Web of Science (WoS) is the largest and most widely used academic databases, serving as the foundation for numerous literature-based analyses. Following the methodologies outlined in previous studies (9–12), we conducted our review using the core collection of WoS database. Meanwhile, we also used a snowball method to search the initially identified research in the Google scholar to check for their citations, references, and relevant publications.

Adapting the approach of other reviews related to cryptocurrency (13–16) and sport (15, 17–20), we executed a comprehensive search across titles, abstracts, and author keywords. The query combined the crypto/blockchain construct with the sport construct using Boolean operators and truncation. Specifically, we searched for (cryptocurrenc* OR token OR blockchain OR Bitcoin OR “digital currency”) AND (sport* OR “word cup” OR Olympic* OR championship). The time window extended from database inception to 2025/12/20, and the language was restricted to English.

We used the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework to delineate the scope of this review and to guide eligibility decisions (21).

Population (P) included sport fans, sports bettors, and relevant stakeholders such as sport organizations and clubs.

Concept (C) covered cryptocurrency-related technologies and digital assets, including both fungible tokens and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Context (C) referred to sport-industry–related activities and settings, such as sport media/marketing and event communication, betting and/or trading platforms, and applications or governance practices within specific countries or leagues.

It should be noted that this study is a theme-focused narrative (thematic) review aiming to map the evidence landscape; therefore, we did not restrict inclusion by study design or publication type. In addition to empirical studies, we considered case studies, conceptual/theoretical papers, opinion pieces, and editorials. Moreover, individual-level data were not required for eligibility: studies centered on sporting events, market transactions, platform mechanisms, or industry practices were also considered as long as they aligned with the review theme.

We conducted a narrative review to identify the themes of the included studies. Although this approach is non-quantitative, it is well suited to synthesizing up-to-date knowledge on specific themes and providing a more nuanced understanding of the field (22). Meanwhile, Narrative reviews are qualitative research syntheses that describe the results of other studies without a dominant focus on the statistical significance of the findings (23). Theme development was primarily conducted using title-based coding to map the thematic landscape of the included literature. First, we conducted title-level open coding, assigning each paper 2–4 descriptive codes that captured the study’s primary focus as signaled in the title. Second, we performed pattern (axial) coding by grouping semantically overlapping codes into broader analytic categories. These categories were then reviewed and consolidated into five themes based on external distinctiveness (themes were largely different from each other).

Our initial search in the Web of Science database yielded 127 potentially relevant studies. After removing duplicates and screening for relevance based on content, we included 20 articles. Thereafter, we employed the snowball method and included additional 10 articles. Eventually, a total of 30 articles were included for the review.

The included literature (published between 2019 and 2025) was methodologically diverse, spanning quantitative financial analyses (event studies, intraday designs, and time-series models), cross-sectional surveys, broadcast content analyses, text-mining studies of user-generated data (e.g., app reviews and social media posts), qualitative interviews/case studies, and conceptual or ethics-focused papers (Table 1). Data sources ranged from token/cryptocurrency market and platform records to media-broadcast observations and questionnaire samples, with a noticeable concentration in European football contexts and several U.S.-based survey datasets, alongside a smaller number of studies from other regions and sports settings.

Based on title–abstract coding of the 30 articles, the literature clusters into five recurring themes: (1) fan tokens as financial assets and sport-event-sensitive markets, (2) adoption, identity, and engagement mechanisms, (3) computational approaches to fan-token/NFT discourse and platform data, (4) blockchain applications, governance, and critical/ethical interpretations in sport business, and (5) gambling-like risks and addiction-related correlates surrounding crypto/NFT participation (Figure 1). The coding system can be found in Supplementary Tables S1–S3.

The adoption of cryptocurrencies remains exploratory. With technological maturation and the emergence of new applications, future research in this area is expected to diversify and offer novel theoretical and practical perspectives.

Based on our five themes, the existing literature collectively portrays an overarching picture of the “assetization of sports fandom.” At the industry and institutional level, blockchain and tokenization are framed as scalable digital infrastructures that link clubs, platforms, and fans, and that enable new business models through the re-organization of data and rights. At the interaction level, voting, co-creation, and Web3 activations concretize “engagement” into behaviors that can be designed, quantified, and operationalized. At the individual level, adoption and purchase studies further show that fans’ entry into this ecosystem is rarely driven by a single motive: identity affirmation, community belonging, experiential value, and investment expectations often coexist, and are moderated by trust and risk appraisals. Meanwhile, once these mechanisms are embedded in real markets, fan tokens and sports NFTs quickly display characteristics typical of financial assets—prices are highly sensitive to sporting events and attention dynamics, and volatility and connectedness mean that these products both serve “fan relationships” and become incorporated into broader crypto-trading logics. Finally, the gamblingization and consumer-protection theme reminds us that this coupling of “engagement–trading” is not value-neutral: when reward structures, marketing exposure, and highly volatile trading environments overlap, engagement may be pushed toward more intense speculative consumption, intersecting with addiction-related or problem-gambling risks for some users. Taken together, fan tokens/NFTs are not merely new technologies or products; rather, they resemble a socio-technical-financial assemblage that simultaneously bundles identity, platform governance, market mechanisms, and risk exposure. Accordingly, understanding them requires attention to the engagement logic of sport management and marketing, the pricing logic of financial markets, and the risk logic of public health and ethical governance.

At the same time, these five themes also reveal several gaps that merit future research. First, studies within each theme often treat their own outcome variables as endpoints (e.g., intention, participation rates, returns, risk correlates), yet rarely address, within a single framework, the causal and transformational relationships among “engagement motives–trading behaviors–risk consequences.” For example, it remains unclear whether voting/right-design or incentive structures shift some users from relationship-based engagement toward high-frequency speculation, and under what conditions such a transition occurs. This gap calls for more integrative frameworks and longitudinal designs to trace pathways leading to adverse outcomes. In addition, although the gamblingization and consumer-protection literature has identified “gambling-like” product features of fan tokens (28) and has observed associations between crypto trading and problem gambling/addiction-related indicators in both gambler and general-population samples (34, 36), the evidence base remains largely correlational, and actionable discussions of regulatory frameworks, platform governance, and design responsibilities are relatively limited. Future studies could systematically compare platforms or rule versions and evaluate the effects of consumer-protection measures—such as the strength of risk warnings, underage restrictions, cooling-off periods or frequency limits, “de-gamblingization” adjustments to rewards and tasks, and disclosure standards—on high-frequency trading, impulsive trading, and problem-gambling indicators, thereby producing an operational checklist for regulation and platform design.

Finally, we would like to call for greater attention to some “hidden corners” of this research area. As our results indicate, the existing literature is concentrated primarily in Europe and North America. In fact, there remains a substantial population of cryptocurrency holders in other countries, such as China. In China, electronic and mobile payments are highly prevalent (51), yet cryptocurrency trading is not supported by law (52, 53). This contrast may make public understanding and perceptions of cryptocurrencies particularly complex. As a result, Chinese citizens’ motivations for using cryptocurrencies and their related behaviors may differ in important ways from those observed in other regions (54, 55). Similarly, many Global South countries (low- and lower-middle-income countries/developing economies) also warrant attention. Because financial infrastructures, regulation, and consumer protections often differ in Global South settings, engagement may reflect more instrumental needs (e.g., cross-border payments or alternative financial channels) alongside greater exposure to information asymmetry, fraud, and volatility-related losses. Future research should therefore prioritize descriptive and comparative studies in Global South contexts, complemented by qualitative work to capture localized trust, legitimacy, and risk-perception mechanisms.

To improve consumer protection and preserve the integrity of sport ecosystems, policy and industry stakeholders could operationalize the following measures for sport-linked crypto products (including fan tokens):

This study is based on an analysis of existing academic literature. Because the application of cryptocurrencies in sport remains in its early developmental stage, the number of relevant studies is still limited. Consequently, the present findings may not fully capture the latest developments, including recent innovations implemented by sport organizations or emerging commercial practices. Future investigations could incorporate additional data sources—such as industry white papers, corporate announcements, or social media data—to provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date perspective.

This review included only publications indexed in major databases (Web of Science core databases). Relevant works indexed in other repositories may therefore have been omitted. Additionally, the analysis was restricted to English-language publications for practical reasons, leaving research in other languages unexplored. Future bibliometric and thematic reviews should consider expanding linguistic and database coverage to achieve a more global and inclusive understanding of cryptocurrency adoption in the sport industry.

The current evidence base is heavily concentrated in European football and U.S. samples, with limited coverage of other sports and non-Western contexts; therefore, the global generalizability of our findings is constrained and context-specific mechanisms may be underrepresented.

A key limitation is that the peer-reviewed evidence base on cryptocurrencies in sport remains small, and the included studies are highly heterogeneous in design, data sources, and analytic approaches (e.g., market event studies/time-series analyses, platform analytics, broadcast content analyses, cross-sectional surveys, qualitative and conceptual work). This heterogeneity precludes meaningful quantitative aggregation and limits cross-study comparability; therefore, our thematic findings should be interpreted as an overview of emerging themes rather than as firm conclusions or in-depth inferences about specific effects or outcomes.

This work is primarily literature-driven; therefore, several viewpoints and proposed directions reflect the current evidence base and our synthesis, rather than conclusions validated through expert consensus. Given the early-stage and rapidly evolving nature of this theme, future research should incorporate structured expert methods (e.g., Delphi technique and focus groups) to critically assess, refine, and prioritize the most valuable themes and actionable research agendas in sport-related cryptocurrencies.