Debunking the myths and misconceptions of comparing sport systems

While comparative analysis has become increasingly utilised within sport policy and management research, how comparative research is interpreted and translated into policy and practice is often overlooked. This review paper deconstructs six misconceptions (or myths) that distort the potential interpretation and application of comparative sport policy research: (1) the myth of comparative necessity, (2) the myth of isolated sport systems, (3) the myth of total equivalence, (4) the myth of immaculate methodology, (5) the myth of direct transferability and (6) the misconception of comparison through superficial observation. Drawing on comparative methodology, existing literature and our own experiences of researching within the Swedish and UK sport contexts, we illustrate how these misconceptions, along with the assumptions that underpin them, can lead to fundamental misinterpretations and false inferences that can inadvertently mislead policy and/or decision-making. Ultimately, this work offers critical insights for researchers, policymakers and practitioners seeking to navigate the complexities of cross-national comparisons to inform policy and decision-making.