How Countries Compete for Success in Elite Sport: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the Introduction part, there is a lot of information -rather- confusing- without a clear sequence. I don’t see the theoretical framework that will lead to “…to identify the factors that determine success in elite sport “  (lines 169-170). Given this, it is not clear how the introduction and the theoretical part can support the Discussion. 

The methodolofy should be further enhanced in relation to the research questions, the Discussion and the Conclusions.

Also the conclusions are rather vague. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your valuable contribution to this review. Your comments have been very useful to get better and clarify some sections. According to them, we are going to reply one by one each comment according to:

Bold - Your comments.

Black - Our replies.

Red - Modifications in the manuscript following your recommendations.

In the Introduction part, there is a lot of information -rather- confusing- without a clear sequence. I don’t see the theoretical framework that will lead to “…to identify the factors that determine success in elite sport “  (lines 169-170). Given this, it is not clear how the introduction and the theoretical part can support the Discussion. 

Thanks for your comment, we are going to try to explain the procedure we have applied through the Introduction as the basis for the whole systematic review. Moreover, please take into account that there have been minor adjustments according to the recommendations of other reviewer.

The introduction describes the 3 stages where countries have focused the sports management to increase the sports level at international level.

According your request about "it is not clear how the introduction and the theoretical part can support the Discussion" this 3 ways of management analysis shows how countries move from:

Stage 1. Soft power development as the main objective through macro factors and increase of investment. A simple management view where just a few countries focused on it.

Stage 2. Social development through meso and micro factors, not just about investment but adding strategic planning in anglo-saxon sports systems evolving until efficiency of processes.

Stage 3. This stage develops the previous one establishing the business perspectives through the SPLISS consortium where countries from 5 continents analysed their own models according to different views related to meso and micro factors; policy, organizations and strategy, financing, competitiveness and outcomes, and methods and theory.

According to that, moving from Stage 1 to Stage 3 allows us to describe that Sporting Arms Race has moved from a minor sports war between a few countries with macro factors inputs until a Global Sporting Arms Race involving countries all around the world with meso and micro factors inputs and a business approach. This framework requires an analysis through a systematic review where the data reached is explained in connection with this background.

The methodology should be further enhanced in relation to the research questions, the Discussion and the Conclusions.

According to the methodology matter, we have used the PRISMA statement for Social Sciences most updated [Page et al. 2021]. According to that, we have describe the phases in the same way that the checklist requires. Of course, we have checked the proper application from other reviews in the term 2020-2023.

In this section we have included a more concrete exclusion criteria according the requirement of other reviewer, the text is adapted as follows:

The exclusion criteria were: a) repeated articles; b) subject other than organizational performance, i.e., athletic performance; c) not a scientific article due to the high amount of records identified (6,053).

Also the conclusions are rather vague. 

Thanks for your contribution, we have adapted the conclusions to be more concrete according to your contribution. The text is adapted as follows:

The Global Sporting Arms Race has become the context in which the new paradigm of seeking soft power and social impact is being developed. States are developing personalised models through strategic planning and organisational performance, with the Olympic Games as the end of the process.

This is evidenced by the results of the present study, which responds to the objective of identifying the factors that determine success in elite sport. The framework for action presents studies on the globality of the states that make up the sports system, taking into account all the sports that are part of it and with a medium- to long-term perspective.  The meso - financial support, national policies and strategies, training facilities and coach provisions - and micro factors - direct athlete funding, post career and medical support - are the specific points of reference for analysis in direct relation to the medals won in the various editions of the Olympic Games.

This fact highlights the need to understand a global model of a holistic nature, focusing on aspects where the meso factors provide the greatest amount of information about the procedures carried out to obtain the results. Policies, planning and strategies are identified as the main axes of the process that will form the backbone of an analysis model to be developed; with meso factors, such as structure and budgets; and micro factors, such as the environment of the athlete, as the relevant itinerary provided by the scientific community. 

The concrete adaptation of these dimensions and factors according to the specific nature of each nation will determine its position into the worldwide sports contest, thus its international - soft power - and national - social impact - outcomes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I have to say that this is an interesting paper which could provide an insightful analysis into the global sporting arm race. As such, I do have a number of concerns and questions which I have outlined below.

 

My first concern deals with the abstract. Instead of saying why nations are investing (soft power), we should be saying why it's worth doing a systematic review. Why should Social Science publish a systematic review about global sporting arm race?

More generally, the introduction focuses too much on soft power. There are many arguments other than soft power to explain investment in elite sport (Grix & Carmichael, 2012).

Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(1), 73-90. doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2011.627358

It should be pointed out that the Medal Table has no official recognition and that there are several possible table formats (number of gold medals or number of total medals, Terrien, 2022). Since you are using a model, please specify which one and the source.

Terrien, M. (2022) Sport d’élite. In Soguel, N., Bundi, P., Mettler, T., & Weerts, S. Comprendre et concevoir l’administration publique. Le modèle IDHEAP. EPFL Press

You need to define more clearly what you mean by macro, meso and micro variables (definitions and examples), as this will be a key element in your results.

 

Dealing with the material and methods section, you have chosen to select only scientific articles. This choice must be justified, as grey literature can also be taken into account and is very interesting in systematic reviews (Thompson et al., 2022).

Thompson, A., Lachance, E. L., Parent, M. M., & Hoye, R. (2022). A systematic review of governance principles in sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1-26.

For Figure 2, I would remove the year 2022, as the analysis stops in May of that year (or add the information in the Figure). It is strange in Table 3 to have some sports with one occurrence and yet to have a line with "Others".

 

To make the results even more interesting, it would be useful to describe in greater detail the dimensions (macro, meso and micro) analysed in the literature. Percentages do not add up to much, we need to know which variables are most widely used by the scientific community.

 

The causality mentioned by the authors between the British results at the Olympic Games and the fact of not participating in the SPLISS 2.0 does not seem relevant to me. Other criteria could just as easily explain the British miracle. See Scelles et al (2020) on the persistent positive effect on the medal table enjoyed by the host nation:

Scelles, N., Andreff, W., Bonnal, L., Andreff, M., & Favard, P. (2020). Forecasting national medal totals at the Summer Olympic Games reconsidered. Social Science Quarterly, 101(2), 697-711. Generally speaking, section 4.1 contains few interesting elements relating to the results. Most of the elements could have been written without the systematic review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your valuable contribution to this review. Your comments have been very useful to get better and clarify some sections. According to them, we are going to reply one by one each comment according to:

Bold - Your comments.

Black - Our replies.

Red - Modifications in the manuscript following your recommendations.

"My first concern deals with the abstract. Instead of saying why nations are investing (soft power), we should be saying why it's worth doing a systematic review. Why should Social Science publish a systematic review about global sporting arm race?"

The idea of the Sporting Arms Race works with the achievement of the highest level of impact internationally and its effect at social level. As the data give us as evidence, much more countries are trying to identify the best practices to get its own privilege position in this peaceful competition.

According to that assumptions, we reflect in the abstract that we try to understand: the factors which are pursued by the countries through a systematic review where are shown what variables are most used.

"More generally, the introduction focuses too much on soft power. There are many arguments other than soft power to explain investment in elite sport"

Thanks for your contribution, we adapted the abstract in the following terms:

The development of that peaceful competition determines two outputs; to increase the soft power at international level and to promote the national identity and social impact. It means, to increase the level of influence which the countries obtain internationally as a mirror to bolster a cornerstone as sporting nation with a proud and healthy population.  

And the introduction in the section ii) Use of strategic planning to maximise return on investment, as follows:  

The second stage emerged at the end of the 20th century as a result of a new and more social paradigm (Digel 2005b) focused on strategic organisational performance at state level blending external aims – soft power – and internal ones – national identity and social impact – (Grix and Carmichael 2012).  

Also, that matter is commented in the following paragraphs related to the sense of community which Australia tried to apply in order to adapt its policies according this new paradigm.

"It should be pointed out that the Medal Table has no official recognition and that there are several possible table formats (number of gold medals or number of total medals, Terrien, 2022). Since you are using a model, please specify which one and the source".

Thanks again for your contribution, we adapted the first part of the introduction in the following terms:

It’s important to note, due to its usage throughout this study, that Olympic medal table is not recognized as official by the Olympic Charter (IOC 2021), although both IOC and Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (OCOG) use this reference in the Official Reports after each edition for information purposes only. This fact has provoked that the medal tally has become the common reference and benchmark for national agencies and researchers (UK Sport 2003; Mari 2018) even combined with social, demographic and economic variables.

Dealing with the material and methods section, you have chosen to select only scientific articles. This choice must be justified, as grey literature can also be taken into account and is very interesting in systematic reviews (Thompson et al., 2022).

We agree with your comment about the potential of grey literature, in fact we have incorporated many reports from national agencies in the introduction or discussion, but due to the high number of records identified for the review [+6,000] we decided to focused on scientific articles. Anyway, we have justified it properly following your commentary as follows:

The exclusion criteria were: a) repeated articles; b) subject other than organizational performance, i.e., athletic performance; c) not a scientific article due to the high amount of records identified (6,053).

"For Figure 2, I would remove the year 2022, as the analysis stops in May of that year (or add the information in the Figure). It is strange in Table 3 to have some sports with one occurrence and yet to have a line with "Others"

We removed 2022 year and added 'Others' item.

"You need to define more clearly what you mean by macro, meso and micro variables (definitions and examples), as this will be a key element in your results."

"To make the results even more interesting, it would be useful to describe in greater detail the dimensions (macro, meso and micro) analysed in the literature. Percentages do not add up to much, we need to know which variables are most widely used by the scientific community."

We adapted the paragraphs where we dealt with it in the following terms:

In combination with the dimensions, macro factors -socioeconomic, cultural and legislation context at national level- are secondary and only relevant in quantitative analysis (15.3%) with priority to population, gross domestic product, political regime or host effect. Meso factors -infraestructure, personnel and services related to sports programs- dominate in qualitative (29.0%) and mixed (28.2%) analysis and are relevant in quantitative (16.1%) analysis with priority to financial support, national policies and strategies, training facilities and coach provisions. And micro factors –methodologies for the development of close environment of the athletes- have a global predominance in quantitative analysis (20,2%) with priority to direct athlete funding, post career and medical support.

"The causality mentioned by the authors between the British results at the Olympic Games and the fact of not participating in the SPLISS 2.0 does not seem relevant to me. Other criteria could just as easily explain the British miracle. See Scelles et al (2020) on the persistent positive effect on the medal table enjoyed by the host nation:"

We didn't try to establish a causality between the 'British miracle' and the quit from SPLISS 2.0. We use that reference in the discussion to create a timeline where UK Sports decide to start its own model after having taken part in the first steps of SPLISS. In fact, SPLISS 1.0 was the initial input for the following steps of that process.

Regarding the host effect, it's detailed in Introduction ii) and point 4.1. In both cases referred to UK 142, 325 and in the following lines to Australia and Brazil. We've included the interesting reference that you've mentioned rewriting specfically that matter in 4.1. 

with the impetus of the London 2012 Olympic Games and the traditional host effect (Scelles et al. 2020).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the paper has significantly improevd and can be published.