Considering the decline of boxing over the past few decades, the recent emergence of another combat sport, mixed martial arts (MMA) is worth noting. Those studying the changes made to violent sports have credited Nobert Elias’ concept of sportizatio...
Considering the decline of boxing over the past few decades, the recent emergence of another combat sport, mixed martial arts (MMA) is worth noting. Those studying the changes made to violent sports have credited Nobert Elias’ concept of sportization, the civilizing process of a sport, to explain the evolution of the two sports. This study will examine the role of a network of interest-driven actors, or a transnational advocacy network (TAN), and the extent of its influence on sportization as a part of the TAN’s movement against boxing and MMA.
Though findings indicate that interest-driven actors’ normative idea of ethics and morality did bring about regulation changes in both boxing and MMA, the concept of sportization alone fails to explain the differing trends between the two combat sports. This study argues that instead, varying degrees of the sport organizer’s ability to capture the changing dynamics of business opportunities more comprehensively explain the decline of boxing and the emergence of MMA.
This study shows that, taking full advantage of being a late mover, MMA performed better in balancing the TAN’s normative pressure and the components needed for sport commercialization, which are conflicting in nature. This conflict arises in that the components needed for sport commercialization: spectacularization, dramatization, and personalization, are maximized using the violent aspects of the sport, the very aspects the TANs attack.