Sport Participation and Happiness Among Veteran Footballers: The Mediating Role of Social Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

The manuscript addresses an important and applied topic in the field of sport psychology and active aging by examining the role of social capital in explaining the relationship between sport participation and happiness. Focusing on veteran footballers as a specific and relatively understudied population represents a notable strength of the study. However, in its current form, the manuscript requires substantial revision, particularly with regard to theoretical contribution, methodological transparency, and depth of interpretation of the findings.

1. The relationship between sport participation and happiness, as well as the role of social capital in mental health and well-being, has been widely examined in previous research. The present study does not clearly articulate what specific gap in the existing literature it seeks to address, nor how it advances current knowledge beyond what is already established.
2. The manuscript primarily limits its claimed novelty to the characteristics of the study sample, which on its own is insufficient to justify a meaningful scientific contribution. The authors are encouraged to explicitly state the theoretical contribution of the study and clarify how their findings extend or refine existing conceptual frameworks.
3. The study employs a cross-sectional design, yet the discussion section at times uses pseudo-causal language that may lead to misinterpretation of the results. Causal inferences should be avoided, or the language should be revised accordingly.
4. The sampling procedure is not described in sufficient detail, making it difficult to assess the representativeness of the sample and the extent to which the findings can be generalized to the broader population of veteran athletes. In addition, all variables were measured using self-report instruments, which increases the risk of social desirability bias; this limitation should be more explicitly acknowledged and discussed.
5. Although mediation analysis was conducted, the specific analytical approach (e.g., bootstrap procedures, PROCESS macro, or structural equation modeling) is not clearly described. Furthermore, effect sizes for indirect paths are not reported or interpreted, and the non-significant mediating effects of certain dimensions of social capital (e.g., trust and neighborhood relations) are not adequately examined from a theoretical perspective.
6. The discussion section is largely descriptive and would benefit from a deeper theoretical interpretation of the findings, particularly in relation to established models in sport psychology, social capital, and aging.
7. The implications of the findings for sport policies and active aging programs should be articulated more clearly and translated into concrete and actionable recommendations.
8. The reporting of ethical considerations, including informed consent procedures and data confidentiality, is brief and should be stated more explicitly in line with standard ethical reporting guidelines.

Finally, in the Discussion section, the authors are encouraged to place greater emphasis on the beneficial role of competitive sport participation in the psychological well-being of athletes, particularly in later life. To strengthen this argument, the following reference is recommended for integration into the discussion: https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.intjssh.8.1.6

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction and theoretical background

The introduction provides a solid contextual foundation regarding global population aging and the relationship between sports participation and psychological well-being. The integration of previous literature (e.g., Rowe & Kahn’s model of successful aging, WHO data, 2019) and the connection between active aging and social capital are well presented.
However, to improve coherence and focus, the following recommendations were made:

• The introductory section (lines 42–61) could be shortened, as it includes overly detailed demographic data; instead, it focuses more clearly on the research gap identified in the manuscript (e.g., “the lack of empirical studies on veteran footballers,” mentioned around line 108).

• Add a clearer conceptual definition of social capital, explicitly distinguishing between its cognitive and structural dimensions, with applied examples in the sports context, before the “Hypotheses Development” section.

• It would also strengthen the theoretical framework by including more recent sources (2021–2024), such as Kim et al. (2021) and Sivaramakrishnan et al. (2024), to reinforce the study’s contemporary relevance.

2. Originality and research significance

The topic is original in addressing the mediating role of social capital between football participation and happiness among veteran athletes, an area rarely explored.
To emphasize this contribution more explicitly:

• Add a short, dedicated paragraph titled “Research gap” near the end of the Introduction, summarizing in 3–4 sentences what previous studies have missed and what new insight this paper provides.

• Example: “Although prior studies have investigated the effects of physical activity on happiness in adults, no research has yet examined the veteran football context or considered social capital as a mediating factor.”

3. Research design and methods

The methodology is carefully described with validated instruments (SLIM, Social Capital Scale, and Single-Item Happiness Scale) and reported reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α = 0.936). Ethical approval for this study is well documented.
To further improve the methodological transparency,

• The authors should briefly justify the all-male sample (line 207), perhaps by referencing the gender composition of veteran football leagues in Turkey or the sociocultural factors influencing participation.

• Include a concise rationale for the cross-sectional design and explicitly acknowledge its limitations in inferring causality within the Methods section, not only in the limitations.

• Example: In lines 187–193 (“This design is appropriate for identifying associations…”), add a clarifying sentence such as: “However, this design limits causal inference regarding the directionality of the observed effects.”

4. Results presentation

The results are clearly presented, well-organized, and supported by appropriately designed tables and figures. Tables 2 and 4 are legible and correctly interpreted.
The following minor refinements were suggested:

• In Table 4 (page 8), consider adding a column for exact p-values to enhance transparency and allow readers to interpret the strength of the evidence.

• In Figure 1 (Path Analysis), labeling standardized coefficients makes the comparison between direct and indirect effects easier to follow.

• The sentence “Football participation indirectly affects happiness through SC-Com…” (line 329) could include numerical details, for example, “β = 0.07, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.05, 0.15],” to make the statistical interpretation more explicit.

5. Discussion and interpretation

The discussion section effectively connects the findings to previous literature and highlights the mediating role of community participation. However:

• The authors could strengthen the practical implications of the research by explaining how these results might inform the design of community-based sports programs or active aging policies.

• Further elaboration of why only the community participation dimension of social capital emerged as significant would enrich the discussion. For example, cultural or contextual factors (such as the competitive nature of football) might explain why trust and neighborhood connections were non-significant.

6. Limitations and conclusions

The limitations section is honest and comprehensive. To make it even more forward-looking,

• We suggest adding a note encouraging future longitudinal or comparative studies, especially those including female athletes, to improve external validity.

• The conclusion can be slightly rephrased to emphasize the practical and social relevance of the findings. For example:

  “Veteran football participation not only improves psychological well-being but also fosters community-based social environments that support active and connected aging.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the manuscript is written in competent and understandable English with a clear academic tone and good use of discipline-specific terminology. The argumentation is coherent, and the technical vocabulary related to social capital, happiness, and sports participation is accurately used. However, there are several areas in which stylistic and syntactic improvements would make the paper smoother, more concise, and more aligned with international academic writing standards.

1. Grammar and Syntax

• The grammatical structure is mostly correct; however, there are occasional word order and article usage issues (e.g., “the social environments that include participation in sport can contribute…” could be streamlined to “social environments involving sport participation can contribute…”).

• Pay attention to consistent verb tenses: The paper alternates between past and present tense when describing the study’s methods and results. It would be clearer to use the past tense consistently for all methodological and analytical descriptions (e.g., “The data were analyzed…” rather than “The data are analyzed…”).

• A few sentences are overly long and complex, which may make comprehension difficult for non-specialist readers. For instance, in lines 351–357, the sentence beginning “Football is one of the most popular sports with approximately 250 million people...” They can be divided into two or three shorter sentences to improve readability.

2. Clarity and Concise

• The paper would benefit from more direct and concise phrasing, replacing repetitive expressions such as “. It can be said that”, “it is believed that,” or “it is observed that” with stronger, active constructions like “the findings indicate” or “results show.”

• Avoid overuse of introductory fillers (e.g., “in this study,” “as mentioned before,” “it should be noted that”) — these make the prose unnecessarily formal and dilute the impact of the findings.

• Some transitional sentences between sections (e.g., between “Results” and “Discussion”) could be improved with clear linking phrases, such as “These findings support the hypothesis that…” or “The following discussion contextualizes these results….”

3. Terminology and Consistency

• Technical terms such as social capital, community participation, feelings of trust and safety, and neighborhood connections are used accurately, but occasionally inconsistently capitalized or abbreviated.

  • Examples: SC-Com, “SC-Com,” “SC-Trust,” and “SC-Nei.” SC-Nei should be written consistently in tables, figure captions, and text (either fully spelled out or abbreviated, not alternated).

• Ensure uniform terminology across sections — in the introduction, “veteran footballers” is used, but in the discussion, “older football players” appears. Choose one term and apply it consistently.

4. Sentence Structure and Flow

• The paper’s structure is logical, but sentence rhythm can be improved by varying the sentence length; many paragraphs contain several long sentences in succession. Mixing shorter and longer constructions enhances the readability.

• Some parts of the text (e.g., the “Hypotheses Development” section) read as bullet-pointed lists converted into prose. To improve fluency, connect hypotheses using transitional words such as Based on these findings…” or “Accordingly, we propose…

• The Discussion section effectively summarizes the findings but could be strengthened with more assertive topic sentences. Example: instead of “This study differs from previous research by examining…”, use “Unlike previous studies, this research specifically demonstrates that…”

5. Punctuation and Formatting

• Commas are occasionally missing after introductory clauses (e.g., “In addition, numerous studies support these findings” should always include a comma after “In addition”).

• Ensure consistent use of en dashes (–) for ranges and compound terms (e.g., “cross-sectional survey design” instead of “cross-sectional survey design”).

• Quotation marks should be standardized to English double quotes (“ ”) rather than mixed with single quotes (‘ ’), particularly in item examples and scale descriptions.

6. Tone and Style

• The tone of the manuscript is suitably academic and objective. However, reducing redundancy and improving transitions between ideas will enhance professionalism.

• The authors effectively communicate statistical findings, but they could adopt a slightly more confident tone when interpreting results — for example, changing “it can be assumed that social capital mediates…” to “the findings confirm that social capital mediates…”.

• Where possible, they prefer active voice (“The researchers collected data”) over passive constructions (“Data were collected by the researchers”) for stronger engagement.

7. Suggested Revision Approach

To enhance the final quality of English

• Professional language editing or proofreading is recommended, focusing on syntax, conciseness, and stylistic polishing rather than fundamental grammar.

• Targeted revisions should prioritize the following:

  • Sentence simplification and brevity.

  • Harmonizing terminology and abbreviations.

  • Strengthening transitions and topic sentences for better paragraph flow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to revise this manuscript.

 

The article addresses a significant topic, exploring how social capital influences the relationship between playing football and happiness in veteran footballers.

 

Below are specific suggestions for manuscript improvement, with line indications.:

 

The major issues are:

 

122-177 - Please consider reformulating the text to clearly present the study aims.

 

179-203 - Please describe all available information related to the subjects´ characterization. Some examples: Inclusion and exclusion criteria; training routines, years of experience, competitive number of weekly training sessions/games.

 

214 – Please revise the tables 1 to 4 content and format, considering the journal template and instructions for authors.

 

216 - Please describe all methodological details, as well as the associated (including format and time of data collection, human resources involved – academic background and experience), preferably with reference support.

 

273-286 – Please include all statistical analysis information. Please consider the “p” in italics throughout the manuscript (e.g., for example, in the results section).

 

345-433 – Please consider improving the quality of the discussion section. Some examples: Presenting the main findings in the first paragraphs and including more references.

 

451-454 – Please consider developing the suggestions for future research.

 

456-465 – Conclusions – Please consider more direct messages and clear take-home messages.

 

- - -

 

The minor issues:

 

5-11 – Please revise and correct the affiliations´ format, considering the journal template and instructions for authors.

 

17 – Please revise the space before the endpoint.

 

27-33 – Please consider presenting numerical results.

 

39-61 – Please consider shorter paragraphs to improve readability. 8-12 suggested throughout the manuscript.

 

337 – Please consider improving the quality of the figure.

 

479-481 – Please revise the text.

 

509 - Please double-check the references format, considering the journal template. For example, in this line, the title is in uppercase, and in other references, in lowercase. Please revise and standardize all details.

 

Please revise the document format considering the journal template.

 

Please revise the English details throughout the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is globally with good quality. Some details can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions are accepted

Author Response

“The revisions are accepted.” It is written in the Comments and Suggestions section for authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for considering the reviewers´ suggestions and incorporating them into the manuscript, which has been globally improved. Congratulations.

 

Please revise the details below, with line indication:

 

Please change the year in the page´s headers.

 

28 - Please consider the “p” in italics in this line and throughout the manuscript.

 

120 - “[24, 25]. [26],” – Please revise the citations´ format.

 

260/351/362/378 - Please revise the table content and format, considering the journal template.

 

274-275 - Please revise the section/subsection formats, considering the journal template.

 

486-487 & 503/504 – Please revise the document format.

 

494 / 564 “Serious Leisure' perspective” – Please consider abbreviating.

 

593 - Please revise the references´ format. For example, ref 8 title in uppercase, and others in lowercase.

 

Please consider improving the English quality (details).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf