Looking at the recent studies of sports history, they seem to be faced with the problems of the social science. Therefore, this paper will discuss the problems of the scientific study, as an empirical science, of sports history. Besides the problems of the "Concept" and "Objectivity", the "Meaning" and "Explanation" of the historical events are especially focused. The discussions of these problems are based on the theory of empirical science by K. R. Popper (1902-) and that of social science by M. Weber (1864-1920).
1) "Meaning" of history is not immanent in a past event, but each historian gives a meaning to the event (M. Weber) . For every description of an event is possible only after his selection, of the event, based on his interest.
2) The causal explanation in the empirical science is logically consisted of one universal statement ("Law") and two singular statements ("Initial condition" and "Prediction") (K. R. Popper). In this logical structure of the scientific explanation, there can be no difference between the theoretical science and the historical science. However, while the historical science is to describe an individual event (reconstruction of the historical fact) and to discover its initial condition and to test it.
3) The concept which is used to describe an individual event is never expression of the "Essence" as a unviersal object, but the "Label" to express a class with the same property. In other words, the concept which is used in the historical study is the theoretical construction on the premiss of a historian's particular view-point.
4) The objectivity of historical study is not immanent in an historical event or each historian. It is rather guaranteed by the possible inter-subjectiv discussion among the historians (K. R. Popper).
Thus, similarly the study of sports is to describe an individual past event by using the concept as the theoretical construction (historical reconstruction), and to explain the event by using the law as a means of finding causes (historical explanation).