In our days the Olympic games reflect the dialectical relationship between globalization and nationalism. On the one hand, the Olympics are an important actor in the process of globalization and at the same moment the attribute of the global world. On the other hand, the structure of Olympics encourages fostering of national sports and because of that the Olympics become an important defence bastion for national values. Deconstructing this contraposition dialectics helps to explain the priorities and options of the countries (participating in the games) in favour of globalization or nationalism. Sustained structure of the Olympic games evidently frames the real state of studied dialectics. The aim of this article is to analyze and compare the expression of global and national interests in the context of the Olympic games. In order to achieve the aim the following tasks were defined: 1) to analyze the relation between the Olympics and globalization; 2) to analyze the relation between the Olympics and nationalism; 3) to compare the expression of national and global interests in the Olympic games. In achieving the tasks scientific literature systemic review and comparative analysis methods were applied.[...]

By analyzing particular examples from sport the paper aims at discussing the structure of Lithuanian sport field, i.e., to extract its structure, to discuss the location of the actors and their interrelations. This paper should be understood not as a comprehensive analysis, but as an attempt to identify important questions regarding ongoing processes in sport field. To achieve the aim of the paper following tasks were raised: to present the structure of Lithuanian sport field using Bourdieu’s field theory; to discuss particular examples of “misbehaving” between actors acting in the field. Scientific literature and comparative analysis methods are used in the paper. The sport in Lithuania is very popular, but under the facade of society‘s interest in sport, there is other side of the coin. The success of our athletes‘ performances often attracts public attention, while the structural aspects of the organization of sport remain marginalized (with some exceptions of basketball case). The popularity and the growth of the sport field are fostering its structural change, which attracts new actors to the field. The problem is that, as a consequence to that the numbers of such actors who are seeking personal benefit from the sport are increasing, while actors who would be interested in successful development of sport are lacking. The examples that are analyzed in the paper gives us opportunity to make an assumption about worrisome trends in the field of sport: the balance of operating agents in the field has been changed, as well as their goals and their rivalry strategies. Lithuanian sport field seems to be going through another phase of change and in order to understand it decently, detailed analysis should be carried on.

During the second half of the 20 th century, professional sport was penetrated by tendencies of reflexive modernity. Sport is now driven and could be described by the interrelated processes of commercialization (exploitation of an object or practice for capital gain), corporatization (the structuring of sport for profit maximization) and spectacularization (the production of entertainment driven experiences) (Andrews 2009). Sport has always been related with entertainment, but today we can see the attempts to transform sport to a source of pleasure. The aim of the paper is to discuss the change of the values represented by sport as a cultural text. Wide range consumption of sport (interest in sports news, events attendance, victories celebration, attribute consumption, etc.) shows that sport has become a source of public amusement, pleasure and entertainment. By creating and recreating, echoing and reinforcing existing values, sport is being developed as a text of popular culture. The main characteristic of popular culture is its formation: never-ending interpretations of the same cultural texts. Sport as a source of pleasure is never built from news or sporting events. The meaning of pleasure is being built by the users themselves by interpreting these news and events. For example, victory or defeat are usual practice in sport as well as games, trainings etc. Sensational victory or disappointing defeat is made by consumers. The meanings of sporting events are created in particular contexts which are determined by a specific social context. The importance of popular culture texts lies in constant circulation, interpretation and reinterpretation process, but not in the texts themselves. The texts are undoubtedly the most important actors in the process, but they must be interpreted among other cultural texts and particular social reality (Fiske 2005: 4).[...]