Preface
This article dives into the Media Revolutions and how they’ve completely flipped the Sports Ecosystem on its head. It’s actually a term paper I did for my PhD at Vytautas Magnus University, for the Science Philosophy and Methodology course. The goal was to take Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and apply it to my sports marketing PhD thesis, specifically focusing on how media impacts the value of entities within the sports ecosystem.
I’ve got to thank Professor Dalius Jonkus for letting me take this route. It really deepened my understanding of how the media and sports ecosystems are intertwined. It also solidified my belief that media revolutions play a huge role in the growth of sports ecosystems all over the globe.
In the paper, I took a look at 5 media revolutions: newspapers, radio, television, internet, and social media. I analyzed each one through Kuhn’s lens, exploring how he describes scientific progress. Kuhn argues that progress isn’t linear, like many of us assume, but happens in bursts through paradigm shifts—revolutions that open up new fields and perspectives.
So, in this paper, I’m treating each media revolution as a scientific revolution and exploring how it’s changed the game for sports marketing and led to the massive growth of the sports ecosystem and industry as a whole.
The first part of the article is a theoretical breakdown, but if you’re just here for the application part, jump straight to Part 4 – THE APPLICATION OF THOMAS S. KUHN’S THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS TO ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON SPORTS ECOSYSTEMS.
Term paper grade: 10/10
Kick it! – Beastie Boys – Fight for your Right.
INTRODUCTION
Relevance of the Topic
In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Thomas S. Kuhn introduced the idea that scientific progress does not occur in a linear and consistent manner, as traditionally believed, but through shifts in paradigms and scientific revolutions that open new fields and perspectives in science. According to T. Nickles (2003), Kuhn changed the way we perceive science, allowing this philosopher of science to become a cultural icon.
Kuhn’s theory, which was radical for its time, has become one of the key concepts in the philosophy of science and is now applied not only to science but also to other social and economic systems. Among these areas are sports ecosystems, where, as in scientific research, we can observe paradigm shifts and revolutions.
Today, sports are not just an arena for competition, but a complex entertainment industry where the media plays a crucial role in value creation (Quirk and Fort, 2018). Similarly to science, we can observe media revolutions in the sports industry that have led to significant changes in the value creation process, particularly in shaping the commercial value of athletes and teams. From traditional television broadcasts to the rise of social networks and online streaming services, sports have become a global phenomenon where the media, technologies, and social networks play an increasingly important role in shaping the value of entities within the sports ecosystem.
Kuhn’s theory about revolutions and paradigm shifts provides a useful lens through which we can analyze these changes in the sports industry and the media. The aim of this research is to examine how these revolutions and paradigm shifts have led to changes in the sports ecosystem.
Research Problem
The main research problem arises from the question of how Thomas S. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions can be applied to analyze changes in the sports ecosystem in the context of media. Kuhn’s ideas about paradigms and revolutions were developed to analyze scientific progress, but these theories can be applied to other areas that have undergone revolutions and changes, including the sports industry.
In sports ecosystems, the value creation process depends on many factors: the number of spectators, sponsorship investments, athletes’ image, and media coverage. Since the mid-20th century, when sports became a global entertainment industry, the media, particularly television, began to have a significant impact on the creation of sports value. However, with the advent of online streaming and social networks, these value creation models have changed, and athletes and teams have become not only sports figures but also influencers on social media. This has triggered a new revolution in the sports industry, similar to scientific revolutions, manifesting as the collapse of the old paradigm system and the emergence of a new, technology-driven system.
The research problem is: How can we use Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to analyze media paradigm shifts and revolutions in the sports ecosystem? How have these revolutions changed the sports ecosystem and its entities’ value?
Research Objective
The aim of this study is to apply Thomas S. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts to analyze the sports ecosystem in a media context. The objective is to show how Kuhn’s ideas about revolutions and paradigms, originally designed to explain scientific progress, can be applied to analyzing the sports industry and value creation processes through the lens of the media. This study aims to clarify how media revolutions have changed the mechanisms of value creation in sports ecosystems and what these changes have been during revolutions in the sports industry.
The research objective also includes explaining, through Kuhn’s theory, how the media influence the distribution of sports value among athletes, teams, sponsors, and fans. This would help to better understand how paradigm shifts in media and technology have led to changes in the sports industry, from the traditional television-based value model to the social network and internet revolution shaping the modern sports value creation model.
Research Tasks
- Analyze the fundamentals of Thomas S. Kuhn’s theory, its key ideas, and its application to scientific progress.
- Define what constitutes a sports ecosystem and discuss its main components.
- Analyze how Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts can be applied in the context of media revolutions to explain changes in the value creation process of sports.
- Evaluate how media revolutions (television, the internet, social networks) have led to changes in the value creation process of the sports ecosystem and what Kuhn’s theory contributes to analyzing these changes.
- Evaluate the strengths and limitations of applying Kuhn’s theory to sports ecosystems in the media context.
Research Methods
The research will use literature analysis to identify the key aspects of Thomas S. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions. First, theoretical sources will be analyzed to highlight the key Kuhnian ideas about paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions that open new fields and perspectives in science. Using systematic analysis, the study will examine how these theoretical ideas can be applied in the context of sports ecosystems.
The research will also analyze the concept of the sports ecosystem and the entities that comprise it, based on existing literature and the works of other researchers. It will evaluate how the media, technologies, and social networks influence the sports industry and how Kuhn’s theory can explain these changes.
Subsequently, by applying the theoretical knowledge gained, the study will analyze what media revolutions and paradigm shifts (television, the internet, social networks) have led to changes in sports ecosystems, particularly in the value creation process. A systematic literature analysis will highlight the main trends and summarize the impact of media revolutions on the development of the sports industry, and how these changes relate to Kuhn’s theory of paradigms and revolutions.
THE ORIGIN OF THOMAS S. KUHN’S THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
Thomas S. Kuhn, the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argues that scientific progress does not occur in a linear and consistent manner, as was traditionally believed, but through paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions.
This theory was widely criticized for its perceived relativism; however, Kuhn defended his perspective by emphasizing that his goal was not to deny the pursuit of truth, but to show how the scientific community transitions from old paradigms to new ones, sometimes incompatible with previous views. Kuhn, drawing from his position as a historian, highlighted that scientific revolutions are not merely the emergence of better observations but involve more conceptual changes that do not always lead to “truth.” Instead, they often form a new perspective on old problems (Kuhn, 1970).
According to B. Larvor (2003), two key individuals who influenced Thomas S. Kuhn were Alexandre Koyré and Herbert Butterfield.
A. Koyré also argued that scientific revolutions are not merely about accumulating objective facts, but often about conceptual changes that form new models of thinking (Koyré, 1966). Koyré noted that, for instance, Galileo and Newton, despite their revolutionary ideas, were also shaped by the context of their time. Koyré suggested that scientific revolutions are related to shifts when old paradigms are replaced by new ones that significantly alter the nature and methods of science.
Meanwhile, H. Butterfield criticized the historical view that history constantly progresses, and that every revolution is a direct step toward a “better” future. Butterfield emphasized that history should be evaluated within the context of its time, rather than applying contemporary norms and values. His view on history encourages investigating it based on the surrounding social, political, and intellectual contexts rather than attempting to impose modern criteria for evaluation (Butterfield, 1931).
According to B. Larvor (2003), Kuhn adopted these ideas but integrated them into the philosophy of science, explaining that scientific progress is not a consistent movement toward objective truth but depends on social and epistemic changes within scientific communities. Kuhn’s view of scientific revolutions— as paradigm shifts during which new scientific theories emerge that cannot be directly compared with previous ones—emphasizes that science, like history, is connected to the creation and maintenance of certain social and epistemic conditions (Kuhn, 1970).
Meanwhile, in his analyzed works, such as Galileo and Plato (1943), Koyré emphasized that science achieves breakthroughs not through better measurements, but through the emergence of a new method of thinking. These changes in thinking allow scientists to see the world in an entirely different way. Koyré believed that such scientific revolutions require a fundamental change in ontology, rather than just technical and methodological advancements.
Butterfield also stressed that historians should not assess past events based on contemporary standards, as this could lead to false judgments and distortions. Historians must review the past within its own context, considering what was acceptable and understood at the time, rather than trying to judge it by today’s criteria. This is related to the principle of historicism, according to which historians examine not only the events but also those who carried them out, as only this approach reveals their true motivations and significance.
KEY IDEAS OF THOMAS S. KUHN’S THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
According to J.A. Marcum (2005), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions can be schematically illustrated as follows: pre-paradigmatic science → normal science → exceptional science → new normal science.
When transitioning from pre-paradigmatic science to normal science, a community consensus forms around one paradigm, whereas previously there was no common agreement. This model represents the shift from immature science to mature science.
As the community transitions from normal science to exceptional science, it recognizes that the existing paradigm can no longer explain the arising anomalies. This leads to a crisis in the community, from which exceptional science emerges, in which community members begin to search for solutions to the paradigm’s challenges. This is the moment when a scientific revolution takes place.
Once the community chooses a new paradigm, the old one is discarded, and a new phase of normal science begins. The revolution, or paradigm shift, is considered complete, and the cycle—from normal science to new normal science through revolution—begins anew.
A more detailed analysis of each stage is provided below:
PRE-PARADIGMATIC PERIOD
The pre-paradigmatic period is a transitional phase when a scientific discipline is just beginning to form, and there is no consensus on fundamental problems, theories, and methods. During this period, scientists work in various fields but lack a common perspective on what is most important to study. This represents the “pre-paradigmatic state” of science, where there is no clear theoretical structure or unified norms for conducting research.
- Lack of theoretical concepts: Different scientists typically have different theories and methodologies, which are often incompatible with each other. This means there is no shared framework for achieving a common understanding of phenomena.
- Competing scientific schools: Different groups may propose different explanations and methods. This creates a certain level of scientific chaos because there is no unified theory.
- Lack of examples and problems: Since there is no unified view on problems and methods, many questions remain unanswered, and the search for solutions can be highly uneven.
NORMAL SCIENCE
Normal science is the stage when a scientific discipline has gained recognition and consolidated around a single paradigm. At this stage, the scientific community agrees on the key theories and methods, and these are widely applied in further research.
- Paradigm as an example: Kuhn argues that a “paradigm” can be defined as a specific scientific theory or discovery that becomes a common model and example for future research. For example, Newton’s mechanics became a paradigm in many areas of physics.
- Disciplinary matrix: The paradigm encompasses not only theoretical and methodological foundations but also a broad consensus within the scientific community about what is important and how research processes should be organized. This creates a common structure for conducting scientific research.
- Problem-solving: Normal science is based on “puzzle-solving.” The scientific community accepts existing paradigm solutions and seeks to apply them in specific areas where their effectiveness has already been proven.
THE EMERGENCE OF ANOMALIES AND CRISIS (EXCEPTIONAL SCIENCE)
Kuhn defines a crisis as a transitional stage when significant anomalies arise within the paradigm that can no longer be explained by the existing framework. This leads to dissatisfaction and frustration within the community.
- Anomalies: These are questions or issues that do not align with the current paradigm and cannot be solved using the existing methods and principles. The scientific community begins to realize that something new is needed.
- Crisis: When the current paradigm fails to solve an increasing number of anomalies, scientists begin looking for new approaches that could explain the emerging problems.
- Resistance to the old paradigm: Some scientists and researchers refuse to accept a new approach, believing that the old paradigm will still be able to solve the emerging issues. This creates division and disagreements within the community.
THE EMERGENCE AND ADOPTION OF A NEW PARADIGM (NEW NORMAL SCIENCE)
Once a new paradigmatic model is chosen, it is gradually accepted and recognized throughout the scientific community, while the old paradigm becomes irrelevant and is rejected.
- Recognition of a new paradigm: The chosen new paradigm is typically characterized by its ability to solve old problems and provide new, broader perspectives, offering more opportunities for research.
- Adoption: While some scientists may initially reject the new paradigm model, over time, due to successful research and its advantages, most begin to accept and apply it.
- Paradigm shift: The shift to a new paradigm often leads to certain social and structural changes within the scientific community. Old researchers who do not recognize the new paradigm are often marginalized or forced to leave the community.
SPORTS ECOSYSTEMS, THEIR ACTORS, AND THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON THEIR VALUE
NOTE: This part is mostly based on a research already done, where I have analysed what makes a sports ecosystem – you can check the full article here.
Also check Wiki Pages about: Sports Ecosystem, Sports Industry, Ecosystem vs Industry.
Theoretical Basis of Sports Ecosystems
The concept of a sports ecosystem arises from the broader ideas of ecosystems and business ecosystems. The term “ecosystem” originates in biology, where it is defined as a system of living organisms interacting with each other and their environment (Oxford English Dictionary). This concept has been widely applied in business studies to explain the interdependent networks of organizations, individuals, and institutions that collaborate and compete to create value.
Moore (1993) first introduced the concept of the business ecosystem in the academic literature. According to Moore, the business ecosystem emphasizes the interdependence of organizations within a broader economic community, where they collectively create goods and services that are valuable to consumers, who are also part of the ecosystem.
Moore (1996) used a three-layer model (Fig. 1) to illustrate the relationships between the core business, the extended enterprise, and the larger business ecosystem. The central businesses are closely tied to value creation, with their influence decreasing as the distance from the center increases.
Since then, the concept of business ecosystems has been extensively explored and applied in management studies (Guittard et al., 2015). The original definition has been expanded and now includes organizations such as “suppliers, distributors, external service providers, producers of related products or services, technology providers, and many other organizations” (Iansiti & Levien, 2004), all of which influence the success or failure of firms within the ecosystem.
Business ecosystems are constantly evolving, and they have a dynamic structure (Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004). They involve not only businesses but also people who come and go, “connected through a complex, global network of relationships” (Basole et al., 2015). Ecosystems have become an important topic in management literature, particularly in the areas of innovation, strategy, and entrepreneurship (Adner, 2006; Jacobides, Cennamo & Gawer, 2018; Shipilov & Gawer, 2020).
When applying this concept to sports, we encounter a dynamic network of interrelated stakeholders, whose relationships are both “coopetitive” (a combination of cooperation and competition) and competitive, through which value is jointly created and managed at the micro, meso, and macro levels (Morgan, 2024). The primary characteristic of ecosystems is “coopetition” – relationships where businesses both compete and collaborate with one another to sustain the overall value of the ecosystem (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2011; Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018). This concept has been examined in various fields, including sports marketing and management (Lorgnier & Su, 2014).
Iansiti & Levien (2004) describe business networks as ecosystems revolving around a central core entity, “defined by a large number of loosely connected participants who depend on each other to achieve mutual success and survival.” Paine (1969) first introduced the concept of “keystone species,” describing species that play a crucial role in maintaining the ecosystem’s structure and integrity. In a business context, a “keystone sector” is one that performs unique and essential functions, and without it, the community would be significantly harmed (Kilkenny & Nalbarte, 2002).
Tsujimoto et al. (2018) explain that the meaning of the ecosystem concept stems from the analysis of organic networks, which not only highlight their positive aspects but also explore negative and competitive elements, such as ecosystem-level competition, predation, parasitism, and the potential collapse of the system. Each participant in the ecosystem has unique characteristics, decision-making methods, and goals. These differences can lead to unexpected outcomes at the ecosystem level, even if each action and decision is rational at a given time. The boundary of the ecosystem is defined by the product or service system, and it is not confined by national borders, regional clusters, contractual conditions, or additional suppliers.
Key Actors (Sports Entities) in the Sports Ecosystem
Rundh & Gottfridson (2015) identified spectators as essential participants in the sports ecosystem, not only as consumers but also as active participants who enhance the experience and generate value. Shilbury (2009) emphasized that fans are crucial to maintaining the financial and cultural sustainability of the ecosystem through ticket sales, merchandise sales, and media consumption. Collignon & Sultan (2014) also highlighted the importance of fans, acknowledging their role in maintaining financial sustainability through their engagement.
Danglade & Maltese (2014) expanded this idea by treating fans as essential participants in both consumption and value co-creation, while Da Silva & Las Casas (2017) further emphasized the importance of fans in their models. The Centre for Sport and Human Rights (n.d.) focused on athletes but recognized the importance of surrounding actors, such as fans, in supporting the ecosystem.
Bailey et al. (2014) reinforced the idea that fans are the “sun” of the sports ecosystem, generating demand and sustaining the system. Euler (2020) also highlighted the role of fans as the center, demonstrating how their involvement connects athletes, sponsors, the media, and clubs. In all models, fans consistently emerge as the main force sustaining the sports ecosystem.
In the sports ecosystem, fans play central roles by creating engagement and value. According to Rundh & Gottfridson (2015) and Da Silva & Las Casas (2017), sports clubs are important in managing athletes, staff, and competitions, shaping the sports structure, and generating fan experiences. Players, as the primary on-field factors, play a key role in attracting media attention and building fan loyalty (Collignon & Sultan, 2014; Da Silva & Las Casas, 2017).
The media, as emphasized by Collignon & Sultan (2014) and Rundh & Gottfridson (2015), expands the reach of sports and creates narratives that strengthen fan engagement. Sponsors are important for funding sports activities and promoting brands through associations with teams and athletes, significantly contributing to revenue streams (Collignon & Sultan, 2014; Da Silva & Las Casas, 2017).
Leagues, according to Shilbury (2009) and Collignon & Sultan (2014), are key players in organizing and managing competitions, setting sports rules, and structure. Agents, as defined by Rundh & Gottfridson (2015) and Collignon & Sultan (2014), facilitate relationships between players, clubs, and sponsors, managing contracts and advertising deals. Support groups, including family, friends, and coaches, are essential in supporting athletes’ performance and well-being (Centre for Sport and Human Rights, n.d.). Suppliers of goods and services, such as merchandise manufacturers and video game developers, expand the ecosystem’s revenue streams and engagement opportunities (Bailey et al., 2014).
Institutions, such as stadiums and arenas, are important for organizing events and enhancing the fan experience (Rundh & Gottfridson, 2015; Da Silva & Las Casas, 2018). Governmental institutions, particularly in regions where sports ecosystems depend on external funding, help regulate and finance infrastructure, shaping the environment in which sports operate (Tamulis, 2021; Komskienė et al., 2015). Philanthropic foundations, as noted by Bailey et al. (2014), promote social responsibility and contribute to community initiatives. Finally, gambling platforms, as noted by Brumbeloe (2022), have become significant and now provide a new dimension to the sports ecosystem with vast global revenue generation (Ibisworld, 2020).
The Impact of Media on Sports Ecosystems
NOTE: This part is mostly based on a research already done, where I have analysed if sports organizations should invest in Infuelncer Athletes – you can check the full article here.
Also check Wiki Pages about: Sports Marketing, Sports Influencer, Influencer Athlete, Sports Celebrity, Athlete’s Brand.
Sports and mass media share a close and interdependent relationship, particularly in American society, as McChesney (1989) notes. Interestingly, the first specialized sports media emerged as early as 1792 in England with the launch of the Sporting Magazine (Beck & Boshart, 2003).
The late 1980s marked a period when the media’s influence on sports began to be seriously studied, and sport itself began to be seen as a business. In his book Media, Sport, and Society, Wenner (1989) highlights that during the Super Bowl, a 30-second commercial costs as much as $675,000, and the three major U.S. TV networks broadcast over 1,800 hours of sports programming each year, noting that sport provides a unique opportunity for sponsors to reach their desired audience — sports fans. McGregor (1989) also emphasizes that sports reporting became one of the main pillars of American journalism.
In the 1990s, sports were analyzed more deeply to explore what drives their massive viewership and the impact they have on society’s culture and economy. Contemporary research continues to confirm the media’s influence on the sports ecosystem and its value creation, especially when discussing athletes. The influence of players on social media has become an additional reason for securing large contracts, as performance alone is no longer the only factor. Sim (2024) emphasizes that many athletes now have more followers on social media than the teams they represent. For clubs aiming to reach these audiences and expand their fan base, providing content that their stars can easily share is becoming increasingly important.
For example, while Manchester United, a Premier League giant, has 63.6 million followers on Instagram, three of their players—Casemiro, Marcus Rashford, and Raphael Varane—collectively attract as many followers through their personal profiles. Adding up the followers of the other first-team players, the total number reaches nearly 168 million, more than 2.5 times the number of the club’s own Instagram followers (Sim, 2024).
Naturally, acquiring an influential athlete with a large following can attract significant attention, enhance sponsorship opportunities, and encourage growth for sports organizations associated with the club and its ecosystem. This phenomenon is clearly visible on a larger scale with notable examples. Lalli (2018) notes that Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) has more followers in Brazil than in France, primarily due to the addition of Neymar, the Brazilian superstar and one of the country’s most popular figures. According to Frédéric Longuépée, PSG’s Deputy CEO, players like Neymar help expand the club’s brand globally, grow the fanbase, and provide the club’s partners with unique opportunities to reach star followers (Lalli, 2018).
At the same time, McCullough et al. (2017) examine how sports media has become an economic driver, as sponsors increasingly recognize the value that sports broadcasts and their dissemination through mass media provide. They emphasize that sports events have become not only entertainment but also key economic and cultural events, created and shaped by media outlets.
THE APPLICATION OF THOMAS S. KUHN’S THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS TO ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON SPORTS ECOSYSTEMS
E. Yuan (2011), in a comprehensive study, identified six primary media tools—newspapers, radio, television, telephones, magazines, and the internet. These media reflect five major revolutions triggered by changes in media in the sports ecosystem. The main media used in this study are print (newspapers, magazines), radio, television, the internet, and social networks (mobile phones).
In the context of sports ecosystems and media:
- Pre-paradigmatic period should mark the technological stage before the emergence of the sports ecosystem environment.
- Normal science period should mark when technology becomes utilized in the sports ecosystem.
- Exceptional science period should mark when technology begins to create anomalies and changes in the sports ecosystem.
- New normal science period should mark when technology becomes fully accepted in the sports ecosystem and widely used.
The Press Revolution
- Pre-paradigmatic period – According to Weber (2006), the first newspaper appeared in 1605 in Germany. The first newspapers, like sports, were available and mostly practiced among the elite. At that time, the press was a privilege, as many people were still illiterate, and print was expensive and limited.
- Normal science period – By the late 18th century, in 1792, the first specialized sports publication, Sporting Magazine, was published in England, starting to feature information about various sports events. During this period, the press was still largely aimed at the upper class but began to have a broader impact, especially on city dwellers who had better access to these publications. This marked the beginning of sports journalism, where regular and specialized reporting on sports events began.
- Exceptional science period – The 1830s marked the “Penny Press” era in America, when newspapers became cheap and widely accessible to the general public. The first advertisements appeared in newspapers, and in 1883, New York World became the first newspaper to have a sports section (Motiz, 2014). Schlesinger (1933) found that from 1880 to 1920, the percentage of sports articles in newspapers rose from 0.4% to 20%. In 1876, the first professional sports league in the world, the American Baseball League (MLB), was established. According to Miah (1998), mass media and the growing entertainment sector triggered the creation of professional sports leagues. In the 1920s, athletes began receiving salaries, and the legendary baseball player Babe Ruth signed a contract worth $80,000 a year (about $1 million in 2025 USD) (Stephenson, 2019). This example shows how the press began to fundamentally influence the sports industry, shaping not only knowledge but also financial aspects, such as the rise in athlete salaries.
- New normal science period – In the mid-20th century, sports sections in newspapers became the norm. In 1954, the first specialized sports magazine, Sports Illustrated, was published, and sports became widely recognized as a business. Professional sports, leveraging mass media, became widely known, with their value established not only in athletes’ salaries but also in the overall structure of the sports ecosystem. During this period, the press no longer focused solely on sports events but began to cover athletes’ personal lives, creating a deeper connection with viewers and encouraging their involvement in the sports market.
The Radio Revolution
- Pre-paradigmatic period – Colligan (1991) notes that the first radio broadcast occurred in 1895, when Guglielmo Marconi invented this technology. Interestingly, Marconi was not only the inventor of radio but also an avid sports fan. In 1899, he made the first sports radio broadcast from the America’s Cup races in New York. While the first steps in radio were more experimental, it marked the beginning of a new technology that was able to reach people on a large scale. In 1906, music was first broadcast via radio, and by the 1920s, KDKA (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) became the first official radio station in the world (History of Commercial Radio, n.d.).
- Normal science period – According to Summer (2004), the 1920s became the golden age for sports as it gained wider recognition and was extensively broadcasted both in newspapers and on the radio. In 1921, KDKA radio station broadcasted the first sports event, which became a key moment in the integration of radio and sports (Mahbub, 2024). This period marked when sports became a regular topic in radio programs, and the first sports broadcasts reached a broad audience. Radio, as a mass communication tool, allowed people to experience sports events even if they couldn’t attend the events in person, significantly expanding the accessibility and impact of sports.
- Exceptional science period – Rosen (2001) highlights that in the 1960s, there was a true revolution in sports radio broadcasting. In 1955, WHN New York introduced a regular “Brooklyn Dodgers” review program, which was aired before and after games. In the 1960s, sports review shows and commentators became significant participants in the sports ecosystem, valued by the public for their insights and analyses. In 1965, the first sports radio program at Seton Hall University’s radio station, WSOU, invited sports fans to call in and share their sports insights. This phase demonstrated how radio not only became a source of information but also a place where sports culture and community were created, with radio hosts and sports analysts becoming popular figures.
- New normal science period – Radio became an integral part of the sports ecosystem. Sports reviews and commentators became an inseparable part of the sports world, and radio raised the popularity of athletes and teams to a new level. From this period on, radio became not only an alternative to newspapers but also a regular place to get sports results and updates. People could follow live sports broadcasts even if they couldn’t be in the stadium or arena, making radio an essential tool for creating sports value. Famous sports teams, such as the Brooklyn Dodgers, gained worldwide recognition through radio broadcasts, and these sports stories became major events in journalism and sports culture. Radio allowed sports to reach a vast audience and become a daily source of entertainment, which brought sports to a new level of mass consumption.
The Television Revolution
- Pre-paradigmatic period – The year 1928 marks the emergence of the first television station, WRGB (formerly W2XCW), which broadcasted from the General Electric factory in Schenectady, New York (Wikipedia, n.d.). On November 2, 1936, the BBC began broadcasting the world’s first regular high-definition television service from Victoria Alexandra Palace in North London, claiming this station as the birthplace of modern television broadcasting (Newcomb, 2014). These events mark the beginning of television as a form of mass media and the first experiments with sports broadcasting, although it was not yet widely accessible.
- Normal science period – The connection between television and sports was inseparable from the beginning. Merrell (2024) states that the 1936 Berlin Olympics were the first sports event broadcasted on television. These events were shown in 25 “public viewing” areas and pubs in Berlin, Potsdam, and Leipzig, where people could watch the events live. These Olympics, broadcasted in black and white, became the first live televised sports event, opening up new possibilities for both sports and television. Newcomb (2014) also notes that BBC’s sports broadcasts attracted large viewership, especially in public television spaces like restaurants and bars. Television became an important tool for sports media, and this period marks the fusion of sports with television.
- Exceptional science period – Moore (2015) highlights June 9, 1960, as a pivotal moment in media and sports history when the American Football League (AFL) and the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) signed a television contract worth nearly $2 million annually. This agreement marked a turning point for the AFL, as it created collective revenue across the league, helping to maintain financial stability and competitiveness with the then-dominant National Football League (NFL). Eight years later, following the merger between the AFL and NFL, Kedmey (2020) reports that Super Bowl II attracted 70 million American viewers, with advertising time during the halftime break being sold for a record $150,000 per minute. In 1979, ESPN, the first television channel dedicated solely to sports, was launched. This became one of the largest revolutions in sports ecosystems, as the sports world turned into a business where advertising and broadcasting rights became of primary importance. This period marks television and advertising’s contributions to the sports ecosystem and its growing value, as sports organizations and athletes began to earn significant salaries exceeding typical industry norms.
- New normal science period – From the 1990s onwards, television and advertising during sports broadcasts became inseparable. Broadcasting rights and advertising became the primary sources of funding for sports. Television became the primary tool for enhancing the accessibility and value of sports. Athlete salaries and team values increased because advertising and broadcasting became the main sources of revenue. Television broadcasts allowed sports events to reach millions of viewers, thereby raising their value in the advertising market and encouraging the growth of sports organizations. During this period, the relationship between sports and television became so strong that it could be considered one of the main factors behind the commercialization of sports and the massive growth of the sports industry.
The Internet Revolution
- Pre-paradigmatic period – The year 1983 marks the emergence of the internet, and in the 1990s, Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web (WWW), which today is what most people recognize as the internet, allowing users to connect to various websites (McLean, 2024). The first internet users were only about 3 million people globally. However, this number grew exponentially, and within ten years, by 2000, it increased a hundredfold, surpassing 350 million users, and by 2005, the number reached over 1 billion (Stackscale, 2024). This period marked the beginning of technological development, in which sports were visible, but the potential to reach a global audience was significantly larger than ever before.
- Normal science period – During this period (until 2005), sports organizations and athletes began creating their own websites, and major news portals started publishing sports news. Online sports broadcasts became possible, but poor quality and complex technology limited their accessibility. In 1995, RealNetworks launched the first online sports broadcast, showing a baseball game between the New York Yankees and the Seattle Mariners (McLean, 2024). In the same year, ESPN invited fans to compete in “Fantasy Sports” leagues (Behe, 2002). By 2003, 15.2 million users participated in “Fantasy Sports” leagues, marking the first signs of greater interaction between sports and the internet. During this period, the internet became an important sports media tool, but the technology was not advanced enough to bring about a full media revolution.
- Exceptional science period – The rapid growth of internet speed, mobile phones, and the emergence of video platforms like YouTube sparked a new revolution in the sports world. Sports shows and events became accessible not just through traditional television programs, but also at a time convenient for the user. This led to the emergence of a new service sector – online streaming, which became increasingly accessible on various devices. The mobile-first era—where services are primarily accessed through mobile devices—also changed sports consumption habits. In 2011, the National Football League (NFL) signed a groundbreaking television contract with ESPN, worth $15.2 billion over eight years (NESN, 2011). This contract was a massive indicator of how much sports had grown due to the internet, with mobile devices becoming the primary tool for accessing sports broadcasts. Today, all major sports broadcasters receive the majority of their digital traffic through mobile devices, and no major broadcasting contract is signed without mobile video rights (Fisher, 2018).
- New normal science period – Thanks to the internet, sports became an entity that could be watched continuously, regardless of where one is or when. The internet allowed sports to become a global phenomenon, with accessibility only limited by technological capabilities. Every sports event became available live at any time. The advancements in internet and mobile technology allowed viewers to watch sports games anywhere, anytime, which created an entirely new model of the sports ecosystem, where sports organizations, athletes, and fans could interact directly, share content, and create value. Television broadcasts and advertising became even more crucial due to the impact of the internet and mobile devices.
The Social Networks Revolution
- Pre-paradigmatic period – A. M. Kaplan and M. Haenlein (2010) note that social networks, as we know them today, began in 1997 with the creation of the Open Diary platform by B. Abelson and S. Abelson, which connected online diary writers into a community. This was the moment when blogs were born and the foundation of social networking ideas was formed—computerized technologies allowing users to create and share information, ideas, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks (Obar, Wildman, 2015). From this moment on, social networks began to develop, but it wasn’t until 2006 that Facebook became one of the first widely used platforms, and the later appearance of Instagram in 2010 marked the rapid expansion of social networks and their integration into everyday life.
- Normal science period – The normal science period for social networks was very brief, as these networks were closely tied to the growth of the internet. By 2012, Facebook reached over a billion users, and in 2014, Facebook acquired Instagram for a record sum of $1 billion (Obar, Wildman, 2015). During this short period, social networks became a powerful tool in the sports industry, especially in managing athletes’ personal brands. The growth of users and the expansion of social networks allowed athletes to interact directly with fan audiences and control their public image. Events like the rise of Instagram and Twitter enabled athletes to actively participate in their brand-building process and directly influence their image and relationships with fans. This created a completely new sports marketing ecosystem, where social networks became the primary tool for value creation.
- Exceptional science period – During this period, athletes began to become more popular than the teams themselves. The term “Influencer Athletes” emerged—athletes who had massive followings and could influence consumer behavior and shape brand narratives (Aydın, 2024). This became a turning point in the sports industry, as athletes not only became well-known figures but could also control their image and marketing opportunities, leading sports organizations to sign high-value contracts with athletes who had not yet proven professional success. Due to this phenomenon, the popularity and influence of athletes became crucial factors in determining the value of the sports industry and sponsorship opportunities.
- New normal science period – Thanks to the social network revolution, participants in the sports ecosystem became more than just sports entities. While athletes were important in the past primarily for their achievements on the field, today they have much more control and opportunities. The direct connection with fans and the ability to manage their personal image through social networks has given athletes special significance. In some cases, athletes have become the most important parts of an organization and help shape the image of sports organizations. Sports organizations, for whom social media activity became a key element, saw athletes as the main marketing tools, shaping not only their own image but also that of their teams and leagues. This shifted sports marketing in a new direction, where the influence of social networks and athlete popularity determines the commercial success of the sports sector, transforming this field rapidly.
APPLICATION OF THOMAS S. KUHN’S THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS TO THE ANALYSIS OF MEDIA IMPACT ON SPORTS ECOSYSTEMS
Advantages of Applying the Theory
- Paradigm Shifts and Media Evolution: Kuhn’s theory provides a clear structure for analyzing how different media technologies have triggered revolutions in sports ecosystems. Based on Kuhn’s stages—pre-paradigmatic period, normal science, exceptional science, and new normal science—it is possible to observe how the media’s impact on the value of sports ecosystem entities changed over time, from newspapers and radio to television, the internet, and social networks. Each of these technologies brought new opportunities and challenges to the sports ecosystems, not only altering the dissemination of sports information but also transforming sports consumption practices. Kuhn’s theory allows for a systematic analysis of how each revolution drove new paradigms and how sports adapted to these technological changes.
- Technological Innovations and Emergence of New Paradigms: Kuhn’s model effectively explains the impact of technological changes. With each new medium, from radio to the internet and social networks, the structure of sports ecosystems became increasingly dependent on new technologies. This allowed the formation of new normal sciences, where technology and consumer habits dictated the accessibility of sports and value generation. For example, social networks, by giving athletes the ability to directly interact with their audience, became an essential element of the new normal science.
- Fan Engagement and Value Creation: In the sports context, this approach allows for evaluating how fan engagement and their changed interaction with sports, especially on social networks, alter the value creation model. The paradigm shift from passive sports consumption (receiving information through television, newspapers) to active participation through social networks and online broadcasts shows how sports and media have become an inseparable complex.
Limitations of Applying the Theory
- Creativity and Cultural Aspects: Although Kuhn’s theory provides a detailed analysis of the consequences of technological changes, it does not fully account for the cultural and emotional factors that are crucial in the sports industry. Fan relationships with sports and athletes are often based on emotional and cultural values, which cannot be explained solely by technological changes. The revolution in social networks, where athletes began to control their image and interaction with their audience, also had a significant cultural and emotional dimension, which is difficult to measure or define within Kuhn’s framework.
- Evaluation of Fan Influence: Kuhn’s model primarily focuses on objective changes and technological breakthroughs, but the sports ecosystem is much more complex. The sports industry, unlike traditional businesses, directly depends on the emotional and cultural connection between athletes and their followers. Fan influence can be unpredictable and depends on personal connections, emotions, and social contexts, which are not directly included in the technology-based evaluation of paradigm shifts.
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this paper was to analyze how Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions theory can be applied to the analysis of media impact on sports ecosystems. By applying this theory, the paper assessed how technological changes, such as the emergence of newspapers, radio, television, the internet, and social networks, have caused paradigm shifts in the sports value creation process.
Firstly, Kuhn’s theory helps to structure and understand clearly how each media revolution contributed to the transformation of sports ecosystems. The pre-paradigmatic period reflects the emergence of media technologies when information was limited and only accessible to a narrow audience. The normal science period marked when these technologies became more widely used and popularized in the sports context. Exceptional science demonstrated how these technologies caused anomalies that led to new forms of value creation, while the new normal science reflected the stabilization and continuous adaptation of the sports ecosystem to technological changes.
Kuhn’s concept of paradigms helped to better understand how media revolutions in sports not only changed the dissemination of sports information but also allowed athletes and organizations to communicate directly with their audience, manage their image, and create value. Social networks, as the latest media revolution, enabled athletes to become personal media outlets, directly shaping their value and popularity.
However, Kuhn’s theory also has limitations, particularly when it comes to evaluating fan influence and emotional connections with sports. Fan engagement is a crucial element of sports ecosystems, but this aspect is not fully explained by Kuhn’s theory.
Nevertheless, this paper confirms that Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions theory is a valuable tool for analyzing the impact of media on sports ecosystems, as it provides a systematic approach to paradigm shifts and their influence on sports value creation. However, to better understand the sports industry, it is necessary to integrate additional theories that account for the unique cultural and emotional aspects and the role of fan influence in these processes.
Questions related to Media Revolutions
What is the meaning of media revolution?
A media revolution refers to significant changes in the ways media technologies are used and how they influence society. These revolutions typically involve new technologies or practices that reshape communication, information dissemination, and cultural interaction on a large scale, impacting industries, behaviors, and societal structures.
What started the first media revolution?
The first media revolution was initiated by the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. This breakthrough, attributed to Johannes Gutenberg, made mass production of books and written materials possible, leading to the spread of knowledge, ideas, and literacy at an unprecedented scale.
What is media evolution?
Media evolution is the process by which media technologies and their content develop and transform over time. It encompasses the shifts in communication methods, tools, and platforms—from oral traditions and print media to radio, television, the internet, and social media.
What is the digital media revolution?
The digital media revolution refers to the transformation of traditional media into digital forms, enabled by the internet and new digital technologies. It includes the rise of online platforms, social media, and mobile devices, which have radically changed how media is created, distributed, and consumed.
What is the main message of revolution?
The main message of a media revolution is that significant technological and cultural changes can alter the way societies function, communicate, and interact. It suggests that media transformations can democratize information, reshape power dynamics, and create new cultural norms.
What is media and its history?
Media refers to the tools and technologies used to store, convey, and disseminate information, such as newspapers, radio, television, the internet, and social networks. The history of media spans from oral storytelling traditions to the invention of writing, printing presses, and modern digital platforms, each marking a revolution in communication.
What are the 4 eras of media evolution?
The four eras of media evolution are:
- The Print Era – Marked by the invention of the printing press and the spread of written texts.
- The Electronic Era – The rise of radio and television, facilitating mass communication.
- The Digital Era – The advent of the internet and digital technologies, enabling global connectivity.
- The Networked Era – The current era of social media, mobile devices, and real-time online communication.
Which was the first media?
The first media was oral communication, where information was passed down through spoken word. This was followed by early forms of written media, such as cave paintings and symbols.
What is the oldest media?
The oldest form of media is oral communication, followed by the invention of writing, which allowed for the recording of information. Ancient texts and inscriptions on stone tablets or papyrus were among the earliest forms of media.
Who invented media?
Media, in its various forms, evolved over centuries through various inventions. The first “media” inventions were oral and written forms of communication. The printing press, invented by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, revolutionized mass media and the dissemination of information.
How will media change in the future?
In the future, media will continue to evolve with advancements in artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality, and the growing use of mobile and interconnected devices. Media will become even more immersive, personalized, and interactive, leading to new forms of content creation and distribution.
What are the 5 periods of media?
The five periods of media are:
- Pre-media: Oral communication.
- The Print Era: The invention of the printing press.
- The Broadcast Era: The advent of radio and television.
- The Digital Era: The rise of the internet and digital technologies.
- The Social Media Era: The emergence and dominance of social networks and user-generated content.
What is Thomas S. Kuhn known for?
Thomas S. Kuhn is best known for his work on the philosophy of science, particularly his concept of paradigm shifts. He argued that scientific progress occurs not through gradual accumulation of knowledge, but through revolutions where existing paradigms are replaced by new, often radically different ones.
What are the ideas of Thomas S. Kuhn?
Kuhn’s key ideas include the concept of “paradigm shifts” in scientific progress, where science undergoes revolutions and changes rather than simply accumulating knowledge. He also introduced the idea that science operates within paradigms, frameworks that guide research until anomalies cause a shift to a new paradigm.
What is the main idea of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
The main idea of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that scientific progress is not a continuous, linear process but occurs in stages. These stages include normal science, where a prevailing paradigm is accepted, and revolutionary science, where anomalies lead to a paradigm shift.
What is an example of a Kuhn paradigm?
An example of a Kuhn paradigm is the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Before Einstein, the Newtonian paradigm governed scientific understanding of motion and gravity. The discovery of inconsistencies in Newtonian physics led to the revolutionary paradigm shift to relativity.
What are the 4 stages of scientific revolutions according to Kuhn?
Kuhn’s four stages of scientific revolutions are:
- Pre-paradigmatic stage: A period of scientific chaos with no consensus.
- Normal science: Scientists work within an accepted paradigm.
- Crisis: Anomalies emerge that cannot be explained by the current paradigm.
- Revolution: A new paradigm is adopted, replacing the old one.
What is an example of paradigm shift in media?
An example of a paradigm shift in media is the transition from traditional print media to digital platforms. This shift has altered how information is consumed and distributed, with digital media allowing for real-time, interactive, and personalized content.
What is the impact of media revolutions on society?
Media revolutions significantly impact society by altering how people communicate, access information, and form cultural identities. These revolutions democratize information, reshape power structures, and influence public opinion, often leading to social, political, and economic transformations.
How did social media transform the sports industry?
Social media transformed the sports industry by allowing athletes and sports organizations to directly engage with their audiences. It has created new marketing opportunities, increased fan interaction, and allowed athletes to build personal brands, thus reshaping sponsorships and advertising models.
What is a “coopetition” in the context of business ecosystems?
“Coopetition” refers to the simultaneous cooperation and competition between businesses or entities within an ecosystem. It describes how companies may collaborate in some areas while competing in others to create value and ensure mutual survival within a shared ecosystem.
How does technology influence sports value creation?
Technology influences sports value creation by enhancing fan engagement, improving broadcasting capabilities, and enabling new forms of content delivery. Innovations like social media, mobile apps, and streaming services allow teams and athletes to connect with global audiences, increasing their commercial value.
How do media revolutions affect traditional industries?
Media revolutions affect traditional industries by disrupting existing business models, creating new competition, and shifting consumer behavior. For example, the rise of digital media has significantly impacted print journalism and television, as consumers now expect on-demand, personalized content rather than scheduled broadcasts.
CITATION
Bakanauskas, P. (2025, March 3). 5 Big Media Revolutions: How it Transformed the Sports Ecosystem. Play of Values. https://playofvalues.com/media-revolutions-sports-ecosystem/
IN-TEXT CITATION: (Bakanauskas, 2025)
List of References
- Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98.
- Aydın, M. (2024). The effects of influencer athletes on sports marketing in new media. In F. Alıncak & M. Özdal (Eds.), Current studies in physical education and sports 2024 (pp. 121–127). ISRES Publishing.
- Bailey, J., Smith, C., Michener, G., Footz, N., Barrett, B., & Lau, G. (2014, December). The global sport ecosystem. Global Sport Leadership Practice. Link.
- Basole, R. C., Russell, M. G., Huhtamäki, J., Rubens, N., Still, K., & Park, H. (2015). Understanding business ecosystem dynamics: A data-driven approach. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 6(2), 1–32.
- Beck, D., & Boshart, L. (2003). Sports and media. Communication Research Trends, 22(4).
- Behe, R. (2002). Fantasy sports leagues put armchair quarterbacks in the game. triblive.com. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
- Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition. Crown Currency.
- Brumbeloe, S. (2022). Who really runs sports?: The power of stakeholders and benefits of stakeholder theory in sports. Florida Entertainment & Sports Law Review, 1, 47.
- Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. Bell.
- Centre for Sport and Human Rights. (n.d.). Sports ecosystem. Link.
- Colligan, M. (1991). Golden days of radio. Australia Post.
- Collignon, H., & Sultan, N. (2014). Winning in business sports. ATKeaney Report. Link.
- Danglade, J. P., & Maltese, L. (2014). Marketing du sport et événementiel sportif. Dunod.
- Da Silva, E., & Las Casas, A. (2018). Sports ecosystem of the “Triad of São Paulo”: Sports marketing management according to fans. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 10, 41–56.
- Desmetz, H. (1974). Where is the new industrial state? Economic Inquiry, 12(1), 1–12. Link.
- Ecosystem, n. Meanings, etymology and more. Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Link.
- Euler, T. (2020, February 3). Why the professional sports ecosystem will benefit from tokenization. LinkedIn. Link.
- Fisher, E. (2018). Technologies that have revolutionized the sports industry. Sports Business Journal, April. Link.
- Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Antitrust L. & Econ. Rev., 1, 11.
- Guittard, C., Schenk, E., & Burger-Helmchen, T. (2015). Crowdsourcing and the evolution of a business ecosystem. Advances in Crowdsourcing, 49–62.
- Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192.
- Heimann, F. F. (1967). [Review of The New Industrial State, by J. K. Galbraith]. The University of Chicago Law Review, 35(1), 207–228. Link.
- History of commercial radio. (n.d.). Federal Communications Commission. Link.
- Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–78.
- Ibisworld. (2020, November 28). Global sports betting & lotteries industry – market research report. Link.
- Industry Demographics – Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association. (2025). Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association. Link.
- Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. Link.
- Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
- Kedmey, D. (2020, January 31). The evolution of Super Bowl ads—And how business conquered the game. TIME. Link.
- Kilkenny, M., & Nalbarte, L. (2002). Keystone sector identification. In Trade, Networks and Hierarchies: Modeling Regional and Interregional Economies (pp. 289–314). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- Komskienė, D., Garastaitė, L., & Bradūnas, A. (2015). Sporto paramos įtaka šalies sporto industrijos ekonomikai. Laisvalaikio tyrimai: elektroninis mokslo žurnalas, 2(6), 1–14.
- Koyré, A. (1966). Études d’histoire de la pensée scientifique. Gallimard.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
- Lalli, F. (2018, March 19). Athletes and social media: The value of sports influencers and the new strategic assets of the club. Medium.
- Larvor, B. (2003). Why did Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions cause a fuss? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 34(2), 369–390.
- Lorgnier, N., & Su, C.-J. (2014). Considering coopetition strategies in sport tourism networks: A look at the nonprofit nautical sports clubs on the northern coast of France. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 87–109. Link.
- Mahbub, M. (2024, August 19). A comprehensive look at the history of sports broadcasting. Castr’s Blog. Link.
- Marcum, J. A. (2005). Thomas Kuhn’s revolution.
- McChesney, R. (1989). Media made sport: A history of sports coverage. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, and society (pp. 49–69). Sage.
- McGregor, E. (1989). Mass media and sport: Influences on the public. Indianapolis, 46(1), 52.
- McLean, C. (2024, January 31). Who invented the internet? Everything you need to know about the history of the internet. USA TODAY. Link.
- Miah, A. (1998). Sport & the extreme spectacle: Technological dependence and human limits. Extreme Spectacle.
- Merrell, C. (2024, November 18). This week in Olympic history: 18–24 November – A look back at the first televised Olympic Games. Olympics.com. Link.
- Moore, J. (2015). Throwback Thursday: The TV deal that created modern sports. VICE. Link.
- Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
- Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. HarperBusiness.
- Morgan, S. (2024). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Sport Ecosystem: Development of a New Theoretical Framework and Organisational Model (Doctoral dissertation). Loughborough University. Link.
- Motiz, B. (2014). Rooting for the story: Institutional sports journalism in the digital age (Doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University.
- NESN.com. (2011). NFL, ESPN agree on eight-year, $15.2 billion deal to keep ‘Monday Night Football’ on network through 2021. NESN.com. Link.
- Newcomb, H. (2014). Encyclopedia of television. Routledge.
- Nickles, T. (Ed.). (2003). Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press.
- Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745–750.
- Paine, R. (1969). A note on trophic complexity and community stability. American Naturalist, 103, 91–93.
- Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2004). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Proceedings of eBusiness Research Forum, 267–281.
- Quirk, J. P., & Fort, R. D. (2018). Pay dirt: The business of professional team sports. Princeton University Press.
- Rosen, J. N. (2001). All-sports radio: The development of an industry niche. Media History Monographs, 5(1).
- Rundh, B., & Gottfridsson, P. (2015). Delivering sports events: The arena concept in sports from a network perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(7), 785–794. Link.
- Schlesinger, A. (1933). The rise of the city. History of America Life.
- Shipilov, A., & Gawer, A. (2020). Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 92–121.
- Shilbury, D. (2009). Sport management series (3rd ed.). Allen & Unwin.
- Sim, J. (2024). Why sports teams need to leverage their players’ social media profiles to grow their fanbase. Sports Pro.
- Stackscale. (2024, February 6). The internet: Evolution and growth statistics | Stackscale. Stackscale. Link.
- Stephenson, D. (2019, November 25). When did athletes start getting rich? Firmex Resources. Link.
- Summer, J. (2004). Sports in the 1920s: The golden age of sports. NCpedia. NCpedia (State Library of North Carolina).
- Tamulis, E. (2021). Prekės ženklo vystymo vertė sporto organizacijoje: LKL klubų atvejis (Doctoral dissertation). Mykolo Riomerio universitetas.
- Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., & Matsumoto, Y. (2015, August). Designing the coherent ecosystem: Review of the ecosystem concept in strategic management. In 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 53–63). IEEE.
- Weber, J. (2006). Strassburg, 1605: The origins of the newspaper in Europe. German History, 24(3), 387–412.
- Wenner, L. A. (1989). Media, sports, and society. SAGE.
- Wikipedia contributors. (2025, February 23). History of television. Wikipedia. Link.
- Yuan, E. (2011). News consumption across multiple media platforms: A repertoire approach. Information, Communication & Society, 14(7), 998–1016.
[…] Sports Marketing, Athlete’s Brand, Sports Influencer, Influencer Athlete, Sports Celebrity, Media revolutions, Investing in Influencer […]
[…] working on my term paper about media revolutions and their impact on sports, it became clear that I had to take a deeper dive into sports […]