Gig economy and precarious employment in professional sport: a systematic literature review of contemporary evidence (2022–2025)

  • Anisa Sholiha Mia 
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia
  • Bram Sujadesman
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia
  • Jeki Haryanto
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia

Abstract

The gig economy has reshaped how people work around the world. Stable contracts are being replaced by fragmented, platform-based arrangements that often feel precarious. Professional sport offers a really interesting lens for this shift. Athletes, coaches, fitness pros, and match-day staff are increasingly working under insecure conditions mediated by digital platforms. Yet this area hasn't been studied much. So we did a systematic literature review. We wanted to pull together what's already known about gig and precarious employment and figure out how it applies to the sports labor market. The whole thing followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Scopus on January 15, 2025, using a predefined Boolean strategy applied to TITLE-ABS-KEY fields. Two independent reviewers handled screening and eligibility. For methodological quality, we used the FICO framework before moving into thematic synthesis. Out of 886 records found, only 10 studies made it through, all published between 2022 and 2025. The synthesis tackled three big questions: what structural features define precarious employment, how algorithmic management and employment relations work, and what all this means for worker wellbeing, identity, and collective agency. Four main findings stood out. Platform work gives the illusion of autonomy while actually increasing financial dependence. Algorithmic management limits career growth and job security. Precarity takes a real toll on mental health, organizational identification, and hits gendered vulnerabilities hard. And workers show constrained agency through coping strategies and collective action. These insights offer a useful theoretical frame and practical takeaways for sport governance. But they also make it clear we need more longitudinal research that's specific to sport.

Keywords
  • Gig economy
  • Precarious employment
  • Professional sport
  • Platform labour
  • Employment relations
Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References
  1. Adekoya, O. D., Mordi, C., Ajonbadi, H. A., & Chen, W. (2025). Implications of algorithmic management on careers and employment relationships in the gig economy – a developing country perspective. Information Technology & People, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2023-0064
  2. Chen, J., & Chen, M. (2025). Humanized algorithms matter! From enabling social exchange factors to building affective trust mechanism for facilitating gig workers' task performance. Personnel Review, 54(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2024-0688
  3. Diaz-Avendaño, J. (2025). Shifting organizational identification in the gig economy: A phenomenological study of delivery workers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-10-2024-0564
  4. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2022). Boundaryless careers and algorithmic constraints in the gig economy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(22), 4468–4498. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1953565
  5. Glavin, P., & Schieman, S. (2022). Dependency and hardship in the gig economy: The mental health consequences of platform work. Socius, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221082414
  6. Harvey, G., Li, J., & Wintersberger, D. (2023). Resistance exercise: Competition, coopetition and collective action among self-employed personal trainers in the UK. Employee Relations, 45(6). https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2023-0207
  7. Kougiannou, N. K., & Mendonça, P. (2025). Gig-dependent or just gigging? Examining the gig economy's structural characteristics on food delivery couriers. Employee Relations. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2024-0525
  8. Kwan, H. (2022). Gendered precarious employment in China's gig economy: Exploring women gig drivers' intersectional vulnerabilities and resistances. Gender & Development, 30(3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2022.2118464
  9. Williams, C. (2025). Precarity 2.0. Work and Occupations. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884251394986
  10. Yasih, D. W. P. (2023). Normalizing and resisting the new precarity: A case study of the Indonesian gig economy. Critical Sociology, 49(4–5), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205221087130
  11. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
  12. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
  13. Berg, J., Furrer, M., Harmon, E., Rani, U., & Silberman, M. S. (2018). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. International Labour Office.
  14. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
  16. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.
  17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  19. Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. D. C. Heath.
  20. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132.
  21. Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10.
  22. Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039–1056.
  23. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
  24. Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22.
  25. Kalleberg, A. L., & Vallas, S. P. (2018). Probing precarious work: Theory, research, and politics. Research in the Sociology of Work, 31, 1–30.
  26. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410.
  27. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100.
  28. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
  29. Möhlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., & Gregory, R. W. (2021). Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999–2022.
  30. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
  31. Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 124–170.
  32. Prassl, J. (2018). Humans as a service: The promise and perils of work in the gig economy. Oxford University Press.
  33. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
  34. Reich, M., Gordon, D. M., & Edwards, R. C. (1973). A theory of labor market segmentation. American Economic Review, 63(2), 359–365.
  35. Roderick, M. (2006). The work of professional football: A labour of love? Routledge.
  36. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.
  37. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139.
  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
  39. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
  40. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
  41. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
  42. Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press.
  43. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.
  44. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
  45. Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294.
  46. Veen, A., Barratt, T., & Goods, C. (2020). Platform-capital's 'app-etite' for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 34(3), 388–406.
  47. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 5 times
PDF
: 3 times