Are there any studies on the correlation between penis size and athletic performance?

1. What existing studies actually measure: size, not sport success

Large, systematic reviews and meta‑analyses in the anatomical literature quantify penis length and circumference across thousands of men and examine correlations with other body measures—finding average erect length around 13.8 cm and only weak correlations between penile measures and anthropometrics such as height or foot length ^{[3] [4] [6] [5]}.

2. The locker‑room study: social capital, not sprint times

Ethnographic research by Christopher Morriss‑Roberts documents how penis size functions as a form of “masculine capital” in locker‑room interactions—based on interviews with a very small sample of athletes—and reports that larger‑endowed teammates may gain status or be the focus of banter, but this is a sociological finding about perception and hierarchy rather than an objective link to athletic performance ^{[1] [7] [2] [8] [9]}.

3. No direct, empirical link to physical performance in the provided sources

None of the supplied sources present controlled data comparing measured penis size to objective sports outcomes (speed, strength, endurance, skill); the Morriss‑Roberts work is qualitative about social dynamics ^{[1] [2]}, while the anatomical and measurement studies focus on normative sizes and weak anthropometric correlations ^{[3] [4] [6]}, leaving a gap between social perception and physiological performance in the reporting provided.

4. Indirect signals and confounders: attractiveness and exaggeration

Some research outside the narrow size literature links perceived attractiveness to athletic success in specific contexts (for example, cycling performance correlated with attractiveness ratings), but attractiveness is not the same as penile dimensions and such findings do not establish a causal or measured pathway between penis size and sporting ability ^[10]. Self‑report bias also clouds the picture: men exaggerate masculinity‑related traits, including erect penis size and athleticism, which undermines studies relying on self‑reported measures ^[11].

5. Methodological reasons evidence would be hard to produce

The sources show that reliable penile measurement studies require clinical procedures and large samples to avoid bias ^{[3] [4]}, and that stretched or flaccid measures correlate inconsistently with erect length ^{[12] [4]}. Combining rigorous penile measurement with objective athletic performance testing would be logistically and ethically complex; the supplied reporting does not show that such studies have been done ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Alternative interpretations and media agendas

Media coverage amplified the locker‑room findings into punchy headlines about “size” and team dynamics ^{[8] [7] [9]}, which risks conflating social status with biological causation; the qualitative study’s small, London‑based sample and the broader public appetite for sensational takes create incentives for oversimplified narratives that the underlying academic work does not justify ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Bottom line for readers and researchers

Based on the reporting provided, evidence exists that penis size is socially salient among some athletes in locker‑room contexts and that penis measurements have been systematically cataloged and weakly correlated with certain body measures, but there is no documented scientific study in these sources that demonstrates a direct, measured correlation between penis size and athletic performance outcomes ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [10]}.