Globalization has been and will continue to be a powerful force in the development of sport tourism. The way this force will play out over the next
decade will be an important focus of researchers studying this phenomenon for the foreseeable future. Two issues of the globalization of sport tourism are particularly relevant: 1) whether or not globalization is leading to homoge- nization and 2) whether globalization brings with it an inextricable force for (de)territorialization whereby the bonds between sport and place are eroded.
The issue of homogenization
The homogenization thesis suggests that globalization is leading to a single global culture that will overshadow and eventually smother local differences.
Go (2005:52) describes the convergence argument as the belief ‘that whole societies are steadily moving together so that the similarities between cultures will eventually become greater than the differences’.
While even Maguire (2002:20) has conceded that globalization forces have created ‘a tendency towards the emergence of a global achievement sport monoculture’, he sees this monoculture being concentrated in the realms of values, ideologies and organizational structure. More generally, however, Maguire (1994:402) and most other sport sociologists have rejected the homogenization thesis. Maguire articulates this perspective by arguing:
There is nosingleglobal flow; in the interweaving of global scapes, disjunctures develop and cause a series of diverse, fluid, and
unpredictable global conditions and flows. Competing and distinctive cultures are thus involved in an infinitely varied, mutual contest of samenessanddifferenceacross different figurational fields. Rejecting the idea of some global cultural homogeneity does not, however, mean accepting the idea of some haphazard, unstructured growth in global cultural diversity. In highlighting issues of homogeneity, and in the mutual contest of sameness and difference in global cultural flows, the analysis can be developed with reference to the twin figurational concepts of diminishing contrasts and increasing varieties.
Evidence of increasing varieties in a non-sporting context includes the proliferation of cable television stations rather than the emergence of one global network (Miller et al., 2001). Similarly, Morley and Robins (1995:113) have pointed out that ‘globalization does not mean the end of segments. It means, instead their expansion to worldwide proportions’. While Donnelley (1996:248) recognizes that the globalization of sport has lead to sameness at the corporate levels of sport, he suggests that it also has created ‘.vast areas of cultural space in which new sporting activities may emerge and traditional sports may thrive’. Evidence of these increasing differences can be found in
Globalization Issues Facing Sport Tourism 29
the emergence of the Gay Games, the Paralympics, extreme sports, the rejuvenation of certain folk cultural sports and the growth in non-western sports such as various forms of martial arts. This line of argument, of heterogeneity rather than homogeneity, is consistent with theoretical views on post-modernity (Harvey, 1989).
Three consistent criticisms of the homogenization argument dominate the sport sociology literature. The first is that it fails to recognize the unevenness of the power relationships that underlie globalization as dis- cussed earlier in this chapter. Secondly, it fails to recognize that even where global power outweighs local power, negotiation is inescapable. A variety of examples have been presented in the literature to support this argument, including Denham’s (2004) study of Rupert Murdoch’s unsuccessful initial attempt to popularize the English Rugby League at a global level due to local resistance in Northern England and indifference in the regions in which the League was being introduced. A broad range of other studies have resulted in similar conclusions about the power of locals in this negotiation process (e.g., Melnic & Jackson, 2002). The third criticism of the homogenization thesis is its failure to recognize points of disjuncture that are found in these global–
local negotiations (e.g., Maguire, 1999). Jackson and Andrews (1999:32) have described these points as ‘the diverse set of consequences that result when global forces and local contexts meet’. They emphasize the unpre- dictability of these disjunctures as they can ‘provoke conflict, incongruence, and resistance’ but can also result in ‘accommodation, acceptance, and even ambivalence’. These disjunctures are found onFigure 2.1at points of contact between the global and the local across all spatial scales. The unpredictability of these interactions ensures a dynamic environment and serves to mitigate homogeneity in sport.
Mowforth and Munt (1998) echo this view in the context of tourism.
They feel that the homogenization argument is simplistic and fails to recognize the inequalities in power and the negotiation that occurs between the global and the local. Their position is strongly influenced by Harvey’s (1989:33) view that ‘postmodernism helps capture the high degree of difference and ‘‘fragmentation’’ that lies at the heart of contemporary cultural change’. Despite their compelling argument, Mowforth and Munt represent a minority view, with the bulk of tourism commentators on globalization expressing significant, if tempered, concerns about the tendency of homog- enization trends found in tourism landscapes and systems.
Morrow’s (1995) comments exemplify the more alarmist views with his reference to tourism as a ‘.radio-active cloud of banalizing sameness’ which,
‘.threatens the earth; the sacred and beautiful places, all the uniquenesses, have been invaded, desacralized, franchised for the masses, dissolved into the
United Colors of Beneton’ (Morrow in Mowforth & Munt, 1998:32). This refrain, while not always as passionate, is a common one in tourism literature.
For example, Cooper and Wahab (2001:322), in the concluding chapter of their bookTourism in the Age of Globalization,note that
the consumption and adoption of global culture is significant for tourism, with criticism of many resorts as consisting of a uniform landscape of fast food restaurants, international hotels and chain resorts. The homogenization of tourism products is a problem for tourism as tourism places are increasingly commodified to reflect a global culture of consumption and it becomes difficult to differentiate them from the visitor’s home surroundings.
While the tourism industry has long been populated by small to medium- sized tourism operations, it has also been subject to a growing number of corporate mergers and buyouts, which have led to the emergence of several major transnational corporations that feature a high degree of vertical and horizontal integration (Coles & Hall, 2008). Like other types of transnational corporations, those found in tourism actively dismantle national boundaries in their pursuit of global markets although they are somewhat constrained by the fact that many tourists are seeking ‘difference’ – at least on the surface (Cooper & Wahab, 2001). Go (2004:70–71) argues that the competitive conditions of a global travel market require travel firms to ‘.build a market edge by simultaneously capturing global scale efficiency, responding to local market needs, and developing worldwide learning capacity that drive continuous innovation’.
Achieving all three of Go’s (2004) recommended objectives is not easy.
One increasingly popular strategy for doing so is through the affiliation of small and medium-sized firms with the larger ones. While many of these affiliations have taken the form of corporate mergers and buyouts, there has also been a growth in voluntary and mutually beneficial but non-binding associations. Such associations not only have the advantage of flexibility in a Post-Fordist economy, they also make it possible to stay connected at a local level. In contrast to this trend towards an intensification of industry networks and associations, the other significant strategy has been the pursuit of niche travel markets by small operators as made increasingly feasible by Internet technology. Notwithstanding the emergence of small-scale opera- tors in response to niche markets, mass tourism experiences are still in high demand and this dimension of the industry continues to thrive (Go, 2004).
In summary, there is no general consensus that globalization processes are leading to the homogenization of tourism landscapes and experiences.
While there is implicit, if not explicit, recognition of a touristic equivalent of
Globalization Issues Facing Sport Tourism 31
Maguire’s (1994) argument of ‘increasing varieties’ in sport, the question remains as to whether recognized increases in niche tourism markets and independent travel are being overshadowed by the ‘diminishing contrasts’
associated with the continued growth of mass tourism and the ‘smoothing’
effects of increased networking throughout the tourism industry.
The issue of (de)territorialization
Another important issue in the globalization literature is that of (de)terri- torialization. The discourse associated with (de)territorialization argues that the processes of political economic restructuring and transformation have resulted in changes to the historical system of accumulation and social organization (Morley & Robins, 1995). Such changes have in turn spurred spatial restructuring and reconfiguration. In fact, Miller et al. (2001:126) argue that under the processes of globalization ‘[s]pace is torn asunder as traditional social bonds are compromised by ownership based on profit rather than township’.
The (de)territorialization discourse suggests that the processes of glob- alization result in a disconnect between space and people at the level of the nation state. The rapid growth of transnational corporations which owe their allegiance to unbounded shareholders rather than to the state is cited as a key factor in this (de)territorialization phenomenon (Cooper & Wahab, 2001;
Miller et al., 2001). Along with the growth of transnational corporations, there has been an increase in ‘offshore’ economic spaces and macro regional blocks – ‘all largely beyond the control of states’, and all of ‘which challenge the territoriality of the nation state’ (Ben-Porat & Ben-Porat, 2004:423).
Under the impact of transnational migration and other aspects of globalization,
.the nation-state is being ‘unpacked’. Community, polity, and territory are becoming, rather than coextensive, discrete if overlapping spheres. Regional and transnational political institutions,
transnational, subnational, and diasporic communities, and the state itself, now more an administrative entity that is increasingly being stripped of a primordial quality, occupy different (if linked and partly shared) spaces. Identities are being deterritorialized.(Jacobson, 1997:123)
From a sport perspective, this discourse suggests that despite vestiges of sporting identities at the nation state level, there is a trend towards the (de)territorialization of sport as indicated by the following: 1) the emergence of professional leagues made up of players from across the globe; 2) professional
competitions in sports such as downhill skiing, golf, tennis and automobile racing that feature global circuits of competition; 3) global broadcasts of competitions; and 4) the emergence of multinational sport equipment corporations. The (de)territorialization of sport could have profound impli- cations for sport tourism where space and place are at the core.
Despite the popular notion that globalization has eroded the relevance of the nation-state, Short, Breitbach, Buckman and Essex (2000:322) have noted that ‘.the nation-state has not wilted in the sun of globalization’.
Increasingly, globalization is seen as being characterized by (re)territoriali- zation rather than (de)territorialization. There are a variety of reasons for the continued importance of territory. At a nation-state level these include resistance to globalization, the uneven nature of globalization processes and a need for membership in territorial communities between the impersonal (global) and the personal (family) (Milne & Ateljevic, 2001). Amin and Thrift (1997) argue that globalization does not mean the end of geography in terms of the (de)territorialization of the economy. They also disagree with the view that under globalization the world has shifted from a ‘space of places’ to a ‘space of flows’. Their logic lies in the realm of socio-economics, which suggests that economic activity is rooted in the geography of ‘the centrality of innovation, learning and information to network building and path depen- dency’ (Amin & Thrift, 1997:153). A global economy makes it more important than ever to foster place connections that provide access to local environments of trust, forbearance and reciprocity. The key point is that while globalization has changed the way people relate to spaces, this rela- tionship still has meaning.
While Hall (2001a:42) recognizes the dynamic and complex nature of global processes across spatial hierarchies, he notes that these spatial hier- archies ‘will continue to act as the spatial setting within which economic globalization will be negotiated within the foreseeable future’. Such views are consistent with those of Ben-Porat and Ben-Porat (2004:423) who state that
Globalization implies,., on the one hand, a rise of supra-territoriality or deterritorialization, but on the other hand, because of the uneven nature of the process, territory and territorial identity still matter.
Thus, not only do local identities persist in spite of global flows, the resistance to globalization may even reinforce them.