Non-democratic states, even if they perform well in sports, receive less media attention than democratic countries

24 Apr 2025

In this study, Panao and Gache delve into the fascinating world of sports and its connection to global politics. Essentially, the study asks whether the media treats all countries equally when reporting on sports achievements. They collected 11,469 news articles on the Olympics, published by Reuters from 2012 to 2022, to see how different countries’ performances are portrayed in international news outlets. What they found was that, rather surprisingly, non-democratic states that perform well in sports tend to be underreported. Even if they win medals, their achievements often receive less attention. On the flip side, democratic
countries—even if they underperform—get more media coverage. The range of what non-democracies cover is wide, however, and includes authoritarian regimes like China as well illiberal democracies with recurring bouts of repression.

Why is there a bias in favor of democracies? The authors argue that this bias stems from the media’s normative preference for liberal democracy and its associated values. There are a number of implications. One pertains to soft power, or to the ability of a country to influence others through culture, diplomacy, and other non-coercive means. Panao and Gache suggest that being a democracy pays off in terms of soft power gains. Another implication points to the relevance of sports as an arena of political contestation.

While it is understood that, like their democratic counterparts, authoritarian regimes utilize strategies, narratives, and tactics, including engagement in international sporting activities to project soft power, literature rarely focus on how international media wittingly or unwittingly mediates soft power projection through their coverage. These findings show that for an equivalent or greater amount of sporting success athletes from autocratic states receive less coverage than those from democratic states. Consequently, autocratic states gain less in soft power through their sporting efforts than their democratic counterparts do. Overall, we show that in the coverage of sporting events, instead of soft power gains, what actually happens
is a sort of soft disempowerment, particularly of states contravening international rules or failing to uphold international standards.

So, next time you watch the Olympics or any major sporting event, consider how the media shapes your perception of different countries. It is not just about who wins medals; it is also about the narratives we consume. And remember, the playing field is not always level when it comes to media coverage.

Authors: Rogelio Alicor L. Panao and Adrian Justin L. Gache (Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines Diliman)

Read more: International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

Non-democratic states, even if they perform well in sports, receive less media attention than democratic countries

In this study, Panao and Gache delve into the fascinating world of sports and its connection to global politics. Essentially, the study asks whether the media treats all countries equally when reporting on sports achievements. They collected 11,469 news articles on the Olympics, published by Reuters from 2012 to 2022, to see how different countries’ performances are portrayed in international news outlets. What they found was that, rather surprisingly, non-democratic states that perform well in sports tend to be underreported. Even if they win medals, their achievements often receive less attention. On the flip side, democratic
countries—even if they underperform—get more media coverage. The range of what non-democracies cover is wide, however, and includes authoritarian regimes like China as well illiberal democracies with recurring bouts of repression.

Why is there a bias in favor of democracies? The authors argue that this bias stems from the media’s normative preference for liberal democracy and its associated values. There are a number of implications. One pertains to soft power, or to the ability of a country to influence others through culture, diplomacy, and other non-coercive means. Panao and Gache suggest that being a democracy pays off in terms of soft power gains. Another implication points to the relevance of sports as an arena of political contestation.

While it is understood that, like their democratic counterparts, authoritarian regimes utilize strategies, narratives, and tactics, including engagement in international sporting activities to project soft power, literature rarely focus on how international media wittingly or unwittingly mediates soft power projection through their coverage. These findings show that for an equivalent or greater amount of sporting success athletes from autocratic states receive less coverage than those from democratic states. Consequently, autocratic states gain less in soft power through their sporting efforts than their democratic counterparts do. Overall, we show that in the coverage of sporting events, instead of soft power gains, what actually happens
is a sort of soft disempowerment, particularly of states contravening international rules or failing to uphold international standards.

So, next time you watch the Olympics or any major sporting event, consider how the media shapes your perception of different countries. It is not just about who wins medals; it is also about the narratives we consume. And remember, the playing field is not always level when it comes to media coverage.

Authors: Rogelio Alicor L. Panao and Adrian Justin L. Gache (Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines Diliman)

Read more: International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics