The Toy Department Has Grown Up: The 2021 International Sports Press Survey (ISPS) in Comparison to the 2011 Survey

Abstract

Sport and sports communication is growing. Sport is an integral part of (everyday) communication in both traditional and so-called new media. Digitalization poses major challenges for sports journalism. In connection with the changing media consumption, the crisis of the majority of print media and the increasing globalization and standardization of sports at the international level, this applies above all to daily newspapers. In addition, sports newsrooms have been described as “toy departments”. This paper discusses the findings of the 2021 International Sports Press Survey (ISPS) on the current state of the quality of sports reporting in daily newspaper and confronts these findings with the results of the 2011 study. Against the backdrop of quality journalism based on diversity, the quantitative content analysis examines 6614 articles from eight countries. The 2021 ISPS results highlighted several key findings regarding the quality and diversity of sports journalism. These included the persistent underrepresentation of women as both authors and protagonists in sports reporting, a focus on current events over in-depth research, and a limited use of sources. However, when compared to data from a decade ago, there is evidence of a slight positive trend towards increased diversity and improved quality in sports journalism.

1. Introduction

There is no doubt that the global relevance of sport and sports communication is growing. And this relates to almost all areas of society: above all, sport is an economic factor and offers a large reservoir for reporting, advertising and self-presentation as well as follow-up communication in several media and other outlets. Sport therefore not only interacts closely with the economy, the media and politics in particular, but also impacts lives and communication of many people across the globe.

Sport communication has experienced intensive disruption over the past several years. Digitalization has introduced new distribution platforms via the internet, consequently giving rise to novel forms of reporting (Billings & Hardin, 2016; Hutchins & Rowe, 2016). Nevertheless, sports reporting in newspapers continues to be one of the most relevant domains within sports communication. In many countries, print media remains the largest job market for sports journalists. In Germany, 17 percent of journalists work in the sports department. Print media remain as attractive workplaces for journalists: 37.6 percent of journalists in Germany are working for newspaper (Lauerer et al., 2019).

The sport section in traditional newspapers has often been referred to as the “toy department” (Cosell & Bonventre, 1985; Rowe, 2007), signifying a lack of seriousness in its content while emphasizing the entertaining aspect of sports. In Germany, for example, Weischenberg et al. (2006) emphazise that 69 percent of sports journalists agree with the statement that they want to “offer the audience entertainment and relaxation”, whereas only 37 percent of journalists across all departments agree with this statement (pp. 279–284). There are even clearer differences when it comes to statements that can be regarded as typical for “critical” or “enlightening” journalism. While 24 percent of all journalists (and 32 percent in the politics section) want to control politics (investigative reporting), the economy and society, the same applies to only 10 percent of sports journalists for sports. Only 6 percent of German sports journalists strive to influence the political agenda and put issues on the political agenda, but 14 percent on average (Weischenberg et al., 2006, pp. 279–284). This perception has been repeatedly supported by numerous authors in recent years, questioning the quality of sports reporting in print media (Cassidy, 2017; Ramon, 2016; Vogler, 2021; Weedon et al., 2018). Many studies and findings, including the frequently cited work of Rowe (2007), have been based on the International Sports Press Survey (ISPS). This survey, following an initial study in Scandinavia (Schultz-Jørgensen, 2005), was first conducted on a larger scale in 2005 (Horky, 2010). With the 2011 ISPS, Horky and Nieland (2013) provided the first worldwide comparative data on sports reporting in print media. In addition, several studies on individual countries were published (Jakubowska, 2013; Rowe, 2013). The follow-up question should be asked at this point: What about the situation now? Have there been any changes or developments? When considering sports events and their coverage over the last decade, notable challenges and a shift in the quality of reporting become evident. Significant events during this period included the first World Cup held on African soil in 2010, the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil, and the 2018 World Cup in Russia. Particularly with regard to mega sporting events and the media coverage of them, it is clear that COVID-19 has led to serious changes, including the postponement or cancellation of competitions (Grix et al., 2021). Each mega-sport event sparked debates on sports reporting and its content. Investigative reporting, including doping scandals and corruption within FIFA drawing increased attention to the impact of sports journalism (Denham, 2019). Considering these changes and developments, looking on 2011 ISPS it is worthwhile to examine the situation ten years later to provide comparisons and outline changes in the industry.

Against the backdrop of increasing globalization and standardization of sports, primarily through international mega-events (Wenner & Billings, 2017), any potential evolution or adaptation in sports reporting is of significant interest. This paper presents the results of the 2021 International Sports Press Survey. This allows for statements on the current state and an international comparison of the quality and diversity of sports reporting in the selected daily newspaper. Furthermore, by comparing it with the 2011 ISPS, the data may offer insights into developments and changes. The primary research question focuses on the quality of sports reporting examined by diversity in comparison to international print media.

2. Literature Review: Changes and Challenges for Sports Journalism

Since the beginning of the new millennium, there have been substantial changes in the global media landscape and media markets. Daily newspapers are experiencing an ongoing decline in circulation. However, the latest report from the World Association of News Publishers (Wan-Ifra, 2022) indicates a largely stable situation in the global print market, which continues to record growing revenues. The Wan-Ifra (2022) study paints a slightly optimistic picture: after the difficulties caused by the pandemic, the companies surveyed remain optimistic about the future, as digital transformation is expected to generate higher revenues, especially in developed countries. At the same time, however, companies also expect revenue in the (traditional) print business (Wan-Ifra, 2022, pp. 6–7). Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that journalism, and perhaps sports journalism in particular, exhibits nationally distinct contexts (Newman et al., 2022).

“Sports journalism has different degrees of cultural and occupational status in different national and institutional contexts … Variations and patterns in the professional and public position of sports journalism occur across space, time, and publication type. It may be similarly assumed that there are parallels and divergences in the content, approach, and ideology of sports journalism across the globe, but such comparative data are rare and difficult to obtain.”

(Rowe, 2007, pp. 386–387).

Working conditions are changing on the sports desk have obviously changed. In addition, there is an orientation toward entertainment in the newspapers. Many publishing companies act according to the principle of online first. Daily newspapers are experiencing the transition to a “digital” sports journalism (Perreault & Bell, 2022).

Even though sports are predominantly consumed live through television or digitally (Billings & Hardin, 2016), daily newspapers still play a crucial role in the sports reporting market, mainly due to their extensive reach (Wan-Ifra, 2022; Rowe, 2013). Compared to political or general news journalism, sports journalism is often assigned a special role as “not important” or even “irrelevant”. In sports, the focus is not on socially relevant issues but rather on entertainment, emotion, and national identity (Rowe, 2007; Weedon et al., 2018). For this reason, it remains of great interest to explore how sports reporting in the sports section of daily newspapers has evolved in recent years in terms of quality and diversity (Poole, 2009).

“Sports journalism […] cannot be quarantined from the requirements of critical investigation because of its popular cultural object. The debate concerning journalism and popular culture is of long standing, and has tended to revolve … around a binary distinction between seriousness and quality on one side, and superficiality and trivia (sometimes typified as ‘tabloid’) on the other”

(Rowe, 2007, p. 386).

2.1. Sports Coverage in Print Media

In various studies on sports reporting in print media, the inequality in gender representation has repeatedly been highlighted. In an analysis of bylines from 15,412 articles in newspapers in Australia and New Zealand, Strong and Hannis (2007) demonstrated that only about one-third of articles were authored by women. Kian et al. (2011) examined framing differences in tennis coverage during the 2007 US Open in six newspapers and online outlets. The results showed that both female and male writers devoted a higher percentage of articles exclusively to men’s tennis than women’s tennis. Female journalists contributed more articles overall than male reporters. Female journalists tended to reinforce hegemonic masculinity by using sexist and stereotypical descriptors that devalued the athleticism and accomplishments of female athletes. In contrast, male journalists were more likely to challenge the traditional gendering of sport media content by praising the athleticism of female athletes (Kian et al., 2011). Further analysis of the data by Kian and Clavio (2011) confirmed these results.

Eagleman (2015) employed framing theory in her qualitative analysis of 40 newspaper articles in the USA covering male and female gymnasts during the 2012 Olympic Games. The findings illustrated three common themes in coverage for both genders, but the frames used to convey these themes differed significantly based on gender. Galily et al. (2011) found similar results regarding the underrepresentation of women in sports journalism for Israeli newspapers. In 174 articles related to the Olympic Games in 1996, 2000, and 2004 in an Israeli newspaper, the representation of female athletes became increasingly negative and biased. Female athletes were often portrayed in stereotypical ways compared to male athletes. Boczek et al. (2023) examined the underrepresentation of female sport authors by a content analysis of news coverage from 2006 to 2020 and confirmed the results available so far. Women wrote primarily about women’s sports. Additionally, they researched whether biases against female authors in sports coverage (still) exist among recipients and stated, “congruence between the gender of the author and the gender of the athletes influenced neither the perceived expertise of the author nor the reading intention” (p. 1476). Gender inequality in sports reporting was also observed in England, Germany, Poland, and Spain (Godoy-Pressland & Griggs, 2014; Ihle, 2023; Jakubowska & Ličen, 2019; Ramon, 2016).

Further studies have highlighted the importance of diversity in representing athletes from different backgrounds (national identity) or those with high celebrity status as sports stars (Blackett, 2021; Choi, 2022; Jiang, 2013), as well as considering the indicator of race (Hardin et al., 2004).

Another frequently examined aspect was the lack of diversity in multiple perspectives of sports reporting in print media. In England, Vincent et al. (2011) identified a lack of diversity in the themes covered, with a focus on player’s wives and partners rather than the players’ sporting performance during the 2006 World Cup. Similar deficiencies were noted in the diversity of actors, sports, and thematic viewpoints (Masuch & Butryn, 2013). Ismail and Mohd Adnan (2016) even found in Malaysia that despite the country’s limited success in football, it received the most coverage, accounting for 13.9% of reporting. In Belgium, Masini and Van Aelst (2017) found no significant differences in actor and viewpoint diversity between quality and popular newspapers during an analysis of 642 news articles. For Switzerland, Beck et al. (2019) highlighted the significant coverage of top athletes.

“We find that the representation of a plurality of active actors in a news article seems to go hand in hand with a more diverse range of viewpoints. The findings show that there are no significant differences in the level of actor and viewpoint diversity between quality and popular newspapers. However, the length of the article has a positive effect on providing more diversity”

(Masini & Van Aelst, 2017, p. 107).

Regarding regional or local newspapers, Vögele and Seeger (2020) demonstrated a similar lack of diversity in terms of themes and actors. This study focused on the development of sports reporting in three local newspapers in the German state of Baden-Württemberg in 1977, 1997, and 2017. The dominance of football hardly changed over the 40 years, and event-oriented reporting remained the most common form. Slight trends were observed in the variety of presentation formats used, as well as increased personalization. The most significant differences were in visualization and the use of images, which has become easier due to technological advancements in newspaper production. Another finding was that men’s sports continued to dominate, although women’s sports received more attention than in the past (Wöhrer & Jungblut, 2022).

According to that, Vogler (2021) found similar results when examining sports reporting in 20 Swiss print media outlets (16,130 articles) from 2011 to 2019. The results confirmed the significance and relatively low quality of sports articles, which accounted for nearly one-fifth of total coverage. Coche and Bell (2024) analyzed 909 front pages of US newspapers with similar results, the case of representation of para-athletes was examined by Falcous and Scott (2022) in several New Zealand local and national media.

A long-term study of newspaper coverage of professional sport was provided by Beaudoin et al. (2024), who analyzed 1062 articles in France and the USA from the years 2003, 2010 and 2019 with regard to the representation and significance of sport coverage in a socio-cultural context and were able to prove a change in the historical embedding of sport.

2.2. International Sports Press Survey

Rowe (2007) declared sports journalism, drawing inspiration from Cosell and Bonventre (1985), as the “toy department” of print media, thus questioning its quality on all fronts. Weedon et al. (2018) also raised questions about the whereabouts of good sports journalism. They examined several contributions in the field and approached the quality debate in sports journalism from a sociologically oriented perspective. They primarily referenced the results of the International Sports Press Survey, which, following predecessors in Scandinavia, first generated comparative data on sports reporting in print media worldwide in 2005 (Horky, 2010). As a result, Horky (2010) pointed out the significant monotony in topics and the prominent position of football as a sport. He also noted the male dominance in authorship, topics, and visualization. Schultz-Jørgensen (2005) consequently evaluated sports journalism as “the world’s best advertising agency”.

Subsequently, in 2011, the first major ISPS study was conducted, based on the analysis of 18,340 articles in 80 newspapers from 22 countries (Horky & Nieland, 2013). The study confirmed football’s dominance in global print media with 41 precent coverage (compared to 8 percent for tennis), regardless of whether it was national, regional, or tabloid media titles. The study criticized the lack of diversity in the use of journalistic presentation formats (44% news reports), limited imagery (one-third of articles lacked photos), and the publication of 26 precent of articles without an identifiable source. Another significant finding was the continued male dominance in sports journalism worldwide, with 88% of articles focused on male sports figures (athletes, coaches, managers) and 92% authored by male writers (Horky & Nieland, 2013). Rowe (2013) reaffirmed these findings, while an individual analysis of three Polish newspapers by Jakubowska (2013) also highlighted significant gender disparities.

In terms of quality criteria in sports journalism, these findings suggest significant room for improvement. In response to the call at that time to continue the study longitudinally, this paper seeks to fulfill that request.

3. Theoretical Approach

3.1. Quality

Arnold (2008) introduced a distinction in quality criteria in journalism that can be categorized into three levels: a purely functional-system-oriented level, a normative-democracy-oriented level, and an audience-action-oriented level. It becomes evident that the content conveyed by journalistic work in the field of sports reporting often serves not only democratic purposes but also entertainment-based motives and meets the social demands of users. This is also a social process where various effects are triggered among the recipients, as constructs emerge during the interpretation of content. In his main work on quality, McQuail (1992) therefore calls for balanced reporting by media and the allowance of a variety of opinions, seeing media as having an ethical responsibility in this regard. Quality in journalism is, from the perspective of the recipients at least, also a subjective assessment (Urban & Schweiger, 2014).

Weedon et al. (2018) noted that the discourse on quality journalism has largely ignored sports journalism, attributing this omission to long-standing perceptions that sports journalism is often referred to as “the ‘toy department’ or ‘sandbox’ of the newsroom”. Furthermore, they argue that the poor reputation of sports journalism is based on “inherent ethical contradictions” (p. 640) that sports journalists face when attempting to be objective or impartial, while at the same time, they are expected to provide a form of promotional service to clubs, leagues, or sports organizers. When covering their national team, sports journalists may even feel obliged to be patriotic. Weedon et al. (2018) also highlight that the significance of sports in the economy has grown to the extent that sports journalism has shifted from being considered the “toy department” to a revenue-generating department with a large audience in the finance department. This development raises more questions and skepticism regarding the true meaning of “quality sports journalism”.

Quality measurement and assessment typically occur on three levels: first, the structural level, as the media type is considered a device for communication and, therefore, a benchmark for quality; second, the level of offerings, as media content determines communicative potential in terms of diversity, relevance, and communication effectiveness; and third, the level of media usage, in terms of reach, motivations, and trust (Hasebrink et al., 2021). For the content analysis study, quality was operationalized based on four dimensions: first, diversity (subdivided into thematic diversity and actor diversity); second, relevance; third, interpretative performance (in terms of thematic orientation and interpretive performance); and fourth, professionalism, with subcategories such as objectivity, source transparency, and original contributions (Stark et al., 2021). According to Schatz and Schulz (1992), the quality dimension professionalism is divided into analytical quality and descriptive quality. The descriptive quality is subdivided into firstly impartiality (with the subcategories neutrality and balance) and secondly objectivity with the subcategories topicality, accuracy and completeness.

In principle, the parameter of quality in journalism appears to be difficult to measure; qualitative methods are often preferred, but quantitative studies also deal with the analysis of quality. Burggraaff and Trilling (2020) examined distribution strategies as a measure of quality using quantitative content analysis of Dutch online and print news articles. They focused on news production and different news values in print and online. They found “significant differences between online and print news” and argued that these differences can be explained by a focus on journalistic routines (p. 125). Some editors even published more reports in online media than in print editions, attributed to the faster pace in these evolving newsrooms. They highlighted differences in thematic emphasis in terms of quality and source diversity. As a result, the authors concluded that there are “visible differences between online and print news in terms of news value” (p. 126).

3.2. Diversity

These considerations highlight the crucial importance of the diversity indicator in studies of journalism quality, particularly in sports reporting. Diversity is often understood as a fundamental indicator for ensuring political plurality and democracy. “The diversity, heterogeneity and plurality of media are regarded as fundamental facets of a democratic society,” as explained by Champion (2015, pp. 40–41), who asks whether new and more globalized forms of communication and information transmission open up more prospects for a multiplicity of voices to be represented in the media sphere. He points out in his analysis of eight different media platforms the danger that, despite media plurality in the age of the internet, more of the same is being produced. According to Maurer and Reinemann (2006), diversity is divided into diversity of form and diversity of content. Formal diversity refers to the subcategories: genres, formats, styles and sources. Diversity of content refers to the subcategories areas of life, regions, groups and interests.

Hendrickx et al. (2022) conducted a literature review on the topic of diversity in 61 publications from 2000 to 2020 and concluded that “news diversity has become a troubling locution to both qualify and quantify” (p. 1752). They demonstrated that diversity “simultaneously be influenced by and affect all parts of a media market, by distinguishing between the market structures and companies (ownership diversity), the individual media titles (brand diversity), journalists and alterations in their daily work (production diversity), output (content diversity) and, ultimately, consumers (consumption diversity)” (p. 1761). Hendrickx et al. (2022) therefore propose categorizing diversity criteria at three levels: Macro, Meso, and Micro. The diversity of media within a section such as sports is anchored at the Meso level.

Voakes et al. (1996) examined diversity in the context of individual media articles rather than diversity across different media outlets. They identified diversity as a continuous concept in the context of mass media. They introduced a wide variety of sources and themes (referred to as frames) as primary elements of diversity in newspapers of various sizes and scope. They emphasized the high relevance of source diversity in reporting. “By far the most common definition of diversity, however, has involved diversity of sources. Because of its popularity, it will serve as a benchmark measurement of diversity”, explained Voakes et al. (1996, p. 583). Hasebrink et al. (2021) examined quality in news media and emphasized the central importance of diversity. They called for increased cross-country analyses. In addition, Stark et al. (2021) highlighted the significance of both themes and actors as diversity indicators. In their analysis of 6293 articles from various media genres in Germany, they demonstrated significantly higher quality in national subscription newspapers like FAZ compared to street-sale newspapers like BILD.

From an international perspective, Humprecht and Esser (2018) also conducted a quantitative content analysis of 48 online news outlets from six media systems. They pointed out the diversity of political (elite) actors represented in news media and the viewpoint diversity among media from different countries. However, they only focused on political reporting and not sports coverage (Joris et al., 2020; Masini & Van Aelst, 2017). “While there is little discussion that actor and viewpoint diversity are both crucial subdimensions of content diversity, the link between both has remained underexplored”, note Voakes et al. (1996, p. 110).

In this understanding, different viewpoints are understood as topics of reporting. Van Cuilenburg (1999) demonstrated the importance of diversity and access from a media-economic perspective. Urban and Schweiger (2014) also explained from the receiver’s perspective that diversity, relevance, ethics, impartiality, objectivity, and comprehensibility can all be used to define the quality of news.

3.3. Hypotheses

Based on the literature presented, the indicator of diversity is crucial for answering the overarching question of the quality of sports reporting in international print media. For this study, the distinction of journalistic quality was primarily based on the quantitative analysis of diversity on a formal and content level (Maurer & Reinemann, 2006). Individual parameters such as actors, sources, topics and type of thematization and visualization or forms of presentation are taken from the studies on diversity described above. By comparing the results of the International Sports Press Survey 2011 with the current data from the 2021 study, an investigation into the possible changes in quality can be conducted.

• Hypotheses block 1: formal diversity

H 1.1: 

Sports reporting takes place in more and different formats and styles.

H 1.2: 

The number of images used increases (increase in visualization).

H 1.3: 

More sources are mentioned in sports reporting.

H 1.4: 

More named articles appear.

H 1.5: 

The number of female journalists increases.

• Hypotheses block 2: content diversity

H 2.1: 

The number of topics and types of sport increases in sports reporting.

H 2.2: 

More players and in particular, female athletes are in the focus of sports reporting.

H 2.3: 

The number of critical topics reported on increases.

By addressing these hypotheses, changes in the overall quality of sports reporting in print media worldwide through changes in diversity can be demonstrated.

4. Methodology

Since its establishment in 2005 (Schultz-Jørgensen, 2005; Horky, 2010), the ISPS has been collecting data on the quality and structural diversity of sports reporting in print media. In the 2011 survey, a worldwide international comparison was conducted with an analysis of 81 newspapers in 14 nations. The central findings indicated that men predominantly report on male sports, topics beyond current event reporting played a minor role, and the quality of research was low (Horky & Nieland, 2013).

In 2021, the new edition of ISPS was initiated, involving a quantitative content analysis of sports reporting in print media. At least one country was included from each continent in the period from April to July 2021. At least three publications were selected from each country: one nationwide distributed (quality) newspaper, one tabloid, and a regional newspaper. For Europe, there were 14 papers coded (8 for Germany, 3 for France, and 3 for Greece). For the 12 participants plus coding teams from every country, good intercoder reliability coefficient, according to Holsti (0.94), was calculated after a pretest and several training sessions (Krippendorf, 2018). The unit of analysis was individual articles, and statistics or brief reports were not considered. The analysis encompassed the entire sports coverage (not just the sports section) and involved 18 variables at the structural and content levels. These 18 variables were consistent with those used (and tested) in previous ISPS studies, encompassing aspects such as the form and content of contributions, the differentiation between text, video, or photo content covering athletes or teams, the type of sport, the authorship of contributions, including the gender of authors (i.e., named journalists or news agencies), various topics, such as fans or results, the significance of nationalism, and the type and number of sources. Articles were collected between 12 April and 11 July 2021, over 14 coding dates.

The analyzed media brands were selected through deliberate sampling. The media brands included the nationwide paper, the tabloid, and the quality (broadsheet) papers from each country, representing the newspaper landscape of those countries. The study period was after the COVID-19 sports lockdown in some countries, but the ongoing pandemic likely had an impact on the results for sports journalism (Finneman & Thomas, 2022). The 2021 dataset from eight countries (

Table 1. Absolute Numbers of coded articles by country.

	Australia	Brazil	Germany	South Africa	USA	Greece	France	Total
Quality Press	207	114	730	133	409	141	23	1757
Popular Press	494	124	365	132	683	419	38	2255
Regional Press	420	233	1138	153	278	226	154	2602
Total	1121	471	2233	418	1370	786	215	6614

) contains a total of 6614 articles (2011: 6452, see: Horky & Nieland, 2013).

For the earlier ISPS study from 2011, no data from the Asian continent was available, so the data from China available from 2021 were not included in the analysis for the evaluation and comparison carried out here. Care was also taken to ensure the best possible comparison between the individual newspaper titles and largely the same titles were included in the analysis for 2021 (

Table 2. Coded newspaper titles by country.

	Title of Newspaper
Australia	The Australian, Herald Sun, West Australian
Brazil	O Globo, Meia Hora
Germany	Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, BILD, Hamburger Abendblatt, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Westdeutsche Allgemeine, die tageszeitung
South Africa	Daily Sun
USA	Washington Post, USA Today, New York Post
Greece	Kathimerini, Ta Nea
France	Le Monde

).

Following these guidelines allows an analysis of the development of sports reporting over a period of 10 years and provides insights into the challenges faced by print media worldwide. In connection with this examination, for the first time, an additional quantitative content analysis of social media accounts was conducted, examining eight German newspapers, referred to as the 2021 Social Media International Sports Press Survey (SM-ISPS). The results of this study were published separately (Seeger et al., 2023).

In order to compare the data sets from the different countries and years a design-weighting was calculated per year for the data correction (

Table 3. Weighting factors for data correction.

	Weighting Factor 2021	Weighting Factor 2011
Australia	0.842	0.552
Brazil	2.066	1.649
Germany	0.423	0.485
South Africa	2.260	1.769
USA	0.690	1.374
Greece	1.202	1.390
France	4.395	1.961

).

5. Results

5.1. Diversity of Content

Overall, it is obvious that the “Other coverage”, “Results and reports” and “Previews” have been more often the content of the articles (Figure 1). Topics like Financing issues and Fan culture were less part of the journalistic work. But it is also helpful to interpret the results on a country focus: While in Europe the “Other coverage related to sports” was below the average, especially in Brazil and South Africa these types of content increased. Articles with “Results and Reports” were found most frequently in the USA and France. In Australia and France “Preview”-Articles could be found above the average. Doping seems to be an issue in the USA, also the Gender issues, Local sports and Children topics. The German sports journalists dealed with “Sport politics” and “Mega sport events” above the average.

It has to be mentioned, that soccer with 47.2% is overall the most dominant sport covered by international print journalists. But it depends on the country which (popular) sport is in the specific journalistic focus (Figure 2).

5.2. Diversity of Formats Used and Number of Photos

The data indicates significant changes in journalistic formats between 2011 and 2021 (Figure 3). The format “Report, Feature” saw the most substantial increase, rising from 37.3% in 2011 to 64.7% in 2021, a change of +27.4 percentage points. This suggests a growing preference or shift towards more detailed, in-depth journalism in this period. The most notable decrease was in the “News” format, which fell from 49.2% to 27.5%, a substantial decrease of 21.7 percentage points. This change suggests a significant shift in journalistic focus away from traditional news sport reporting. The decline in the diversity of presentation formats with regard to traditional news described here could have various causes. First, a growing influence of other media (online offerings, social media) is conceivable and was examined in the previously published social media study (SM-ISPS). This study primarily demonstrated copy-and-paste of print articles on social networks (Seeger et al., 2023). Furthermore, this result also appears to demonstrate an increase in journalistic background reporting with longer texts, features, and reports, which indicates a slight increase in quality.

The frequency of specific commentaries decreased from 6.4% to 3.8%, a drop of 2.6 percentage points. This might reflect a shift away from opinion-based journalism.

These changes highlight a shift in the journalistic landscape over the decade (X² = (6; N = 13,058) = 1671.226; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.358), with a notable move towards more feature and report style journalism and a decline in traditional news and opinion-based formats. This could reflect changes in audience preferences, the impact of digital media, or shifts in the priorities of news organizations. With the shift to reporting content, the articles became significantly bigger within the last ten years. X² = (3; N = 6273) = 249.610; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.199) and more photos have been used. In 2021, articles with one photo were most common, comprising approximately 54.7% of all articles. This is an increase from 2011, where articles with one photo made up about 51.1%. In the same period the proportion of articles with no photos has decreased slightly from 39.9% in 2011 to 34.3% in 2021.

Along with the transition from news coverage to more in-depth background formats like reports and features a tendency using more imagery in articles over the decade can be seen (X² = (4; N = 13,066) = 51.418; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.063). The increase in single-photo articles might indicate a preference for a focused visual approach, possibly due to the impact of single images in storytelling or the constraints of layout and design.

5.3. Named Articles and Gender

Articles with a “Named journalist” increased from 58.9% in 2011 to 62.5% in 2021, a change of +3.6%, while “News agencies” became less important (Figure 4). Overall, an increase in articles attributed to named journalists could be observed, suggesting a trend towards more transparent authorship in recent years. There is still a major gender imbalance in the authorship. Significantly less articles from female authors were found in 2021 with 92.9% male and 7.1% female authors (2011: 90.8% male; 9.2% female).

Also interesting seems the finding, that female authors write more often about female athletes or female teams. Additionally, it came clear, that articles written by women have been dealing with more local topics and very often they’ve had a focus on health-related topics, social integration or gender issues, compared with their male colleagues.

5.4. Number of Sources

As in the previously described literature, this variable refers to all different sources of articles, such as institutions, actors, or quoting sources; these can certainly include other media outlets. The quality of journalism relies on the greatest possible number and diversity of reporting sources, so this variable is considered important.

The cleaned data provides a clear comparison of the proportion of articles with different numbers of sources between the years 2011 and 2021, along with the changes in these proportions over the 10-year period (Figure 5). Articles with no source mentioned increases from 27.5% in 2011 to 36.1% in 2021, a change of +8.6%. Only one source mentioned in an article decreased slightly from 39.3% in 2011 to 36.7% in 2021, a change of −2.6%. Two sources: Decreased from 20.3% in 2011 to 16.4% in 2021, a change of −3.9%. Three or more sources: Decreased from 12.1% in 2011 to 10.6% in 2021, a change of −1.5%.

There is a notable increase in articles with no sources over the period of 10 years. This could imply a trend towards less reliance on external sources in articles, which might raise concerns about the quality or credibility of information but can also be interpreted as origin content.

5.5. Gender of Athletes/Teams

As it can be seen in Figure 6, the objects of sports journalism are most of all male athletes or male teams. The number of articles where female athletes or female teams were subject of sport journalistic coverage even decreased to 9.5% (2011: 11.6%). The results are significance with very weak effects (X² = (2; N = 8.073) = 17,653; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.047).

If we take a closer look at the countries, we see a difference in covering female athletes or female teams (

Table 4. Male or female athletes or teams by country (with weighting factors—missing to 100% could not be specified).

	Male/Male Teams	Female/Female Teams
Australia	87.8%	12.2%
Brazil	94.5%	5.2%
Germany	85.8%	13.5%
South Africa	90.5%	9.5%
USA	82.4%	11.4%
Greece	88.0%	9.3%
France	89.0%	10.9%

). The Chi-square Test also shows a significancy between the countries. (X² = (12; N = 8071) = 329.635; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.143).

5.6. Testing of Hypotheses

Hypotheses block 1: formal diversity

• H 1.1: sports reporting takes place in more and different formats and styles
  The shift from news coverage to reports is significant with X² = (6; N = 13,058) = 1671.226; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.358, also the articles became bigger X² = (3; N = 6273) = 249.610; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.199. H 1.1 would be supported.
• H 1.2: the number of images used increases (increase in visualization)
  Also, the number of used images increased significantly (X² = (4; N = 13,066) = 51.418; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.063 with a small effect. (2021: M = 0.83; SD = 0.799; 2011: M = 0.75; SD = 0.796). H 1.2 would be supported. The variable was coded as quasi-metric.
• H 1.3: more sources are mentioned in sports reporting
  This hypothesis is not easy to interpret, because even there is a significant difference between the two years X² = (3; N = 12,993) = 115.144; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.094, the average of mentioned sources decreased slightly (2021: M = 1.01; SD = 0.974; 2011: M = 1.17; SD = 0.969). The variable was coded as quasi-metric.
• H 1.4: more named articles appear
  With a X² = (4; N = 13,058) = 333.679; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.160 we can also verify H 1.4.
• H 1.5: the number of female journalists increases
  As mentioned in the results, there are significantly less female authors in 2021. X² = (1; N = 7824) = 11.509; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.38. H 1.5 cannot be supported.

Hypotheses block 2: content diversity

• H 2.1: the number of topics and types of sport increases in sports reporting
  With a significant result in the comparison between 2011 and 2021, but with a small effect, reported by X² = (22; N = 13,062) = 490.723; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.194, H 2.1 would be supported, because more topics had been covered. Soccer/football is still the most covered sports discipline with 47.4% (2011: 44.6%) but depending on the countries a specific national sport is also in the focus of the sport journalistic coverage.
• H 2.2: more players and in particular female athletes are in the focus of sports reporting
  H 2.2 must be unsupported, because significantly less female athletes were in the focus of sport reporting X² = (2; N = 8073) = 17.645; p < 0.01, Cramers V = 0.47.
• H 2.3: the number of critical topics reported on increases
  H 2.3 cannot be proved easily. We can report that the topics, besides results and sports related content changed in the last ten years. “Doping” i.e., was 2021 in 1.8% part of the articles (2011: 4.4%). 2021 the coverage of “Health related aspects” were 12.3% (2011: 1.0%), and also “Sport and all forms of social integration or discrimination” increased from 2.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2021.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Sports journalism is changing rapidly and profoundly in the context of the development of digital structures. At the same time, the social, economic and political importance of sport is increasing. Sports reporting is captivating millions, sometimes even billions of people—and not just in the context of major sporting events. In addition to live reporting and despite declining circulation over the past several years, sports reporting in newspapers remains one of the most relevant areas of sports communication. Sufficient reasons to conduct a debate on the quality of sports reporting in newspapers. Data from several measurement points help to provide and discuss meaningful findings.

The study presented can make a contribution to the discussion on quality in sports journalism in the international print media. Against the background of the important theoretical parameter of diversity and other quality criteria such as the number of sources or visualization, the results of the 2021 ISPS confirmed many known quality problems in sports journalism, such as the underrepresentation of women as authors (Boczek et al., 2023; Strong & Hannis, 2007) and as protagonists of reporting (Eagleman, 2015; Jakubowska & Ličen, 2019; Kian et al., 2011), the focus on current and less in-depth, researched topics (Vincent et al., 2011) and the rather low use of sources (Rowe, 2013). On the other hand, compared to the results from ten years ago, the study shows a weak but recognizable positive trend in diversity and thus in the quality of sports journalism. In the area of newspapers, an increase in diversity is certainly noticeable in some of the international media examined here.

In recent years, print media has faced growing competition from online media, journalistic offerings on social media platforms and new forms of distribution such as live streaming. Against this backdrop, the slight increase in the variety of sources, the increased use of photos and the growing scope of individual articles are all cause for concern. Global sports journalism has clearly occupied the print media niche with slightly different reporting and thus with new quality; the trend in reporting has changed significantly at the levels described (see also Beaudoin et al., 2024).

Although there is still a low level of diversity and poor quality overall, a rethink has evidently taken place in editorial offices over the past ten years. The question is whether this is a sustainable or merely coincidental development, which would need to be clarified in a future study. As the ISPS ensured the greatest possible comparability of the data set between the survey years 2011 and 2021 in this comparison, the results presented here are convincing.

A special focus must be placed on the apparently growing underrepresentation of women in sports journalism. While the proportion of women in sport is increasing worldwide and there is evidence of an almost even gender balance at the Olympic Games, for example, this development is not reflected in global sports journalism in the print media (Braumüller et al., 2020). One reason for this could be a strong increase in the proportion of women in other areas of journalism (online, streaming, etc.)—however, this is very unlikely and has not been proven in other studies (Boczek et al., 2023; Ihle, 2023). The criticism of women in sports journalism on social media platforms, which is becoming clear in some cases, could also be a reason—however, this has so far mostly been proven for women in sports television, such as presenters and live commentators (Schaffrath, 2011).

To summarize, while Rowe (2007, 2013) and Hardin et al. (2009) still spoke of the “toy department” in journalism, especially in comparison to public service media, and McEnnis (2020, p. 1428) even described a “toy department within the toy department” for the area of online media, this study confirms Cassidy’s (2017, p. 549) assessment of “inching away from the toy department”. As in his study on reporting on issues of discrimination, sports journalism also seems to show a positive trend in the 2021 ISPS, and a development towards more quality, more background and research, and increased visualization seems to be noticeable in international newspapers.

Can we therefore already speak of quality and “good sports journalism” (Weedon et al., 2018)? There are certainly small signs of improvement, as Denham (2019) also noted, but the road to quality sports journalism still seems long. Since this study not only examined the sports section of newspapers, an expansion of the topic of sports into other departments of the newspapers certainly seems noticeable.

These results, in particular, make subsequent studies regarding the quality of sports reporting seem desirable and necessary. The ever-increasing influence of digitalization on print media should be examined. This should also be analyzed using qualitative methods, for example, from the perspective of content and editorial staff.

However, it was helpful to not only examine the sports section of print media but to consider all articles related to sports in print media. Although this study primarily used the criterion of diversity to examine the quality of sports reporting, the results ultimately demonstrate that the “toy department” sports journalism has grown up or at least matured. The analyzed time frame from 2011 to 2021 shows a small but noticeable development and change. Diversity has increased significantly on several levels worldwide, such as topics or, most notably, sources and the use of photos/images. Sports journalists in print newspaper appear to be taking their journalistic role of criticism, control, and information much more seriously than they did ten years ago. Whether this development will be further influenced by the growing impact of digitization and potential changes in the print media market should be examined in future studies.

7. Limitations

The 2021 ISPS has some limitations: only three newspapers per country and continent were examined, and this was only done on 14 selected days. As mentioned before, Chinese data of 2021 have to be rejected for this comparison. The sample size is relatively small, and a larger number of media and articles, as in the 2011 ISPS, would have been desirable for the results. Nevertheless, the results appear to be sufficiently informative.

The limitation to the genre of print media also has weaknesses, as the influence of digitization with a potential shift of topics to online media was not investigated in the 2021 ISPS. However, the results of the accompanying social media study (Seeger et al., 2023) do not indicate significant changes, as essentially a copy-and-paste of print contributions could be observed.

The results of the 2021 ISPS may be influenced by the time frame of the study, particularly in terms of topics and possibly actors. For example, there were no ongoing winter sports between April and July, and seasonally driven sports like the National Football League (NFL) in American football in the USA could have different authors and thus different distributions across multiple variables, as well as potentially different distributions among the depicted protagonists.