestyle cultures. Therefore, I was excited to review this latest joint effort by Wheaton and Thorpe. I say this as I am wary not to simply be a cheerleader of their work, but to highlight key contributions.The book is organized into three main sections. the first section includes introduction, methodology, and theory chapters. The second section has four chapters which provide the historical contexts of the governance processes for the IOC and for action sports. They feature the debates that were internal to the action sports communities with regard to Olympic inclusion as well as the negotiations among the International Federations (IFs), the action sport industry and athletes, and the IOC. To illustrate this, they provide a history of how windsurfing (1984), snowboarding (1998), and BMX (2008) were added to the Olympics. This sets up the third section, which examines the current context and political process and how that has differed in the past. The third section features in-depth case studies of skateboarding and surfing. They also dedicate a chapter to investigating the impact Olympic inclusion had on gender equity in skateboarding, surfing, and sport climbing. Although each chapter can stand on its own, the book does a good job integrating the main themes throughout each chapter culminating in a more robust understanding of the shifting political landscapes and power negotiations. Because the chapters build off each other, I will not cover each chapter separately, but instead provide a few examples that represent the key themes of their work.Before I discuss some of the key content, I will provide an overview of their methodology to demonstrate the extensive work they have done to understand and represent a variety of stakeholders’ perspectives and strategies. First, this represents a ten-year span of collecting data using mixed methods. They were recipients of an IOC Advanced Research Grant to examine youth perceptions of the Olympic Games, which allowed them to have access to staff and different committees such as Youth Olympic Games, gender equity, and the Tokyo Organizing Committee. They organized two different symposiums for action sports athletes and administrators in Aotearoa, New Zealand, their home country. They interviewed twenty-five key individuals in the action sport industries including the presidents of IFs, sport agents, coaches, and elite international athletes. They conducted a content analysis of different media outlets regarding action sports in the Olympics. And they developed an online questionnaire that was translated into nine languages. They also were in the field at a variety of Olympic and action sports events. Importantly, they reflect on which strategies were more effective and some of the obstacles they faced. Their strongest data applies primarily to those with the most power, especially key action sports industry leaders and Olympic staff. Finally, they were keenly aware that their IOC grant and consultancy position could bias their findings. It is apparent throughout that they were able to maintain a critical assessment of the IOC's policies and practices.In turn, the authors’ methodology is in alignment with their theory. They employ actor network theory to help them examine the different networks that were involved before, during, and after the inclusion of specific action sports in the Olympics. This theory provides a means for the authors to map the various and changing relationships among the different networks. Significantly, the theory also focuses on the contexts of these evolving relationships.I contend that one of the key strengths of this book is the clear articulation between the social/historical contexts and the evolving relationships among key actors and networks. This was their aim, as noted by the authors: “The cultural politics between and within groups are unique, based on the distinctive history, ideologies, identities, and development of patterns of each lifestyle sport culture, and particularly the specific historical juncture within which the incorporation processes occurred” (104). I will provide some examples to highlight their discussion of the complex power struggles.It should be noted that the impetus for the inclusion of action sports in the Olympics did not come from the action sport industry. Instead, the Olympics have been facing a declining audience, so they needed to make the movement more relevant. The authors note that the IOC faces two main obstacles. One is that the public is losing faith in the movement. There is growing outcry about the lack of sustainability and gender equity as well as concern for the ongoing corruption. The second obstacle is that the IOC's programs and mode of delivery were geared toward an older audience, which essentially discouraged younger people from tuning in. Agenda 2020 was a plan to address many of these issues. And, as noted above, the inclusion of action sports was done to keep the Olympics relevant to a younger, urban, and female viewership. The authors also comment on the ways younger audiences engage in media. Many younger people are not connected to television programming and schedules; instead, they are using mobile devices to stream their content. The IOC was interested in not only creating more youthful programming but changing the way they delivered the content. Thus, the IOC was keen on adding action sports because of their history of innovative social media use, and hoped it could deliver a younger audience through new media outlets.To demonstrate the context specific negotiations of power, the authors provide examples of the initial action sports inclusion. I will briefly overview two cases that highlight the significance of IFs’ relationships with the action sports industry and participants. Again, it is important to note that many action sports are founded on a DIY (do-it-yourself) ethos and, especially in recreational settings, are not focused on outcome, but the artistic style and innovation of the participants. Thus, the inclusion of action sports in the Olympics often evokes a strong negative response from participants as it is seen as “selling out” the soul of the sports. Nonetheless, these sports have always been tied to commercial enterprise and have been engaged in more traditional contest structures such as the X-Games. These commercial interests, particularly those whose economic lives were dependent on the industry and media, were crucial in promoting inclusion into the Olympics.Snowboarding made its debut in 1998. At this point, any new sport on the Olympic program needed to be sponsored by an IOC recognized IF. Thus, snowboarding was put under the auspices of the International Ski Federation as opposed to the International Snowboard Association. This move upset many professional snowboarders and the “core” of recreational snowboarders as both were concerned about losing control over the sport whether it be its governance or its “soul.” Additionally, there were many road bumps in ensuring that the athletes understood the rules and regulations (failed drug tests being one of the most noted issues). The 1998 addition did not meet the audience goals of the IOC and so the concerned entities (IFs, National Federations, the IOC, television networks, and industry leaders) worked to create a more “youthful cool” presentation of snowboarding. Thus, such changes as more flexibility in uniforms, pro snowboarders as commentators, and athletes’ choice of music during runs were incorporated. The efforts paid off as the 2002 snowboarding events were a big hit and pulled in the demographic they wanted: a youth audience. In turn, the snowboarding industry also saw the benefits of this publicity. Importantly, the authors note that this increased professionalization is not a zero-sum game. Many of these action sport communities are becoming more fragmented depending on their purposes. “Soul” riding exists alongside professional contests. And social enterprise groups are popping up to meet different needs whether it be gender inclusion or sustainability.The authors contrast the example of snowboarding with the more seamless incorporation of BMX racing. The initial governing body of BMX was integrated into the International Cycling Union (UCI) in 1993. BMX was incorporated into the 2008 Games and was supported by the UCI and a majority of the participants. In particular, they knew that this exposure could be a boost to their sales and participation. Nonetheless, it didn't capture as much of a younger audience as expected, so the next Olympic iterations included more “stunt” elements such as vert and street styles.These two examples demonstrate the complexity of the various actors in negotiating what elements of their sport are included and how the sport is to be represented. According to the authors, the IOC learned important lessons and were more willing to be flexible with the skateboarding, surfing, and sport climbing industries as they became part of the Olympics. Importantly, the IOC now allows new sports to use their own IFs as opposed to being subsumed under already approved ones. Additionally, they allowed and wanted the sports to reflect their youthful and urban cultures. Yet this “freedom” was a compromise among all parties and, thus, these action sports cultures were muted for the Olympics. Essentially, the IOC did compromise as they need these sports to make the Games more relevant to younger audiences.It's no surprise that skateboarding was targeted by the IOC as it represents both a youthful and urban market. The authors discuss the tensions that arose within the skateboarding community when the IOC announced skateboarding as part of the Tokyo 2020 Games. They found that “core” skateboarders were opposed to the Olympics as it went against their notions of grassroots and participant-driven activity. In short, it challenged the “core” members’ identities as skateboarders. On the other hand, recreational skateboarders were noncommittal because they didn't see Olympic inclusion as changing their everyday skateboarding activities. Those who were centrally connected to the industry were supportive of the move as they deemed it would increase exposure with the potential for governmental agencies to invest in the development of the sport. These insiders were strategizing about how to frame inclusion as beneficial for skateboarding and to reduce the anxiety expressed by core participants.While the skateboarding community was expressing their varied positions, the organizing bodies were also not in unison. There were three international governing bodies vying for control over skateboarding: the International Federation of Roller Sports (FIRS), the World Skateboarding Federation (WSF), and the International Skateboarding Federation (ISF). The authors explain the differences between these organizations and, in particular, point out that the national affiliations of these organizing committees as well as how many “core” members were in the committees impacted their positioning. Because of these differences and the potential fiscal windfall, it was difficult to find a mutual path forward. As part of the negotiation, the IOC asked FIRS and the ISF to work together. As part of this move, FIRS changed their name to Work Skate and it became the acknowledged Olympic Federation.Not only was their contention in the skateboarding community with regard to being part of the Olympics, but there were differences of opinion within the IOC. The authors found that the younger staff were more apt to be supportive of including action sports and their cultures. The younger staff were more involved in the Youth Olympic Games (where new youth sports are often displayed in an urban festival environment). Insiders commented that the IOC is a huge bureaucracy, which makes change difficult. Additionally, the IOC old guard was not as flexible with the efforts to make reforms for including action sports and their cultures.The authors go on to provide case studies for surfing and sport climbing. The surfing example is particularly interesting given that it is not an urban sport and is, in fact, not an easily accessible sport (one needs to be close to the ocean). Additionally, it historically has not actively promoted or been inclusive of women (although this is changing, most notably equal prize monies on the pro tour were recently established). Thus, it did not as easily fit into the urban youth and female agenda of the IOC. Although there was some hesitation by core surfers, most of the surf industry was supportive of inclusion with the aim of broadening their markets.The authors include other pressures that impacted the decisions on what action sports are included in the Olympics. In particular, most action sports industries are based in the US. And, when the US television audience is 50 percent of the Olympic Games audience (which, in turn, generates 75 percent of IOC revenues) there is a powerful convergence to include specific action sports. This represents, in part, how the authors map the actors and the networks in the decision-making process.The authors finish the book by returning to the IOC's goal of including more women. In doing so, they provide an overview of the history of gender relations in the Olympics and action sports. They note that many scholars have critiqued the Olympics for their institutional sexism as represented by sex-testing and only accepting a binary notion of sex. Their focus is to examine whether IOC institutional policies are promoting gender equity in the action sports cultures of surfing, skateboarding, and sport climbing. Again, they provide a context and sport-specific assessment, noting that all three sports have different histories. For example, sport climbing is seen as more open to women and different bodies in general. Surfing has historically positioned women as “eye candy” but is making strides in pay equity and leadership representation. Skateboarding has a long history of women and their allies working to promote women, but it has struggled to do so. Importantly, the IOC's requirement for meeting particular gender representation in athletes, coaches, and leadership did serve as an impetus for change in the organizing bodies of these sports. The authors make note that the IOC generally has a liberal notion of gender inclusion that is limited to adding more women as opposed to changing the gendered norms and values of sport cultures.Although I presented some highlights of this book, my review does not capture the depth of information or the nuanced analysis of the specific power struggles that the authors provide. For example, another angle they develop is how different countries and their IFs had different modes and quality of support for action sports athletes leading up to the Olympics.This book makes a significant contribution to the research on action sports by examining the various levels, from subcultures to international governing bodies, and analyzing the power dynamics among these different levels and action sports communities. For example, they draw on a breadth of research on action sports’ subcultures and participants,1 the political economies of action sports,2 and action sports incorporation into the Olympics.3 The book integrates this previous research and contributes original information on all those topics. Fundamentally, it is a comprehensive, critical, and deep analysis of the professionalization and sportification of action sports.As a scholar focusing on action sports, the insights I gained into the Olympic inclusion process were profound. My research has focused on the recreational side of action sports, so Wheaton and Thorpe's analysis of the commercial and professional dynamics provided a broader and deeper picture of the action sport landscape. I highly recommend reading their work, especially if you are in sport management, sport studies, or Olympic studies. I believe that the book or specific chapters could work well with upper division undergraduates but more likely is best suited for graduate students.