IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2490-d755334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition, Gender Equality, and Doping in Sports in the Red Queen Effect Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Yalcin Uyar

    (Faculty of Sport Science, Ankara University, Ankara 06560, Turkey)

  • Ambra Gentile

    (Sport and Exercise Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Educational Sciences and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy)

  • Hamza Uyar

    (Faculty of Sport Science, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Turkey)

  • Övünç Erdeveciler

    (Faculty of Sport Science, Ankara University, Ankara 06560, Turkey)

  • Hakan Sunay

    (Faculty of Sport Science, Ankara University, Ankara 06560, Turkey)

  • Veronica Mîndrescu

    (Faculty of Physical Education and Mountain Sports, Department of Motor Performance, Transivania University of Brasov, 500036 Brasov, Romania)

  • Dino Mujkic

    (Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sarajevo, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

  • Antonino Bianco

    (Sport and Exercise Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Educational Sciences and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

The nature of sports is characterized by a strong competitive component that generates inequalities among athletes at different levels, specifically in relation to gender, technology, and doping. These inequalities can be represented according to the Red Queen effect perspective, which has been previously hypothesized in other competitive environments (evolutionary biology and economics, for instance). The Red Queen effect considers each competitive environment to require a constant effort to maintain a position of competitive advantage in order reach the best result possible. Therefore, the aim of the current paper is to provide an innovative perspective for the understanding of competition in sports, identifying factors (i.e., physical appearance for gender equality, socioeconomic status of a sport team for technology, and antidoping rules for doping) influencing athletes’ possibilities to win a competition. Concerning gender differences, the disparity between genders reflects a lower coverage in sports news, and media are more likely to focus on female athletes’ physical appearance than their performance in sports. Therefore, women struggle more with increasing their visibility and in affirming their status as an athlete. On the other hand, the introduction of science and technological innovations in sports has generated economic interests in sport competitions, which reached superior performance levels compared to the past. Teams that cannot afford financial burdens of technological innovation risk being left out from sport competitions. Finally, doping creates a Red Queen environment since antidoping rules catch a small portion of athletes using performance enhancement drugs.

Suggested Citation

  • Yalcin Uyar & Ambra Gentile & Hamza Uyar & Övünç Erdeveciler & Hakan Sunay & Veronica Mîndrescu & Dino Mujkic & Antonino Bianco, 2022. "Competition, Gender Equality, and Doping in Sports in the Red Queen Effect Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-8, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2490-:d:755334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2490/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2490/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy & Muriel Niederle & Aldo Rustichini, 2003. "Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 1049-1074.
    2. Vanessa Ratten, 2019. "Sports Technology and Innovation," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-75046-0, July.
    3. William Baumol, 2004. "Red-Queen games: arms races, rule of law and market economies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 237-247, June.
    4. William P. Barnett & Olav Sorenson, 2002. "The Red Queen in organizational creation and development," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(2), pages 289-325.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oliva M. D. Martins & Rocsana Bucea-Manea-Țoniș & Jasmina Bašić & Ana Sofia Coelho & Violeta-Elena Simion, 2022. "Insect-Based Food: A (Free) Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Xiaolong Wei & Tao Wang & Yang Chen & Oleksii Lyulyov & Tetyana Pimonenko, 2023. "The Effects of Population Aging on Sports Industry Development: The Mediating Effect of Technological Innovation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Jungwon Min, 2022. "Effects of Mixed-Gender Competition: Choking under Pressure in a Dynamic Tournament," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Rocsana Bucea-Manea-Țoniş & Valentin Kuleto & Simona Corina Dobre Gudei & Costin Lianu & Cosmin Lianu & Milena P. Ilić & Dan Păun, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence Potential in Higher Education Institutions Enhanced Learning Environment in Romania and Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Oldham, 2018. "How fast to run in the Red Queen race?," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 28-43, January.
    2. Owen, Ann L. & Temesvary, Judit, 2018. "The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 50-63.
    3. Paul Jones & Vanessa Ratten & Ted Hayduk, 0. "Sport, fitness, and lifestyle entrepreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-11.
    4. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    5. Alison L. Booth, 2006. "The Glass Ceiling in Europe: Why Are Women Doing Badly in the Labour Market?," CEPR Discussion Papers 542, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    6. José de Sousa & Guillaume Hollard, 2021. "From Micro to Macro Gender Differences: Evidence from Field Tournaments," Post-Print hal-03389151, HAL.
    7. Giacomo De Giorgi & Michele Pellizzari & William Gui Woolston, 2012. "Class Size And Class Heterogeneity," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 795-830, August.
    8. Alger, Ingela, 2021. "On the evolution of male competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 228-254.
    9. Wang, Liang & Tan, Justin & Li, Wan, 2018. "The impacts of spatial positioning on regional new venture creation and firm mortality over the industry life cycle," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 41-52.
    10. Huong Thu Le & Ha Trong Nguyen, 2018. "The evolution of the gender test score gap through seventh grade: new insights from Australia using unconditional quantile regression and decomposition," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-42, December.
    11. Cornaglia, Francesca & Drouvelis, Michalis & Masella, Paolo, 2019. "Competition and the role of group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-145.
    12. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    13. Ertac, Seda & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2012. "Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 24-30.
    14. V. Bhaskar & Caroline Thomas, 2019. "The Culture of Overconfidence," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 95-110, June.
    15. Christine Harbring & Bernd Irlenbusch, 2005. "Incentives in Tournaments with Endogenous Prize Selection," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(4), pages 636-663, December.
    16. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Kaiser, Lutz C., 2014. "The Gender-Career Estimation Gap," IZA Discussion Papers 8185, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    19. Mario Daniele Amore & Orsola Garofalo & Alessandro Minichilli, 2014. "Gender Interactions Within the Family Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1083-1097, May.
    20. Pekkarinen, Tuomas, 2015. "Gender differences in behaviour under competitive pressure: Evidence on omission patterns in university entrance examinations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 94-110.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2490-:d:755334. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.