MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416888754 · doi:10.1093/bjc/azaf109

‘Saving or Keeping Face Was Just Part of the Game’: The Role of Facework in White-Collar Crime in Chinese Football

2025· article· en· W4416888754 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Zhang, Hong‐Ming Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Criminology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballFace negotiation theoryFace (sociological concept)Performative utteranceCorporate governanceIncentiveLanguage changePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article introduces the concept of ‘facework corruption’ as a theoretical framework for understanding white-collar crime in Chinese football. Drawing from an analysis of 15 judicial cases and 25 semi-structured interviews with football officials, coaches, and corruption investigators, the study identifies three key mechanisms through which facework facilitates corruption and match-fixing. First, ‘Face as currency’ explores how financial incentives and face are deeply intertwined, with bribes and illicit transactions serving to enhance status and reinforce power networks. Second, ‘national face as justification’ highlights how corrupt individuals rationalize their actions as contributing to China’s ambition to become a football superpower. Third, ‘facework networks’ demonstrate how interpersonal and institutional ties normalize corruption, embedding it within football governance structures. These mechanisms illustrate that corruption in Chinese football is not merely a financial crime but also a performative social act, where face serves as both a motivation and a justification for wrongdoing. The findings contribute to criminological literature by integrating the facework framework with existing theories of white-collar crime, demonstrating its broader applicability beyond sport.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of CriminologySame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207