British press coverage of international sports events hosted by Saudi Arabia: content analysis study in light of country concept model

The research examines the British press coverage of sports events hosted by Saudi Arabia and contributes to communication and public relations literature by providing new information about such coverage during the Saudi Vision 2030 era. Saudi Vision 2030, launched in 2016, aims to diversify the economy, attract investment, and position the Kingdom as a hub connecting Africa, Asia, and Europe. Within this program, the Quality of Life initiative targets increased sports participation and excellence in sport domestically and internationally. Between 2018 and 2020, Saudi Arabia hosted over 50 global sports events attracting more than 2 million visitors, with weekly exercise participation rising from 13% (2015) to 19% (2019), and the sports sector’s GDP contribution increasing from SR 2.4 billion to SR 6.5 billion. The Ministry of Sport reported substantial global media impact (60,000 articles, 1.7 billion impressions, and 163 broadcast channels across 190 countries in 2020). Prior to 2016, studies of UK press coverage depicted Saudi Arabia largely negatively (e.g., post-9/11 portrayals and representations of Saudi women). The main research question asks how the development and implementation of the Quality of Life programme, particularly the hosting of sports events, have been covered by the British press. The study addresses a gap by analysing UK press coverage of Saudi-hosted sports events using the country concept model.

The literature review situates the study within soft power, sports diplomacy, and the country concept model. Soft power, coined by Nye, contrasts with coercive hard power by relying on attraction through culture, values, and credible relationships. While criticised for under-theorisation and Western-centric framing, soft power is often operationalised via cultural promotion, tourism/branding, diplomacy, and trade—packages that prominently include sports events. States leverage first-order (Olympics, FIFA World Cup) and second-order (Commonwealth Games, Rugby World Cup) mega-events to showcase values, build bridges, and promote diplomacy and trade. Sponsorships, especially by state-owned entities, can also build soft power by associating nations with strong sports brands. For emerging powers (e.g., Brazil, China, South Africa), hosting mega-events signals economic capacity and rising political status. A parallel trend sees more events hosted outside traditional Western venues. The review notes contemporary debates around ‘sportswashing’—the notion that countries host or sponsor sport to launder reputations in spite of human rights concerns—frequently invoked in UK media discourse (e.g., during the Saudi-backed acquisition of Newcastle United). Saudi Arabia’s soft power is rooted in religious centrality, cultural diplomacy, media investments, development aid, and Vision 2030 initiatives, including revitalising sports media and leveraging international events. The study adopts Fullerton, Kendrick, and Broyles’ country concept model, which posits that a country’s image results from controlled elements (public diplomacy, tourism, marketing communications) and uncontrollable elements (international politics, past relations, foreign and social media). Media exposure, cultural experiences, and historical development contribute to how global citizens form country perceptions. The review thus frames Saudi sports hosting as part of a broader soft power package, while recognising the role of uncontrollable external media narratives.

Aim: To examine UK press coverage of international sports events hosted by Saudi Arabia in light of the country concept model. Design: Qualitative content analysis of two UK newspapers’ online content—The Sun (tabloid; monthly readership ~38,032) and the Daily Mail (middle-market tabloid; monthly reach ~33,244)—with primary data collection focus April 2019–March 2020 and broader sampling of news stories from 2017–2021. Rationale for UK focus: The UK is a major Saudi trading partner (trade reached $21.5 billion in 2022) and British tourists rank second among visitors to Saudi Arabia. Data collection: Manual keyword searches on the newspapers’ websites for terms related to Saudi-hosted events including Saudi Ladies International, World Chess Championship, Rally Dakar, Spanish Super Cup, Italian Super Cup, Diriyah boxing/Clash on the Dunes, Saudi Cup, Formula 1/F1, WWE Crown Jewel, Royal Rumble, Formula E, and Superclasico. Articles mentioning Saudi Arabia as host were identified and retrieved. Analysis: Qualitative content analysis followed systematic coding and theme development procedures (Creswell, 2013; Saldaña, 2013). Stages included: (1) planning and selecting relevant stories; (2) extracting mentions of Saudi-hosted events within a defined period; (3) counting mentions and assessing sentiment (positive, negative, neutral) using sentiment analysis to distinguish article tone. Operationalisation: Positive = content praising development or improvements; Negative = content focusing on issues/problems while covering a Saudi-hosted event; Neutral = factual mentions (time, date, location) without evaluative framing. Codes were grouped into categories and themes (e.g., accusations against the government; social reforms).

- Events covered: Spanish and Italian Super Cups; boxing (e.g., Diriyah, Clash on the Dunes); WWE; Ladies European Tour/Saudi Ladies International; King Salman World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships; Formula 1; Dakar Rally; World Chess Tournament; Saudi Cup equestrian. - Thematic structure: Two overarching themes emerged. 1) Accusations against the Saudi Government - Categories and illustrative codes: • International pressure: broadcaster boycotts (e.g., Spanish TV boycott of Spanish Super Cup in Jeddah), group protests (e.g., Amnesty protests for release of women activists). • Use of negative terms: ‘sportswashing’, ‘regime’, ‘dictator’ appearing in The Sun and Daily Mail. • Focus on human rights: LGBTQ rights, public executions, freedom of speech, broad ‘human rights’ critiques. 2) Saudi social reforms - Positive categories and codes: • Positive view of hosting: excellence in event management (e.g., Diriyah Arena readiness), highlighting Saudi heritage and culture (UNESCO sites), entertainment hub narrative, “world sports capital” framing. • Empowerment of Saudi women: women attending sports events, easing segregation, women driving and participation in national teams. - Sentiment and volume by year: • 2017: 12 relevant articles; 5 negative (others not specified). • 2018: 35 articles. • 2019: 160 articles (84 neutral, 48 negative, 28 positive). • 2020: 80 articles (24 negative; other sentiment counts not specified). • 2021: 78 articles (57 neutral, 9 negative, 12 positive). - Event-specific sentiment patterns: Most frequent negative coverage for Italian and Spanish Super Cups; most frequent positive coverage for Formula E and the Italian/Spanish Super Cups; WWE (2018–2021) and boxing (2017–2021 except 2018) largely received neutral coverage. - Trend: While coverage was predominantly negative around the launch of Vision 2030, negative coverage decreased over time as neutral and positive items increased. - Media imagery and discourse: Articles often paired event coverage with references to new infrastructure (stadiums) and UNESCO heritage, providing opportunities to highlight social reforms and cultural narratives. - Confirmation of model dynamics: The prominence of terms like ‘sportswashing’ and human rights frames indicates the impact of uncontrollable elements (foreign/social media) on country image, consistent with the country concept model.

Findings address the research question by showing how UK popular press outlets framed Saudi Arabia’s hosting of international sports events within both critical human rights discourses and narratives of reform and modernisation. Over time (2017–2021), negative coverage diminished relative to neutral and positive reporting, suggesting that a sustained soft power package—events, infrastructure, cultural promotion—can incrementally shift the media profile of a country, aligning with prior research on mega-events’ reputation effects and Fullerton et al.’s country concept model. The predominance of football-related coverage corresponds with Vision 2030’s emphasis on football’s international influence, supporting literature that sport (especially football) can reshape perceptions of host nations. Simultaneously, persistent negative terminology (e.g., ‘sportswashing’) demonstrates the limits of state-controlled communication, echoing the model’s assertion that foreign and social media remain uncontrollable variables shaping international opinion. The coverage frequently integrated imagery and narratives of UNESCO heritage, new stadiums, and entertainment infrastructure, providing conduits to showcase social reforms (e.g., women’s attendance, easing segregation, women driving). Sports celebrities’ participation and cultural engagement also appeared to contribute to positive soft power effects. Overall, UK press coverage reflects a contested but evolving image: critical human-rights-oriented scrutiny coexists with rising acknowledgment of reforms and event-management capacity.

The study contributes to soft power and public diplomacy scholarship by applying the country concept model to UK press coverage of Saudi-hosted international sports events during Vision 2030. Key conclusions are: (1) Saudi Arabia’s soft power package—centered on hosting major sports events—coincides with a shift toward more neutral and positive coverage over time; (2) despite progress, coverage remains marked by significant negativity, including ‘sportswashing’ and human rights critiques, evidencing the influence of uncontrollable media domains; (3) sports events serve as platforms to highlight cultural heritage, infrastructure, and social reforms, supporting incremental image change. Future research should broaden media samples beyond two UK tabloids to include other UK and international outlets, across varied timeframes and political-economic contexts, to assess generalisability and compare framing dynamics across media systems.

- Media sample limited to two UK popular press tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mail), which may employ sensationalist language and exhibit genre-specific biases. - Rationale for selecting these specific outlets, beyond labeling them as ‘leading publications,’ was not fully elaborated. - Analysis period relatively short, with primary focus on 2017–2021; findings may vary across other periods. - Sentiment detail incomplete for some years (e.g., 2020 breakdown beyond negative count), potentially constraining comparative precision. - Results may not generalise to broader UK media or international media ecosystems.