Sport During Franco’s Technocracy: From Propaganda to Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a rigorous, well-documented analysis of sport policy and institutional development under the Franco regime in Spain (1939–1975). Its strength lies in the thorough chronological structure, which aligns political, social, and economic phases of Francoism with transformations in Spanish sport. The author masterfully connects autocracy, international isolation, technocratic modernization, and eventual international reintegration with the role of sport as both an ideological apparatus and social infrastructure.

Particularly interesting and noteworthy is the treatment of sport as a multi-functional tool—used for state propaganda, mass mobilization, and international diplomacy. This happened without losing sight of the internal tensions and contradictions within the regime itself. Figures such as Elola-Olaso, Samaranch, and Cagigal are given substantial attention, not just as public officials, but as influential agents in shaping long-term institutional legacies that outlasted the dictatorship.

The paper proficiently integrates all types of sources, notably when tracing the legal and organizational evolution of the COE, DND, and INEF, or in detailing the state’s media strategies and youth engagement through events like the National School Games. However, despite its comprehensive scope, some sections—such as the discussion on women’s sport—might benefit from further elaboration to highlight intersectional exclusions or resistance.

Overall, the paper significantly contributes to the interdisciplinary literature on sport, politics, and authoritarianism, blending historical narrative with institutional analysis. It is especially relevant for scholars in sport history, political science, and cultural studies, as well as those interested in the legacy of totalitarian regimes in shaping modern civic institutions.

Thank you for the opportunity to review; this was quite educational for me since I follow Spanish sport many years now and I admire the work done. Historical account and considerations are important to lead forward.

Author Response

1. Summary
We thank you for your constructive and generous comments. Your positive assessment of the manuscript’s structure and analytical approach is deeply appreciated.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: This paper offers a rigorous, well-documented analysis of sport policy and institutional development under the Franco regime in Spain (1939–1975). Its strength lies in the thorough chronological structure, which aligns political, social, and economic phases of Francoism with transformations in Spanish sport. The author masterfully connects autocracy, international isolation, technocratic modernization, and eventual international reintegration with the role of sport as both an ideological apparatus and social infrastructure.   Particularly interesting and noteworthy is the treatment of sport as a multi-functional tool—used for state propaganda, mass mobilization, and international diplomacy. This happened without losing sight of the internal tensions and contradictions within the regime itself. Figures such as Elola-Olaso, Samaranch, and Cagigal are given substantial attention, not just as public officials, but as influential agents in shaping long-term institutional legacies that outlasted the dictatorship.   The paper proficiently integrates all types of sources, notably when tracing the legal and organizational evolution of the COE, DND, and INEF, or in detailing the state’s media strategies and youth engagement through events like the National School Games. However, despite its comprehensive scope, some sections—such as the discussion on women’s sport—might benefit from further elaboration to highlight intersectional exclusions or resistance.   Overall, the paper significantly contributes to the interdisciplinary literature on sport, politics, and authoritarianism, blending historical narrative with institutional analysis. It is especially relevant for scholars in sport history, political science, and cultural studies, as well as those interested in the legacy of totalitarian regimes in shaping modern civic institutions.   Thank you for the opportunity to review; this was quite educational for me since I follow Spanish sport many years now and I admire the work done. Historical account and considerations are important to lead forward.
Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. Your recognition of the paper’s chronological structure, analytical rigor, and contribution to the interdisciplinary literature is truly appreciated. Regarding your observation on the treatment of women’s sport, we agree that this area could be further developed and enriched. However, given the scope and word-limit constraints of this encyclopedia entry, we have opted for a more general and synthetic approach. Our aim was to provide a broad institutional and political overview, which inevitably meant that certain important dimensions—such as gender-specific exclusions or resistance—could not be explored in full detail. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the value of this perspective and fully agree that future research focusing specifically on women’s sport under Francoism could offer significant insights into the regime’s intersectional dynamics. Thank you once again for your insightful review and kind remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for the article. It provides a detailed and well-founded description of a period in the history of Spain in relation to the development of sport.
It is a text that combines scientific rigour with good academic writing. In my opinion, it deserves to be published in the journal.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors                     

Comments 1:

Congratulations to the authors for the article. It provides a detailed and well-founded description of a period in the history of Spain in relation to the development of sport.

It is a text that combines scientific rigour with good academic writing. In my opinion, it deserves to be published in the journal..

Response 1: We are grateful for your kind words and positive evaluation of our work. Your recognition of the manuscript’s scientific rigour and academic writing is truly appreciated. Thank you for supporting its publication..

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper regards important issue from the both history of sport and history of Spain. Sport during the reign of Francisko Franko have had its unique path of development. Spain if of the leading sports nations today and its historical experience of sport development during the fascist rule is of high importance. 
Paper is well structured, it follows a strict form and describes historical process of sport development ina  clear and ctritial fashion. Sources and literature are relevant and well used. It clearly highlights the importance of sport in propaganda in such regimes as Franko's was.
However, there were several stages in the development of sport, as Franko's era lasted for decades. The paper regards these changes and highlight the dynamics of this process.
All in all, the paper is suitable for publishing and it will prove valuable for deeper understanding the complex history of sport.

There are some minor concerns in the References.

Whenever there is a website, there is no time and date for usage of it, instead there is "(accessed on Day, Month, Year)".  For e.g. in rows: 626, 653, 660, 663...

There are a couple of years thar in bold, for e.g. in rows 650, 652, 701, 707.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The paper regards important issue from the both history of sport and history of Spain. Sport during the reign of Francisko Franko have had its unique path of development. Spain if of the leading sports nations today and its historical experience of sport development during the fascist rule is of high importance.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment highlighting the relevance of the topic within the broader context of sport history and Spanish history. We appreciate your recognition of the paper’s focus and scope.

 

Comments 2:

Paper is well structured, it follows a strict form and describes historical process of sport development ina  clear and ctritial fashion. Sources and literature are relevant and well used. It clearly highlights the importance of sport in propaganda in such regimes as Franko's was.

However, there were several stages in the development of sport, as Franko's era lasted for decades. The paper regards these changes and highlight the dynamics of this process.

All in all, the paper is suitable for publishing and it will prove valuable for deeper understanding the complex history of sport.

 

Response 2:  We thank you for your positive assessment regarding the structure, use of sources, and historical analysis of the manuscript. We also appreciate your recognition of the paper’s attention to the different stages in the development of sport during the Franco era and its dynamic evolution over time.

 

Comments 3: There are some minor concerns in the References.

 

Whenever there is a website, there is no time and date for usage of it, instead there is "(accessed on Day, Month, Year)".  For e.g. in rows: 626, 653, 660, 663...

There are a couple of years thar in bold, for e.g. in rows 650, 652, 701, 707.

 

Response 3:  Thank you for pointing out the minor issues in the References section. As suggested, we have corrected the entries by inserting the appropriate access dates for online sources (e.g., 626, 653, 660, 663) and removing unintended bold formatting from years (e.g., 650, 652, 701, 707).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1. The title of the paper is “Sport during Franco's technocracy: from propaganda to development,” but the content covers a much broader period, including phases outside the technocratic stage. This appears inconsistent. If the title emphasizes only “technocracy,” the focus of the paper should reflect that more clearly. Or maybe the title needs to be revised.
2. As an international reader not from Spain, I am looking for whether there is anything we can learn from this paper beyond the national context. However, this remains unclear.
3. Perhaps for Encyclopedia, the primary aim is to describe factual developments. Nonetheless, it is not entirely clear why or how this particular history would interest international readers.
4. The paper consists only of dense text, which makes it difficult to digest. Including a concept map, timeline, figure, or table to summarize key points—such as major reforms, sport laws, and institutional figures across the three Francoist phases—would greatly enhance readability and accessibility.
5. In Section 2, “From Ideological Tool to Structural Legacy: The Role of Sport under Francoism,” there are ten sub-sections. However, the rationale behind choosing these ten is not explained. What is their organizing principle? How are they related? Is there an overarching structure?
6. These sub-sections are not presented in parallel form. For example, “Elola-Olaso Stage” and “Samaranch Stage” are not of the same type as “Media and Sport.” More effort is needed to organize the structure logically and consistently.
7. While the paper offers many historical events and facts, readers may still ask “so what?” It might help to frame the narrative within an international, comparative, or theoretical perspective to enhance relevance and engagement for broader audiences.
8. The authors should be cautious about making subjective statements without sufficient support. For example, in the section “Organization of International Sporting Events,” terms like “few” and “limited” appear to reflect personal judgment. Are these based on comparative benchmarks or internal comparisons between periods? Clarifying the basis of such assessments would improve objectivity.
9. Overall, the paper appears too wide-ranging to maintain a clear focus suitable for Encyclopedia. Narrowing the scope to a specific theme or sub-topic may help target the entry more effectively.
10. For instance, the section on “Sports Scientific Publications” may appear minor or underdeveloped from an international perspective. In particular, the first paragraph refers to the Spanish Journal of Physical Education and Sports without providing evidence of its academic impact or international relevance. If it is a primarily local journal, the extent and nature of its influence should be more clearly justified.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The title of the paper is “Sport during Franco's technocracy: from propaganda to development,” but the content covers a much broader period, including phases outside the technocratic stage. This appears inconsistent. If the title emphasizes only “technocracy,” the focus of the paper should reflect that more clearly. Or maybe the title needs to be revised.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment Although the title refers to the “technocratic” stage of the Franco regime, our intention was to frame this concept not in isolation, but as a turning point within a broader historical process in Francoist sport policy. The technocratic phase—characterized by modernization and administrative reform—represents, in our view, a key transition from propaganda to structural development. For this reason, we considered it necessary to provide historical context (autarky and late Francoism) to explain both the background and the consequences of that phase. We believe that this broader approach is necessary to give coherence to the whole, even if it extends beyond the stricter timeframe suggested by the title.

 

Comments 2:

As an international reader not from Spain, I am looking for whether there is anything we can learn from this paper beyond the national context. However, this remains unclear.

 

Response 2:  Thank you for your observation. While the article follows a primarily descriptive approach, we have sought to highlight how the evolution of sport under Francoism—as a long-lasting authoritarian regime—offers insights that go beyond the Spanish case. In particular, it allows for an examination of how certain technocratic policies applied to sport within non-democratic contexts gave rise to institutional structures that persisted into subsequent democratic systems. This trajectory may serve as a comparative reference for other studies on sport and authoritarianism, especially within the European context.

 

Comments 3: Perhaps for Encyclopedia, the primary aim is to describe factual developments. Nonetheless, it is not entirely clear why or how this particular history would interest international readers..

 

Response 3:  We understand your observation and agree that, although the primary purpose of an encyclopedia entry is to present factual information, it is also important to identify elements that may be of interest beyond the national context. In this regard, the case of sport under Francoism allows us to observe how, within a long-lasting European authoritarian regime, sport was used for ideological and propagandistic purposes but also progressively institutionalized, eventually influencing the structures of sport that followed. This documented and contextualized process may offer useful comparative elements for understanding the development of sport in other European contexts with similar authoritarian or democratic transition trajectories..

 

Comments 4: The paper consists only of dense text, which makes it difficult to digest. Including a concept map, timeline, figure, or table to summarize key points—such as major reforms, sport laws, and institutional figures across the three Francoist phases—would greatly enhance readability and accessibility.

 

Response 4:  We sincerely appreciate this suggestion. In order to support overall understanding of the content, we have included a visual figure titled “Sport Francoism: Key Milestones and Phases,” which summarizes the main legislative milestones, political phases, and institutional actors involved in sport during the Franco regime. This timeline is designed to complement the textual structure and enhance accessibility, especially for readers who may not be familiar with the history of sport in Spain

 

Comments 5: In Section 2, “From Ideological Tool to Structural Legacy: The Role of Sport under Francoism,” there are ten sub-sections. However, the rationale behind choosing these ten is not explained. What is their organizing principle? How are they related? Is there an overarching structure?

 

Response 5:  Thank you for raising this important point. The ten sub-sections in Section 2 follow a thematic organizational structure, rather than a chronological one. Each sub-section addresses a specific structural dimension through which sport was shaped and used under Francoism—such as legal frameworks, physical education, gender roles, institutional bodies, and media strategies. Together, they provide a multifaceted understanding of how sport functioned as a political and social tool during the regime. To clarify this organizing principle, we have added a brief explanatory note at the beginning of Section 2.

 

Comments 6: These sub-sections are not presented in parallel form. For example, “Elola-Olaso Stage” and “Samaranch Stage” are not of the same type as “Media and Sport.” More effort is needed to organize the structure logically and consistently.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We agree that some of the original sub-section titles followed different logics—some centered on historical figures and others on thematic dimensions. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the titles of the sub-sections to achieve greater consistency in form and focus. While we have retained a few distinctive headings to reflect the dual nature of sport policy under Francoism—shaped both by institutional developments and key individuals—we have made a concerted effort to ensure a more coherent and parallel presentation throughout the section.

 

Comments 7: While the paper offers many historical events and facts, readers may still ask “so what?” It might help to frame the narrative within an international, comparative, or theoretical perspective to enhance relevance and engagement for broader audiences.

 

Response 7: We appreciate this important comment. Although the format of the entry is primarily descriptive—as expected in an encyclopedia—we recognize the value of situating the Spanish case within broader comparative or theoretical perspectives. For this reason, we have clarified in the introduction and conclusion how the Francoist sport model fits within the wider European trend of using sport as both an ideological tool and a vehicle for institutional development under authoritarian regimes. This framing aims to underline the relevance of the Spanish experience for international readers interested in the political instrumentalization of sport and the lasting legacy of such policies in post-authoritarian contexts.

 

Comments 8: The authors should be cautious about making subjective statements without sufficient support. For example, in the section “Organization of International Sporting Events,” terms like “few” and “limited” appear to reflect personal judgment. Are these based on comparative benchmarks or internal comparisons between periods? Clarifying the basis of such assessments would improve objectivity.

 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed the section Organization of International Sporting Events and rephrased the sentence in question to avoid potentially subjective wording. Instead of stating that such events were “few” and “minor in scope,” we now refer to the limited number and modest visibility of international events in early Francoism, and place this assessment in comparative perspective by referencing the broader European context. This change aims to enhance objectivity and provide clearer interpretive grounding for the statement.

 

Comments 9: Overall, the paper appears too wide-ranging to maintain a clear focus suitable for Encyclopedia. Narrowing the scope to a specific theme or sub-topic may help target the entry more effectively

 

Response 9: Thank you for this overall remark. We understand the concern regarding the breadth of the content. However, given the structural role that sport played throughout the Francoist period—and the multiple dimensions involved in its development—we considered it important to provide a comprehensive thematic overview. To improve focus and clarity, we have reinforced the internal structure of Section 2, revised sub-section headings for consistency, and added a conceptual timeline to summarize key developments. These efforts aim to preserve the scope while enhancing readability and alignment with the Encyclopedia’s informative purpose.

 

Comments 10: For instance, the section on “Sports Scientific Publications” may appear minor or underdeveloped from an international perspective. In particular, the first paragraph refers to the Spanish Journal of Physical Education and Sports without providing evidence of its academic impact or international relevance. If it is a primarily local journal, the extent and nature of its influence should be more clearly justified.

 

Response 10: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. We acknowledge that the Spanish Journal of Physical Education and Sports (Revista Española de Educación Física y Deportes) did not have international academic impact. However, its inclusion in the text is justified by its historical role as a foundational publication in the Spanish sport system during Francoism, particularly in relation to state-controlled dissemination of physical education discourse. Our aim in this section was not to evaluate international academic influence, but rather to illustrate how publishing platforms were integrated into the broader institutional construction of sport under the regime.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. A visual figure titled “Sport Francoism: Key Milestones and Phases” is included, but it does not mention Elola-Olaso and Samaranch, who are referenced in the sub-titles.
2. A brief explanatory note has been added at the beginning of Section 2 to clarify the organizing principle behind the sub-headings. However, the issue still seems to persist: Some subsection titles are organized around historical figures, while others are based on thematic dimensions. In your response to my previous comment, you wrote that “distinctive headings [reflect] the dual nature of sport policy under Francoism—shaped both by institutional developments and key individuals,” which is clear. Why not simply include this sentence in the explanatory note at the start of Section 2?
3. Since Elola-Olaso and Samaranch are specifically highlighted in the sub-titles, it may be worth asking: Do they symbolically represent the periods they are associated with, or can the developments during those times truly be attributed to their leadership and contributions? I’m just concerned this might lean too much toward excessive personal hero worship. Hopefully, that is not the case—but if their roles were indeed primary, perhaps you could include more concrete evidence to support that perspective. Alternatively, if their names are meant to serve more as symbolic markers of those periods, you might consider clarifying this.
4. Some of my previous comments referred to the manuscript’s potential value for broader audiences, and I think your responses addressed that well. Why not include some of those points in your Introduction or Conclusion? Doing so could help spark interest among readers beyond those already familiar with the topic.

Author Response

Comments 1:

A visual figure titled “Sport Francoism: Key Milestones and Phases” is included, but it does not mention Elola-Olaso and Samaranch, who are referenced in the sub-titles.

 

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. The visual figure is intended to provide a high-level overview of the main political and structural phases of Francoist sport policy, not to replicate the internal logic of Section 2’s sub-headings. Including individual names in the diagram could risk overpersonalizing periods that were shaped by broader institutional dynamics. However, we have clarified in the introductory note to Section 2 that the sub-headings combine both thematic and biographical dimensions to reflect the dual nature of sport policy during the dictatorship.

 

 

Comments 2:

A brief explanatory note has been added at the beginning of Section 2 to clarify the organizing principle behind the sub-headings. However, the issue still seems to persist: Some subsection titles are organized around historical figures, while others are based on thematic dimensions. In your response to my previous comment, you wrote that “distinctive headings [reflect] the dual nature of sport policy under Francoism—shaped both by institutional developments and key individuals,” which is clear. Why not simply include this sentence in the explanatory note at the start of Section 2?

.

 

Response 2:  Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We have now incorporated the proposed sentence—slightly adapted for flow—into the explanatory note at the start of Section 2. It reads: “The distinctive sub-headings reflect the dual nature of sport policy during the dictatorship—shaped both by institutional developments and by the influence of key individuals such as Elola-Olaso and Samaranch.” We believe this now directly addresses the issue raised and enhances clarity for readers.

 

 

 

Comments 3:

Since Elola-Olaso and Samaranch are specifically highlighted in the sub-titles, it may be worth asking: Do they symbolically represent the periods they are associated with, or can the developments during those times truly be attributed to their leadership and contributions? I’m just concerned this might lean too much toward excessive personal hero worship. Hopefully, that is not the case—but if their roles were indeed primary, perhaps you could include more concrete evidence to support that perspective. Alternatively, if their names are meant to serve more as symbolic markers of those periods, you might consider clarifying this..

 

Response 3:  We fully understand the concern, and we thank the reviewer for raising such a thoughtful point. In the context of an authoritarian regime, we agree that historical figures often operate on two levels: as political agents with real institutional influence and as symbolic representatives of state-driven narratives. Elola-Olaso and Samaranch exemplify this dual function. Their inclusion in the sub-titles aims to reflect both their documented administrative roles—as supported by the academic literature cited throughout the text—and their symbolic association with broader phases of modernization and internationalization under Francoism. We believe that this duality is already conveyed through the narrative and supported by the bibliographical sources referenced, without overstating their individual protagonism. To enhance clarity, we have also added a brief note at the start of Section 2 to acknowledge this dual nature explicitly

 

Comments 4: Some of my previous comments referred to the manuscript’s potential value for broader audiences, and I think your responses addressed that well. Why not include some of those points in your Introduction or Conclusion? Doing so could help spark interest among readers beyond those already familiar with the topic.

.

 

Response 4:  Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. We agree that the broader relevance of the topic merits explicit mention in the article. Without altering the structure or focus of the manuscript, we have incorporated a final sentence into the Conclusion that situates the Spanish case within a broader analytical perspective. This addition highlights how sport-related institutional processes under authoritarian regimes may serve as a starting point for future comparative studies, while preserving the objectivity and scope of the analysis

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf