I just learned about The Fandom and Social Connection Initiative and I’m intrigued. The idea is to study the possibility that sports fandom can be an antidote to the “connection recession,” as traditional “third places”—like churches, civic organizations, and bowling leagues—play a diminishing role in our lives. The researchers think their early findings suggest that sports fandom can motivate people to connect, including connecting across racial, economic, and political divides.
Here’s an excerpt from this article, in which one of the studies is described:
“In a computer survey, they presented participants with hypothetical “counter-partisans” — people who hold views on politics and culture starkly opposed to their own — and asked them to award a “bonus” to one or the other.
If they knew one “counter-partisan” also rooted for their favorite team, that one got the “bonus” at rates that outstripped those for counter-partisans with a shared race or ethnicity, education, or home region.
Only a shared religion came close to being that influential, which seems revealing.
Often enough, sports fandom is as inherited as any other marker of identity. But — like religion — it’s also both active and elective: a seasonal, ritual allegiance that people can either outgrow or choose to renew throughout their lives, Rogers argued.
And often enough, they do the latter — even when their favorite team is luckless, perennially “rebuilding,” or to all appearances cursed.
To [the study’s co-author, Todd] Rogers, that opting-in suggests that sports fandom isn’t motivated principally by on-field events but by the bonds that form around them with parents, siblings, colleagues, and neighbors. (“How else would there be Cleveland Browns fans?” he joked.)”
The article also discusses preliminary findings suggesting that (other things equal, presumably, but I’m wondering, “what could the preference outweigh?!”) sports fans would rather socialize with a fan of a rival team than with a non-fan of the sport. But even bonding among sports co-partisans can facilitate bonding across political divides: Rogers and his co-author found that “the reddest NFL fanbase (the Tennessee Titans) is still politically diverse, with two registered Republicans for every Democrat, while the bluest — the Chargers of Los Angeles — is roughly the inverse.”
This is all pretty tentative and preliminary. And the initiative is funded by FOX Sports and “seeking partners among professional sports leagues.” So, who knows. But it’s also pretty intuitive that fandom could facilitate connection both within and across team allegiances.
I was living in Denver, Colorado in 2007 when the Indianapolis Colts won the Superbowl. I was watching with a group of friends who’d adopted my team for the sake of solidarity and as an excuse to throw a big party. I don’t have much bodily intuition, but in the final seconds of the game, it dawned on me clearly that my body needed me to sprint around outside shouting. Several others joined in, including many strangers emerging from other houses to witness the strange Indiana sports fan in their midst. I was spending that year teaching little kids, including doing a little bit where I taught the kids to cheer for the Colts as a tease to their Bronco-supporting families. (This would not have played nearly as well in New England, I now realize.) It was good fun, a cheerful invitation cheerfully taken up. I doubt I realized at the time what I do see with hindsight: My life during that year was massively enriched by this neat little trick for quickly making friends out of strangers.
I’m now a parent to two little boys, and a little too precious about head injuries to enjoy football the way I did then. So, I’ve stopped following the Colts. And, traitorously, I threw over the Pacers and adopted the Celtics so my kids could enjoy rooting for a local team. (The Red Sox and the Patriots are out of the question, obviously.) But sports fandom is now a muted presence in my life, compared to my days of being tied to Indiana teams.
The World Cup reminded me to regret that: I got invested in it, but I knew I hadn’t earned the right to be. Still. Bandwagoning isn’t all bad, is it? We can jump into big sporting events for the thrill of shouting, singing, and meaningfully eye-contacting with strangers in bars. On a few very special occasions over the years, I’ve even shared a hug with one of those strangers. These days, I usually don’t linger for a conversation or to exchange contact info.
Maybe I should?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
engels 07.21.26 at 5:17 pm
My guess is that any benefits are cancelled out by the negative effects for fans of opposing teams and non-fans (speaking from experience as a non-fan). But I don’t really see how watching TV can be at all comparable to actually playing in a club, let alone unions or churches. I guess it’s all relative and by Gen Z standards Beavis and Butthead were model republicans…
D. S. Battistoli 07.21.26 at 6:09 pm
Oh, it’s fun to imagine survey design around this question. Of course, you could ask fans, “All else being equal, would you rather socialize with a fan of a rival team, or with a non-fan?” But you would get more granular responses if you asked people to tell whether they’d socialize with only the fan, only the non-fan, both, or neither, in the following circumstances:
A rival fan and a non-fan both want to socialize with you, and both have halitosis.
. . . and both are fun to be around.
. . . and both habitually insult your mother.
. . . and both are offering a million dollars for the privilege.
. . . and both have an anathema to hearing the name of your favorite player.
. . . and both &c.