New research from the Institute for Sport Business at Loughborough University shows that in moments of controversy, public figures strategically shift how they present themselves to reduce blame and win back public support.
The study analysed interactions in which journalists accused elite athletes of complicity in 'sportswashing’ – by participating in various Saudi-funded events – and found a consistent pattern: instead of directly addressing criticism, they reframed their identity.
From distancing themselves from politics to emphasising family responsibilities, the athletes used identity as a powerful communication tool.
The researchers identified four common strategies for reframing crisis:
- “I’m a sportsperson, not a politician”
Georgia Hall defined herself as a golfer who was not qualified to speak about geopolitics. - “I’m doing this for my family”
Jordan Henderson framed his controversial career move in terms of providing a safe financial future for his family. - “This is just business”
Graeme McDowell described sport as a business, where the limited career-span of athletes made financial decisions central to his decision-making. - “We’re sporting ambassadors”
Anthony Joshua spoke about the impact of his fights in Saudi Arabia on women’s participation in boxing.
Other figures, including Phil Mickelson and Anthony Joshua, went further, arguing their involvement in global sport, in Saudi Arabia, was actually helping drive positive social change.
Lead author Dr Daniel Read, of Loughborough University London, said: “we can’t say to what degree it is intentional, but it is evident that when facing criticism, athletes promote different features of their identity that provide a competing narrative about how their behave should be understood. The more important question now is when and why do competing identity narratives worsen or resolve public criticism”.
Co-author Professor Daniel Lock said: “this research shows that when athlete behaviour is scrutinised, we should pay attention to the claims they make about their identity. These claims are exercises in building common ground with their audience in order to reduce reputational risk”
The researchers call this strategy ‘categorical reframing’ – where people draw on different aspects of their identity to explain or justify their actions, which serves two purposes.
First, it enables athletes to align their action with a group that makes it seem less severe (e.g., I smoked marijuana because I am young and naïve).
Second, it enables athletes to draw on common groups (e.g., parent, business owner) to justify decision-making in the eyes of people that share the same identity.
The findings challenge traditional thinking about crisis communication, which focuses on whether people apologise, deny or justify their actions.
Instead, the research shows that how someone defines their identity in a crisis, whether it is relatable, true or even believable, can be just as important as what they say.
For journalists, it offers a new way to interrogate public statements and challenge athletes when they draw on identities to explain or justify their actions. For the public, it provides a tool to better understand how narratives are shaped and how easily perception can be influenced.
ENDS