Critical Theory  “Opium of the Masses”

Soccer through the lens of Critical Theory: Pure passion or ideological “opium”? How mass culture channels emotions—and diverts political attention.

The phrase “opium of the masses” is one of the most powerful metaphors in modern social criticism. Originally coined by Karl Marx in the context of his critique of religion, it was extended in the 20th century, particularly by representatives of the Frankfurt School such as Theodor W. Adorno, to other phenomena of mass culture.

In late-capitalist society, sports—especially soccer— are increasingly becoming the focus of criticism due to their ability to captivate -in particular- the working classes. While the role of religion in a so-called secular society is certainly subject to critical debate, the situation is different with sports. It stirs people's emotions—and either unites or divides the masses.

The emotional intensity of sports, its omnipresence in the media, and its economic penetration leave no doubt for the English theorist Terry Eagleton: “Today, sports—and not religion—is the opium of the people” (in: The Meaning of Life (2008, p. 47). The argument is easy to follow: you give the masses something to get excited about, and that keeps them from engaging with other things, such as getting involved in political change.

Soccer as a Vehicle for Collective Identity

Marx’s analysis in the introduction to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844) is actually quite nuanced. For the ‘opium’ of religion acts simultaneously as both a painkiller and an anesthetic; more than mere delusion, it is an active response to real social suffering. The transfer to mass sports is straightforward: as long as social recognition, community, and self-efficacy are primarily experienced in the stadium or in front of the screen, the demand for ‘real’ social change remains muted. Soccer functions as a substitute sphere for experiences that are systematically denied in everyday work and life.

Yet the massive soccer market does not arise spontaneously, on its own; it is created, marketed, and designed. While Marx locates the ideological character of the soccer phenomenon in substitute gratification, the German philosopher and co-founder of the Frankfurt School, Theodor W. Adorno, analyzed the sport —in 1944 while in exile in the U.S.— as part of the capitalist culture industry. In his work Dialectic of Enlightenment (Max Horkheimer/Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Querido, Amsterdam 1947), Adorno describes mass culture as a system of standardized forms of entertainment that promote conformity and neutralize criticism. In mostly fragmentary and pointed remarks, he characterizes commercial sports as a combination of physical discipline, the pressure to perform, and social conformity. In his essay Minima Moralia (1951), Adorno essentially states that competitive sports reduce people to “functional use of the body” (the “body is treated as an apparatus that one may exploit with a clear conscience”: from Minima Moralia: Reflections from a Damaged Life. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1951/2003) . Sport, this “pseudo-active activity” (Freizeit, 1969), generates, according to Adorno, a sense of activity, participation, and passion without opening up actual agency. This aspect becomes particularly evident in soccer: millions of spectators “suffer,” “fight,” and “win” emotionally alongside the players, yet remain objectively passive. Identification with a club or national team replaces political participation, and Adorno’s critique intensifies where soccer functions as a vehicle for collective identity. International tournaments intensify national sentiments while obscuring social antagonism. Individuals experiences themselves as part of a larger whole without questioning its structure. Adorno generally warns against such collective emotional attachment as it suspends critical consciousness. And here, the argument comes full circle with Marx’s critique: the creation of meaning, community, and hope in a society that feels cold and alienated, along with the fleeting happiness generated by victory, appears as a form of compensatory ‘illusory happiness.’

In modern professional soccer, Adorno’s critique of the culture industry gains additional plausibility. The sport is fully integrated into market logic: players become brands, fans become target audiences, emotions become exploitable resources. The appearance of spontaneity and passion masks strict economic rationality.

Here, soccer fulfills precisely the function that Adorno attributes to the culture industry: it reproduces existing conditions by making them appear natural, inevitable, and emotionally satisfying. The ‘opium’ does not act repressively, but pleasurably.

A Rebellion Against Haste and Agitation

In all of this, one must not forget that the unifying power of soccer is said to have a positive socialist dimension—namely, if one sets aside Adorno’s social perspective and considers its internal impact. The German social democratic politician and nature lover Carl Schreck, for example, stated in his essay Arbeitersport und Sozialdemokratie (Workers’ Sports and Social Democracy, Leipzig, 1929): “Sport, viewed in general terms, represents a rebellion against capitalist exploitation, against the piecework system, a rebellion against the rush and frenzy that lash at us like a whip, a rebellion against all capitalist and other forms of social oppression.” And a 2010 publication by the British Socialist Party states: “It is true that there are still capitalists who rejoice in soccer’s function as the opium of the masses. But it is extremely patronizing to tell millions of soccer-loving workers that their enthusiasm for soccer is based solely on trickery and deceit and that their love for it is nothing more than the result of brainwashing. (...) While some may dismiss this as tribalism, the solidarity that exists among soccer fans is of great significance. Taking this seriously can make a significant contribution to strengthening the consciousness of the working class.”

Revolutionary Energies of the Past

Neither Marx nor Adorno viewed the ambivalence of identification with clubs and the intense emotional engagement in soccer, nor the exploitation of these by capitalist rulers and their sophisticated systems, as active conspiratorial mechanisms. But it is hard to overlook how political and capitalist practices are shifting entirely unchallenged to the detriment of the working class, and the questions of where the sharp gaze on the excesses of capitalism and the revolutionary energies of the past have gone are entirely legitimate. At the very least, a widespread opium-induced haze would be a good explanation for why soccer fans this year are willingly mortgaging their existence to pay FIFA’s ‘dynamic prices’ for the 2026 World Cup, shrugging as they hand over their data to tech oligarchs, and accepting that the real incomes of the working population have been falling for decades at an accelerating rate, while the top one percent, the super-rich, enjoy explosive income growth.