ISSN: 1543-9518|Vol. 24

A Survey Among Youth High Performance Athletes at Different Coubertin Schools, Olympic Talent Training Centers and at Other Spor

Submitted by: Kristina Bohnstedt & Norbert Mueller

INTRODUCTION

The high performance sport system of the former German Democratic Republic
(GDR) was based on a well organized and supported search and support for
talents. The “Sport Schools for Children and Youth,” which
were invented in 1952 and extended into perfectly organized places of
training for future Olympic winners, represented the main branch of this
system. 80% of the Olympic participants of the GDR were “formed”
in these 24 “Sport Schools for Children and Youth” and won
the main part of the 572 Olympic medals reached by the GDR at Olympic
Games.

After the German reunification this form of elite shaping was considered
skeptically especially when it became obvious and public by Prof. Franke
(Heidelberg, Germany) that the majority of the athletes training and living
at these sport schools were involved – consciously and unconsciously
– in a secret doping system. The scientific analysis of these schools
revealed in spite of many positive aspects also a frequent disregard of
ethical standards.

In the meantime sport high schools, again, have become one of the main
institutions in training Olympic talents in Germany. It is now of interest
if ethical standards are considered in the trainers’ behavior and
if ethical standards and Olympic values play an important role in the
pedagogical formation of the young athletes.

In 1984, Meinberg developed a set of principles for a humane high-performance
sport for children in the wake of a public debate on the participation
of children and teenagers in high-performance sports. Many institutions
published different demanding catalogues of ethical principles but Meinberg’s
principles are of such a given broad-based character that these principles
can also be taken as outlining an ethical foundation of other catalogues.

The following ethical principles were published by Meinberg:

  1. The call for using the other person as a purpose of himself instead
    of using him as a means to an end,
  2. the principle of respect,
  3. the principle of equality,
  4. the principle of solidarity,
  5. the principle of fairness,
  6. the principle of suitability for children (youth),
  7. the principle of reasonableness,
  8. the principle of helping,
  9. the principle of confidence/trust,
  10. the principle of participation,
  11. the principle of responsibility,
  12. the principle of achievement and the call for avoiding a fetishism
    of achievement,
  13. call for a child (youth) suitable body ethic and the avoidance of
    the exploitation of the
    body.

The paper investigates which status Olympic values have for teenage high-performance
athletes and in how far these values are taught by their trainer and their
engagement in high performance sport.

In addition to that the paper is supposed to show whether the athletes
think that their trainers observe Meinberg’s 13 ethical principles
and whether there is a correlation between their implementation and other
factors such as the kind of sport, gender, etc.

METHODS

Research data were collected through a survey using a standardized questionnaire.
Under this survey, 181 students (age 14-18) of different sports high schools
(Coubertin-High School Berlin, Pierre-de-Coubertin-High School Erfurt,
Heinrich-Heine-High School Kaiserslautern, Karthause High School Koblenz
and the House of Athletes at the Olympic Centre Frankfurt-Rhein-Main)
in Germany replied to the questionnaire in writing. The replies were analysed
with the statistics programme SPSS 11.0.

RESULTS

The evaluation of values shows that the youth high performance athletes
consider those values to be more important which are closely connected
to the achievement principle (for example ambition, competitiveness, ability
of pushing through…). In addition to that the trainers teach those
values connected with the achievement principle more often than other
values like for example honesty, fairness, equal opportunities or luck.

The results regarding the implementation of ethical standards show that
the majority of trainers are largely guided by ethical principles in their
work with the young high-performance athletes. At the same time, however,
the athletes also noted incidences of unethical behavior. In the implementation
of the individual principles, up to 40% of the trainers transgress ethical
boundaries. Only in isolated incidences, correlations between the kind
of sport and transgressions of individual principles could be found. As
no broader patterns could be observed, this indicates that the adherence
to ethical principles depends more on the individual personality of the
trainer rather than on other factors.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

The survey results show that ethical principles should not be developed
and verified for specific kinds of sports. The general ethical principles
are flexible enough to adapt the trainer’s behavior to the individual
athlete and the specific situation. In analysing the implementation of
ethical principles, more attention should be given to a teleological ethic
alongside the ethic of principles, as this allows for more focus on the
individual athlete and the specific situation in the trainer’s behavior.
The limitations of this empirical research are that the standardized questionnaire
is not able to register situation-specific behavior. It was tried to counteract
this problem by taking into consideration the teleological aspects at
the interpretation of the results.

The partial disregard of ethical standards makes it obvious that the
conditions and the situations of young high performance athletes have
to be examined regularly and at all kinds of sports even at those institutions
which are closely connected to Olympic values and the pedagogical emphasis
of their work.

REFERENCES (A SELECTION)

  1. Anders, G./Hartmann, W. (Red.): Sozialkompetenz von Trainerinnen und
    Trainern. Dokumentation des Workshops vom 28. September 1996. Köln
    1997.
  2. Bette, K.-H.: Die Trainerrolle im Hochleistungssport. System- und
    rollentheoretische Überlegungen zur Sozialfigur des Trainers. St.
    Augustin 1984.
  3. Birnbacher, D./Hoerster, N. (Hrsg.): Texte zur Ethik. München
    19939.
  4. Court, J.: Kritik ethischer Modelle des Leistungssports. Köln
    1994.
  5. Digel, H.: Ist der Hochleistungssport verantwortbar? In: Leistungssport
    32 (2002) 1, 9-13.
  6. Gerhardt, V.: Die Moral des Sports. In: Caysa, V. (Hrsg.): Sportphilosophie.
    Leipzig 1997, 172-203.
  7. Grupe, O./Mieth, D. (Hrsg.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf
    1998.
  8. Kaminski, G./Mayer, R./Ruoff, B. A.: Kinder und Jugendliche im Hochleistungssport.
    Schorndorf 1984.
  9. Kant, I.: Der kategorische Imperativ. In: Birnbacher, D./Hoerster,
    N. (Hrsg.): Texte zur Ethik. München 19939, 236-253.
  10. Kohlberg, L.: The Philosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages and
    the Idea of Justice. San Francisco 1981.
  11. Lenk, H.: Manipulation oder Emanzipation im Leistungssport? Schorndorf
    1973.
  12. McNamee, M.J./Parry, S.J.: Ethics and Sport. London – New York 1998.
  13. Meinberg, E.: Kinderhochleistungssport: Fremdbestimmung oder Selbstentfaltung?
    Köln 1984.
  14. Meinberg, E.: Die Moral im Sport. Bausteine einer neuen Sportethik.
    Aachen 1991.
  15. Meinberg, E.: Trainerethos und Trainerethik. Köln 2001
  16. Müller, N.: Olympische erziehung.In: Lexikon der Ethik im Sport.
    Schorndorf 2003, 5th ed., 385-395.
  17. Sinnreich, J.: Sportethik auf der Grundlage des Kategorischen Imperativs.
    In: Sportonomics 5 (1999) 2, 62-68.
2017-08-07T11:49:43-05:00March 3rd, 2008|Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on A Survey Among Youth High Performance Athletes at Different Coubertin Schools, Olympic Talent Training Centers and at Other Spor
Read More

The Importance of Expectations on Participatory Sport Event Satisfaction

Submitted by: Matthew J. Bernthal & Laura L. Sawyer

Abstract

Prior research on service quality in the sport industry has focused
almost exclusively on the satisfaction of sport spectators. The
current study expands this literature by beginning exploration into service
quality issues related to sport event participants. Specifically, we examine
the effect of participant skill level on the expectations that event participants
place on various service quality dimensions applicable to a participatory
sport event. Specifically, we propose that relatively lower skilled players
will place greater importance on peripheral event service dimensions (those
attributes of an event that fall outside the actual competitive play of
the sport and do not directly influence the athlete’s performance, such
as event parties, promotional giveaways to participants, and general ambiance
surrounding the event). We also propose that relatively higher
skilled players will place greater importance on play-related event service
dimensions (those attributes that are directly associated with the competitive
play of the sport and can directly influence athlete performance).
Tests of these hypotheses are performed through survey data collected
from participants at the United States Tennis Association’s Southern Sectional
Championships. Results indicate that lower skilled players indeed
place greater emphasis on peripheral event service dimensions than do
higher skilled players. However, lower skilled players did not
place less emphasis on play-related event service dimensions than did
higher skilled players. The importance of understanding the expectations
of participatory sport event consumers is discussed, and directions for
future research are provided.

The Importance of Expectations on Participatory Sport
Event Satisfaction: An Exploration into the Effect of Athlete Skill
Level on Service Expectations

Introduction

The emergence of research related to service quality in the sport industry
has only recently gained moderate attention. Given the enormity
of the sport industry in the United States, and indeed across the globe,
this is somewhat surprising. Moreover, the stream of sport service
quality research that has emerged in recent years has been somewhat limited,
focusing almost entirely on understanding fan satisfaction at spectator
events. For example, Kelley and Turley (2001) find that the importance
of nine different service quality factors at a sport spectating event
(e.g., concessions, price, fan comfort, facility access) differs across
a variety of demographic and fan identification characteristics.
As another example, the “sportscape” model has been an important relatively
recent contribution to the sport service quality literature, yet it too
focuses solely on spectator service encounters (e.g., Hightower, Brady,
& Baker 2002). The sportscape (e.g., the physical environment
where a spectator event occurs, primarily the arena/stadium) has been
shown to influence fans’ excitement and satisfaction with the experience
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994), their desire to stay through the event
(Wakefield & Sloan, 1995), and their likelihood of repatronizing events
at the facility (Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996). This
stream of research geared toward a better understanding of service quality
related to spectator events is invaluable, yet service quality research
geared toward a better understanding of service quality issues related
specifically to participatory sport events (i.e., events for which the
primary customers are the event participants, such as recreational golf
tournaments, tennis tournaments, softball tournaments, etc.) has been
largely unstudied and is much needed. It is toward this end that
the current study is addressed.

Chang, Chen, and Hsu (2002) provide an overview of service quality literature
to be considered in examining sport industry quality issues. One
of the models they touch on, and indeed one of the most influential models
in the service quality literature is the Gap model of service quality.
According to the Gap model, a customer’s satisfaction with a service is
largely driven by the extent to which his or her perceptions of received
service meet or exceed his or her expectations (Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
& Bitner, 1985). Customer expectations, in turn, can be defined
as beliefs about service delivery that function as standards or reference
points against which performance is judged (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000).
It is critically important, therefore, that in order for participatory
sport events to be judged in a favorable light by participants, event
managers must pay particular attention to participant expectations during
event organization and management.

A key element for event managers in meeting or hopefully exceeding event
participant expectations is the careful consideration of the various sources
from which such expectations can arise. Zeithaml and Bitner (2000)
classify various sources of customer expectations, including enduring
service intensifiers, transitory service intensifiers, perceived service
alternatives, and explicit and implicit service promises. While
we contend that each is relevant to participatory sport event managers
(for example, an event participant’s satisfaction with an event would
logically depend on the number of competing events from which the participant
can choose), the current study focuses on enduring service intensifiers
and their ability to influence sport event participant’s satisfaction
with an event. Enduring service intensifiers are defined as stable
personal factors that lead to higher service sensitivity (Zeithaml &
Bitner, 2000). We propose that one such enduring service intensifier
relevant to participatory sport events is athlete skill level.
Event managers should consider that the skill level of the athletes participating
in their event could potentially influence the athletes’ expectations
for various event attributes. We posit that event attributes can
fall into two distinct categories, play-related attributes and peripheral
attributes. We define play-related attributes are those attributes
that are directly associated with the competitive play of the sport at
an event. Peripheral attributes are those attributes of an event
that fall outside the actual competitive play of the sport and do not
directly influence the athlete’s performance, such as event parties, promotional
giveaways to participants, and general ambiance surrounding the event
(e.g., play-site attractiveness). We hypothesize a direct, positive
relationship between skill level and play-related expectations, such that
as the skill level of the athlete rises, so do expectations regarding
play-related attributes. In turn, we hypothesize a direct, negative
relationship between skill level and peripheral expectations, such that
as the skill level of the athlete declines, expectations regarding peripheral
event attributes increase.

To illustrate the rationale behind these hypotheses, consider United
States Tennis Association (USTA) League Tennis. Players are grouped
according to skill level in categories ranging from 2.0 through 5.0, and
destination events are often held that hold competitions for players of
multiple skill levels. For example, the USTA holds state and regional
events in which one site hosts tournaments and the peripheral (e.g., banquets)
events surrounding them for players of multiple skill levels; in other
words, multiple skill level participants are participants in their own
skill level tournament, but are participants at the same overall event.
It is proposed that participants with a high skill level (e.g.,
a 5.0 USTA rating), given their competitive drive and focus related to
tennis (necessary in achieving their high skill level), are likely to
have relatively high expectations on play-related attributes such as the
match schedule, officiating, and court conditions. What we have
defined as play-related attributes are conceptually similar to what Gronroos
(1983) has defined as “technical quality”, or the core service that the
buyer receives from the seller. On the other hand, we propose that
players with lower skill levels (e.g., a USTA 2.5 rating) are often playing
as much for the “experience” and social aspects of the event as they are
for the competition, and are therefore likely to have relatively higher
expectations on peripheral attributes, such as event apparel offered for
sale or as a premium, food, and social “events (e.g., nightly parties/banquets)
within the event”. These hypotheses are stated formally as follows:

H1: Sporting event participant skill level is positively related to expectations
on play-related event service dimensions, such that higher skilled participants
will have higher expectations than will lower skilled participants on
service attributes related to the competitive play of the event.

H2: Sporting event participant skill level is negatively related to expectations
on peripheral event service dimensions, such that higher skilled participants
will have lower expectations than will lower skilled participants on service
attributes with are part of the event but unrelated to the competitive
play of the event.

Method

To test these hypotheses, we collected data from 487 participants at
the 2003 USTA Southern Sectional Championships, an event with tennis players
ranging in USTA skill rating from 2.5 (novice) to 5.0 (expert).
Prior to play, players were asked to rate the importance of multiple items
which could affect their overall satisfaction with a multiple-day tennis
tournament. The survey items were generated prior to the event
by asking ten tennis players (not participating in the event surveyed
in this study) to list items which might influence their satisfaction
when participating in a tennis tournament. Items receiving more
than one mention were included in the final survey used in this study,
resulting in 33 items. The items included those which were both
play-related and peripheral. The 33 items are provided in Appendix
A.

Formally stated, the survey question asked players “When evaluating your
satisfaction with a multiple-day tennis event to which you travel, how
important is each of the following items?” Players rated each of
the 33 items on a seven-point likert-type scale, with one being very unimportant
and seven being very important. Importance was used as a proxy
measure for expectations, as respondents will logically place more importance
on the dimensions for which they have higher expectations. Following
the importance ratings, respondents were asked to indicate their USTA
skill rating, gender, and age.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 33 items (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
= .929, suggesting the data were highly appropriate for factor analysis).
Using a varimax rotation and a loading cutoff value of 0.5, four
factors were retained (eigenvalues ranging from 11.78 to 1.07) and labeled
as follows: Play (court condition, sufficient practice
courts available, draw continually updated/readily available, courts conducive
to spectating, all matches played on same surface type, well-equipped
area for changeover (water, chairs, etc.), extent to which match/draw
schedule runs on time, quality of officiating, tournament officials readily
available at all sites; a = .84); Souvenirs (quality of souvenir
merchandise (t-shirts, hats, etc.), selection of souvenir merchandise,
price of souvenir merchandise, attractiveness of awards offered, free
souvenirs offered to participants; a = .90); Hotel (proximity
of hotel to play sites, directions to tourist attractions/restaurants
provided, availability of reasonably priced hotels, availability of high
quality, attractive hotels, cleanliness of hotels; a =.85); Tournament
Destination (tourist attractiveness of host city, physical attractiveness
of play sites, wide selection of restaurants in host city; a = .77); and
Concessions (selection of concessions at play sites, price of
concessions at play sites; a =.72). Cronbach’s alphas for all five
factors indicate that the five retained factors demonstrate strong internal
consistency. Further, the five retained factors explained the majority
(58.43%) of the variance. Factor structure, loadings, percent of
explained variance, and eigenvalues are provided in Table 1. The
Play dimension represents a service dimension directly related to a participant’s
competitive play in the event, while the four remaining dimensions of
Souvenirs, Hotel, Tournament Destination, and Concessions represent what
we have referred to as peripheral service dimensions. Nine items
did not load on any of the five factors and were dropped; these items
are noted in bold in Appendix A.

In order to analyze differences in importance by participant skill level,
a one-way MANOVA with skill level (relatively lower skilled = 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 USTA rating, n = 281; higher skilled = 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 USTA rating,
n = 206) as the independent variable and the mean of the summed score
of each service dimension factor (Play, Souvenirs, Hotel, Tournament Destination,
Concessions) as the multivariate dependent variables was performed.
MANOVA revealed a significant between-subjects skill level main effect
(Wilks’ Lambda = .97; F(5, 481) = 3.35; p<.005). Given multivariate
significance, we examined the univariate F-tests on each of the five service
dimension factors, which indicated significant differences between skill
level on four of the five service dimensions. Results of the univariate
tests are provided in Table 2. Note that all tests are one-tailed
due to directional hypotheses. These results indicate that lower
skilled players placed greater importance on each of the four peripheral
event dimensions (Souvenirs, Hotel, Tournament Destination, and Concessions)
than did higher skilled players, providing support for H2. As added
support for H2, we analyzed one item which did not load highly on any
of the four peripheral dimensions, yet represents a peripheral attribute.
Specifically, lower skill level players placed greater importance
on the item “quality of event social functions (banquets/parties)” than
did higher skill level players (lower skilled M = 4.96, higher skilled
M = 4.67; t = 2.12, p = .017). However, there was no difference
between lower skilled players and higher skilled players on the play-related
dimension. Therefore, H1 was not supported.

Discussion

It is pertinent that managers of participant events pay particular attention
to participant expectations and the various factors that might influence
such expectations. This study is an initial step toward this end.
Thoughtful analysis of participant expectations is especially important
for managers of grassroots or local events. According to Graham,
Goldblatt and Delpy (1995), special events have continued to increase
exponentially both across the country and around the world. City
officials and officers of other entities are drawn to the idea of hosting
special events not only to create positive publicity, but also for city
branding purposes and to create economic impact. Special events
are perceived to be economic catalysts for future growth, and the increased
number of special events has created competition for consumers’ discretionary
time and income. These events include not only sport events, but
any of the special event types as categorized by the International Events
Group (IEG), including 1) sport, 2) festivals, fairs and annual events,
3) cause-related, 4) arts, and 5) entertainment, tours and attractions.
Within sport events alone, on any given day or weekend a consumer
may choose between any number of events. However, given that most
people do not have unlimited discretionary time or income, it is important
to understand as much as possible about the expectations of attendees
in order to maximize branding and economic opportunities.

The following definitions apply to types of special events:

Mega event – Mega events by way of their size or significance, are those
that yield extraordinarily high levels of tourism, media coverage, prestige,
or economic impact for the host community or destination. Their
volume should exceed one million visits, their capital costs should be
at least $500 million and their reputation should be of a “must see”
event (Getz, 1997, p.6).

Hallmark event – a recurring event that possesses such significance,
in terms of tradition, attractiveness, image, or publicity, that the event
provides the host venue, community, or destination with a competitive
advantage. Over time, the event and destination become inseparable
(Getz, 1997, p.7).

Major events – events that by their scale and media interest, are capable
of attracting significant visitor numbers, media coverage and economic
benefit (Allen, O’Toole, McDonnell, & Harris, 2002, p. 14)

Given these definitions, there is no doubt that branding opportunities
and economic impact are more easily achieved for a mega event such as
the Olympics or for hallmark events such as New Orleans’ Mardi Gras, Omaha’s
College World Series or Times Square’s New Year’s Eve celebration.
Events such as these have achieved a level of prestige and have generally
garnered significant corporate and municipal sponsorship, and have increased
media coverage, specifically from television. However, it is generally
much more difficult for managers of local events, and particularly participant
events, to garner financial support and media coverage. Furthermore,
because these local participatory events have relatively small budgets,
lower sponsorship prices, and less media coverage than do events falling
in the other categories, it is particularly important that local event
managers know and understand the expectations of their patrons in order
to be efficient and effective in event production. These events
simply do not have the resources to spend on service dimensions that participants
consider relatively unimportant.

From a management perspective, participatory event directors should become
familiar with the Gap model of service quality, and in particular, realize
that participant expectations are a key component in participants’ event
satisfaction. Our results indicate that participant skill level
is one variable which can affect participant expectations, and thus a
variable which event directors should consider when planning an event.
Clearly, understanding participant expectations will allow an event
manager to more effectively establish long-term commitment from participants,
direct event production efforts, and inform event budget allocation.
Participatory event managers are often of the mindset that offering more
amenities makes for a more satisfying event. However, given that
few managers have unlimited event budgets, knowing the relative value
of various service dimensions such as (but not limited to) those analyzed
in this study will help managers better direct expenditures, whether this
be increasing spending on important dimensions or decreasing or eliminating
spending on relatively unimportant dimensions. For example, if
a manager is holding a USTA league tournament and has a large number of
high-level athletes (4.5, 5.0), excessive expenditures on banquets and
merchandise would not prove as beneficial as spending resources developing
an optimal tournament draw and schedule (for example, holding the events
at multiple play sites in order to avoid a significant number of matches
running behind schedule) or repairing courts and ensuring the presence
of qualified officials.

Most event managers must be concerned with corporate and municipal fundraising
to supplement the cost of event production. Furthermore, evaluation
of sponsorship relationships and accomplishing return on investment is
crucial as both corporations and municipalities that fund events are seeking
tangible results (Irwin, Asimakopoulos, & Sutton, 1994; Kuzma, Shanklin,
& McCally,1993; Meagher, 1992; Schlossberg, 1992; Stotlar, 1996).
Understanding the participants’ expectations can help event managers
to better match which sponsors will be more successful and can, in turn,
increase the relationships and longevity of sponsor relationships.
For example, if event participants place a relatively strong importance
on peripheral event dimensions, event managers can target hospitality
organizations as likely sponsors whose association with the event would
prove beneficial to both sponsor and event. Additionally, as competition
for both municipal and corporate sponsorship dollars increases, a thorough
understanding of participant expectations becomes increasingly significant.

In this study, the USTA’s Southern sectionals hosted players from beginning
skill level to advanced skill level as participants. This study
hypothesized that 1) players of higher skill (4.0, 4.5, and 5.0) levels
had higher expectations where play-related dimensions were concerned and
2) that players of lower skill levels (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5) had higher expectations
where peripheral dimensions were concerned. Although the first
hypothesis was not supported, one possible explanation pertains to the
championship level of this event. For a team to participate in
a sectional event, it would be necessary for the team to finish in the
top two in their league standings, and subsequently win both their city
and state playoffs. Therefore, even a lower skilled participant
or team would have to be highly competitive to achieve this standing,
and thus place significant importance on play-related service dimensions.
For instance, the Southern sectional tournament in this study was
the first event to have senior 2.5 teams. The implication from
this issue is that event directors who are managing an event of this stature
should consider that all participants will have certain expectations of
the play-related or more technical aspects of the event given their efforts
expended to earn eligibility to participate. Therefore, future
event directors of the USTA’s sectional event should pay particular attention
to play-related dimensions.

Future Research

Athlete skill level is only one factor that can influence event participant
expectations. Future research should be directed toward identifying
and analyzing other factors which might influence such expectations.
For example, the gender of the participant could be hypothesized to influence
their event expectations. It might be hypothesized that relative to male
participants, female participants would generally be more concerned with
souvenirs/merchandise, the tourism attractiveness of the host city, and
hotel/accommodations. This knowledge could help inform decisions such
as the type of hotel used and arranging the city attractions that may
be most attractive in order to meet the female participants’ expectations
more thoroughly. In a similar vein, the age of the participant
might also play a significant role in influencing their expectations.
As enduring service intensifiers such as gender and age are outside
the scope of the current study, this avenue proves ripe for further research.

Future research should also use existing marketing theory on service
quality to springboard into a deeper understanding of participant expectations.
As an example stemming from the current study, consider the zone
of tolerance, used by marketing scholars to explain the difference between
desired service, which represents what the service customer hopes to receive,
and adequate service, which represents the level of service that the customer
will accept as adequate or sufficient. According to service literature,
zones of tolerance are narrower for more important service dimensions
(e.g., Berry, Parasuraman, & Zeithaml, 1993). It could be posited
that for play-related attributes, the zone of tolerance will narrow as
athlete skill level increases. Conversely, for peripheral attributes,
the zone of tolerance will narrow as athlete skill level decreases.
The tolerance zones should narrow primarily due to the effect of skill
level on adequate expectations. For example, while both a 2.5 and
5.0 tennis player would likely desire similar quality in play-related
attributes, the quality that a 5.0 player will accept as adequate
, given his or her competitive focus, is likely to be higher than
that of a 2.5 player. Conversely, while both a 2.5 and 5.0 tennis
player would likely desire similar quality in peripheral attributes,
the quality that a 2.5 player will accept as adequate , given
his or her focus on the “overall event experience”, is likely to be higher
than that of a 5.0 player. Future research addressing propositions
such as these would prove both theoretically and practically interesting.

References

  1. Allen, J., O’Toole, W., McDonnell, I., & Harris, R. (2002).
    Festival and special event management . Australia: John Wiley
    & Sons.
  2. Berry, Leonard L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1993).
    Ten lessons for improving service quality (Marketing Science
    Institute Rep. No. 93-104, May). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
    Institute.
  3. Chang, C, Chen, C., & Hsu, C. (2002). A review of service quality
    in corporate and recreational sport/fitness programs. The Sport
    Journal     , 5(3). Retrieved February 10, 2004 from http://www.thesportjournal.org/2002Journal/Vol5-No3/service-quality.asp.
  4. Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism . NY:
    Cognizant Communication Corporation.
  5. Graham, S., Goldblatt, J., & Delpy, L. (1995). The ultimate
    guide to sport event management and marketing     . Chicago: Richard
    D Irwin.
  6. Gronroos, C. (1983). Strategic management and marketing in the
    service sector     . Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
  7. Hightower, R., Brady, M., & Baker, T. (2002). Investigating
    the role of the physical environment in hedonic service consumption:
    An exploratory study of sporting events. Journal of Business Research
    , 55(9), 697-707.
  8. Irwin, R., Asimakopoulos, M., & Sutton, W. (1994). A model for
    screening sport sponsorship opportunities. Journal of Promotion
    Management     , 2(314), 53-69.
  9. Kelley, S. & Turley, L. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service
    quality attributes at sporting events. Journal of Business Research
    , 54(2), 161-166.
  10. Kuzma, J., Shanklin, W., & McCally, J. (1993). Number one principle
    for sporting events seeking corporate sponsors: Meet benefactor’s
    objectives. Sport Marketing Quarterly , 2(3), 27-32.
  11. Meagher, J. (1992, May). And now, a word from our sponsor. Athletic
    Business     , 14.
  12. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Bitner, Mary J. (1985).
    A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future
    research. Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 41-50.
  13. Schlossberg, H. (1992, October 26). Firms using research to assess
    sponsorship value. Marketing News , 13-15.
  14. Stotlar, D. (1996, October). Trends in US sport sponsorship:
    from philanthropy to retails sales     . Paper presented at the meeting
    of the European Association of Sport Management, Montpellier, France.
  15. Wakefield, K., & Blodgett, J. (1994). The importance of servicescapes
    in leisure service settings. Journal of Service Marketing ,
    8(3), 66-76.
  16. Wakefield, K., Blodgett, J., & Sloan, H. (1996). Measurement
    and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management
    , 10(1), 15-31.
  17. Wakefield, K., & Sloan, H. (1995). The effects of team loyalty
    and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal
    of Sport Management     , 9(2), 153-172.
  18. Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Bitner, Mary J. (2000). Services
    marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm     (2 nd
    ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Table 1

Factor Analysis of Event Service Dimensions

Factor
 
Play
Souvenirs
Hotel
Tournament
Destination
Concessions
Eigenvalue
11.78
3.15
1.74
1.55
1.07
Percent Variance Explained
35.67
9.53
5.28
4.71
3.23
Factor Loadings
Court Condition
.638
Sufficient Practice Courts Avail.
.503
Draw Continually Updated/ Readily Available
.674
Courts Conducive to Spectating
.551
All Matches Played on Same Surface
.564
Well-Equipped Area for Changeover
.686
Extent to Which Match Schedule/Draw Runs on Time
.620
Quality of Officiating
.628
Tournament Officials Readily Available at All Sites
.622
Quality of Souvenir Merchandise
.868
Selection of Souvenir Merchandise
.882
Price of Souvenir Merchandise
.856
Attractiveness of Awards Offered
.683
Free Souvenirs Offered to Participants
.754
Proximity of Hotel to Play Sites
.711
Directions to Tourist Attractions/Restaurants Provided
.500
Avail. of Reasonably Priced Hotels
.760
Avail. of High Quality, Attractive Hotels
.682
Cleanliness of Hotels
.756
Tourist Attractiveness of Host City
.787
Physical Attractiveness of Play Sites
.629
Wide Selection of Restaurants in Host City
.543
Selection of Concessions at Play Sites
.677
Price of Concessions at Play Sites
.692

Table 2

Univariate F-tests (Mean Comparisons) on Service Dimension Factors

Factor
Lower Skilled
Higher Skilled
F
Play
53.73
52.85
1.69
Souvenirs
23.09
20.80
11.95**
Hotel
30.24
28.94
8.62**
Tournament Destination
16.22
15.68
3.39*
Concessions
9.12
8.46
6.09**

Note. **p<.01, *p<.05

Appendix A

  1. Court Condition (court surface, lines, nets)
  2. Sufficient Practice Courts Available
  3. Draw is Continually Updated and Readily Viewable
  4. Courts Conducive to Spectating
  5. All Matches Played on Same Surface Type
  6. Well-Equipped Area for Changeover (water, chairs, etc.)
  7. Extent to which Match/Draw Schedule Runs On-Time
  8. Quality of Officiating
  9. Tournament Officials Readily Available at All Sites
  10. Well-Equipped Locker-Rooms at Play Sites
  11. On-Site Racquet Stringing
  12. Quality of Competition
  13. Medical Staff Present at All Play Sites
  14. Event Results Reported in Local Media
  15. Quality of Souvenir Merchandise (t-shirts, hats, etc.)
  16. Selection of Souvenir Merchandise
  17. Price of Souvenir Merchandise
  18. Attractiveness of Awards Offered
  19. Free Souvenirs Offered to Participants
  20. Quality of Event Social Functions (banquets/parties)
  21. Tourist Attractiveness of Host City
  22. Physical Attractiveness of Play Sites
  23. Wide Selection of Restaurants in Host City
  24. Play-Related Food/Beverage at Play Sites (Fruit, Energy Bars/Drinks)
  25. Selection of Other Concessions at Play Sites (Burgers, Chips, Soft
    Drinks, etc.)
  26. Price of Concessions at Play Sites
  27. Friendliness and Courtesy of Host Site Staff
  28. Host Site Staff Knowledgeable about Host City (restaurants, tourist
    destinations, etc.)
  29. Proximity of Hotels to Play Sites
  30. Directions to Tourist Attractions/Restaurants Provided
  31. Availability of Reasonably Priced Hotels
  32. Availability of High Quality, Attractive Hotels
  33. Cleanliness of Hotels

generic cialis soft canadian pharmacygeneric cialis soft canadian pharmacygeneric cialis soft canadian pharmacygeneric cialis soft canadian pharmacygeneric cialis soft canadian pharmacygeneric cialis soft canadian pharmacy

2017-11-02T13:56:29-05:00March 3rd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on The Importance of Expectations on Participatory Sport Event Satisfaction
Read More

Best Practices For Game Day Security At Athletic & Sport

Submitted by:Dr. Matthew J. Pantera, III, Professor Robert Accorsi, Dr. Christa Winter, Ross Gobeille, Spyros Griveas, Daniel Queen, Jamie Insalaco, & Beth Domanoski – Springfield College, MA.

Introduction

On September 11th, it became abundantly clear that stadium and arena operators needed to incorporate security safeguards at America’s sporting venues. Increased foresight and precautions have become an integral part of standing orders at athletic venues not only for protecting existing facilities, but also in the defense of future sites. The authors of this article formed a team of researchers who conducted a nationwide investigation on the current game day security operations at Division I college football and basketball sporting venues. This research highlighted a number of security precautions that should be taken into consideration during all phases of facility operation: from initial design through post-event debriefing. The authors realize that every venue is different and therefore each site presents unique challenges that stadium, athletic directors and arena managers will need to overcome. For that reason alone, the checklist was constructed by relying on an extensive review of literature along with personal contacts with prominent security professionals across America. An initial instrument was pilot tested for content validation to a select group of Division I institutions along with a small number of professional experts including the Vice Presidents of Security for all four major professional sports leagues. This work resulted in the creation of the “Game Day Security Operations Checklist” that consists of 38 items vital to security preparations at stadiums and arenas.

After designing the instrument, it was sent in a survey packet to all Division I athletic directors and university directors of public safety. The athletic directors chosen to participate in the study were identified through the 2002-2003 National Directory of College Athletics (Collegiate Directories Inc., 2002). The remainders of the study’s participants were identified through a combination of Internet research and personal phone calls to individual institutions. In addition to the Game Day Security Operations Checklist, the survey packet included a cover letter that informed the participants that all information gained from completed surveys would be used by the researchers solely for statistical purposes and would be held to strict confidentiality and anonymity for security purposes.

The participants were asked to rate the frequency with which they implement each of the 38 security measures on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The scale was set as follows: 1 indicating no emphasis (this is not part of our game day operations), 2 indicating moderate emphasis (we feature this at 50% of our athletic events), 3 indicating priority (we feature this at 75% of our athletic events), 4 indicating we feature this (this is part of our standard operating procedure), and 0 indicating no opinion.

One hundred and twenty-one different schools responded to the survey and that is representative of 38% of the Division I colleges and universities in America. Completed surveys were received from all 31 polled conferences.

How Does Your University Match Up Against The Best Prepared Football Stadiums

Figure 1. presents 21 concepts along with the mean score for the most secure stadiums versus stadiums operating at a lower level of security. At the request of numerous athletic directors and a reporter at AP News, the research team also categorized the costs of implementing each precautionary measure. Individual prices are not listed since the costs for each of theses measures varied according to geographic regions. Three levels of cost classifications were utilized and they included: Prohibitive, Moderate, and Low. The authors have included the actual Game Day Security Checklist as a separate addendum for those colleges and universities that did not participate in this research and who might wish to fill out the checklist prior to reading the results listed below.

Figure 1. Differentiating Concepts for Football Stadiums

Security Concept Most Secure Stadiums Lower Level Security Stadiums Cost To Implement Denoted as Prohibitive ($$$), Moderate ($$), and Low ($)
Establish Central Command 4 1 $
Venue Lockdown 4 1 $
Bomb Sniffing Dogs 4 1 $$
90 Minute Pre-event Concession Delivery Minimum 3 1 $
24 Hour Security 4 1 $$
Restricted Areas 4 1 $
Photo Ids for Employees 4 1 $
Formal Risk Management Plan 4 1 $
Pre-event Training 4 1 $$
Coordination with State Police 4 2 $
Formal Evacuation Plan 4 1 $
Awareness Nearby Explosives 4 3 $
Under Cover Surveillance 3 1 $$
No-fly Zones 4 1 $
Mobile ER 4 1 $
No Re-entry 4 1 $
1 Crowd Observer for every 250 Spectators 4 1 $
Security Patrols in Parking Lot 4 1 $$
Periodic Broadcasts Regarding Security Factors 3 1 $
No Carry-ins/ Backpacks 4 1 $
Post-event Debriefing 4 1 $

How Does Your University Match Up Against The Best Prepared Basketball Arenas

21 concepts were identified as being those security measures that separated the highest scoring basketball institutions from the lowest scores in the study. Figure 2. presents these concepts along with the score connected with the top 25% most secure arenas verses the lowest quartile of arenas operating at a lower level of security.

Figure 2. Differentiating Concepts for Basketball Arenas

Security Concept Most Secure Arenas Lower Level Security Arenas Research Cost Denoted as Prohibitive ($$$), Moderate ($$), and Low ($)
Establish Central Command 4 2 $
Venue Lockdown 4 1 $
Bomb Sniffing Dogs 1 1 $$
90 Minute Pre-event Concession Delivery Minimum 2 1 $
24 Hour Security 4 1 $$
Restricted Areas 4 2 $
Photo Ids for Employees 4 1 $
Formal Risk Management Plan 4 2 $
Pre-event Training 4 2 $$
Coordination with State Police 4 2 $
Formal Evacuation Plan 4 3 $
Awareness Nearby Explosives 4 1 $
Under Cover Surveillance 2 1 $$
No-fly Zones 1 1 $
Mobile ER 4 1 $
No Re-entry 4 1 $
1 Crowd Observer for every 250 Spectators 4 1 $
Security Patrols in Parking Lot 4 2 $$
Periodic Broadcasts Regarding Security Factors 3 1 $
No Carry-ins/ Backpacks 4 1 $
Post-event Debriefing 3 1 $

The Best Prepared Football & Basketball Conferences
Football fans anxiously anticipate the release of the preseason top 25 Coaches Poll just as basketball fans burn the midnight oil creating their March Madness brackets looking forward to the Final Four. Just as there can only be a certain number of dominant teams on the gridiron or hardwood, so there are a handful of superior athletic conferences when it comes to Game Day Security Operations. The researchers have discovered the following elite conferences that indicated compliance with the proposed security concepts 75% of the time or more along with their total score, out of a highest possible Game Day Security Operations Checklist total score of 152.

Figure 3. The Best Prepared Conferences

Football (Cumulative Score) Basketball (Cumulative Score)
SEC (100) Big East (88)
Big East (95) SEC (83)
Pac-10 (92) Big 12 (82)
Big 12 (91) Big 10 (81)
Big 10 (89) West Coast Conference (79)
ACC (89) Horizon League (78)
WAC (79)
Mountain West (77)

Figure 3. indicates a number of important results. First, a total of eight conferences participating in Division-I football complied with the proposed security measures at 75% of events while only six basketball-playing conferences achieved the same level of compliance. The researchers believe there are a number of reasons for this discrepancy. First, Division-I football stadiums resemble professional venues to a greater degree than basketball arenas. While this is a generalization, many football stadiums are used almost exclusively for the football games while being located off campus and shut-off from the normal flow of students, faculty, etc. In contrast, basketball arenas are often considered just another on-campus facility. These facilities are often used for classroom space, intramurals, and other daily events. The nature of football stadiums as being isolated from the routine college campus traffic and usage while also being more catered to corporate clients may allow for more stringent security procedures. This is one possible explanation for the discrepancy between the numbers of elite football conferences complying with the proposed security measures as compared to the number of basketball venues reaching the same level of compliance. Another possible explanation is that the number of events scheduled for indoor venues far exceeds the total number of events held in outdoor football stadiums. As usage of a facility increases, so does the cost of securing that venue. With daily usage of basketball arenas, stringent security may tax the university’s capacity to implement the majority of the security measures as part of its standard operating procedure.While a few of the suggested security concepts are admittedly cost prohibitive, such as the deployment of antiterrorism squads and the utilization of biological detection equipment that might be used at the Super Bowl or NCAA finals, in a similar manner that the daily implementation of even the moderate cost items may stress the average athletic department budget, there are methods by which a university may ameliorate this financial burden. For instance, Mr. Bernie Tolbert, Vice President of Security for the National Basketball Association, has suggested rotating the utilization of security concepts from event to event. This will prevent potential security threats from establishing a pattern to a venue’s security measures. Milt Ahlerich, Vice President for NFL Security identified the installation of jersey barriers or other concrete bollards as one of the most important factors. Fifty-six percent of the respondents for football and eighty-one percent of the respondents for basketball have not installed concrete bollards at their venues. While somewhat cost prohibitive, this one time investment coupled with several of the low to moderate cost items like prohibiting re-entry, no carry-ins, and the prohibition of deliveries 90 minutes prior to the event go a long way in securing these sporting venues.

Lessons Learned

The cornerstone of all good research centers on the transformation of theoretical concepts into improved practice. Similarly, just as teamwork is the cornerstone of all successful athletic programs, so communication is the foundation of all safe sport venues. If the unique atmosphere of collegiate athletics is to be preserved, and the excitement of Rivalry Week, Midnight Madness, New Year’s Day bowl games, and the Final Four is to be enjoyed by future generations of fans, then athletic directors and directors of public safety at college campuses need to scrutinize their game plans well in advance of the kickoff and tip-off of each season. Furthermore, coordinated communication must be a priority from pre-event training through post event debriefing. Several NFL teams including the Buffalo Bills and the Jacksonville Jaguars have planned and practiced coordinated responses to a variety of disaster scenarios. Stadium and arena managers with the support of their college and university presidents should develop and practice coordinated responses to a variety of disaster scenarios with their local, state, and federal first responders. Just as all players on a team need to have intimate knowledge of where they are supposed to be on the field or court and the responsibilities that accompany that position, so all athletic directors and support staff must be familiar with their particular roles and responsibilities. Simple knowledge of individual responsibility, however, is not sufficient. This is why constant communication both in the air and on the ground from within the hot zone and outside the hot zone is vital to the protection of collegiate athletic events should an attack take place. The head coach serves as the hub of all team communication and game plans just as the central command of a stadium or arena directs all communication efforts and coordinates the formal planning, from risk management to evacuation, that is necessary to securing the safety of players, coaches, the media, and the fanatical supporters in the stands.

Final Thoughts

The Springfield College faculty and students that comprised the Game Day Security Checklist Research Team for stadium designers and operators are hopeful that this easy reference checklist will be useful as the security and operation experts on the front lines develop their strategies to safeguard their athletic and sport venues. The Research team would also like to thank experts Martin Boryszak, Kathy Larue, and John Pantera for their counter-terrorism consultations. A special word of thanks is extended to Larry Perkins, General Manager of the RBC Center in North Carolina, and to the Vice Presidents of Security for each of the four professional leagues, most especially Milton Ahlerich, Vice President Security NFL, and Bernie Tolbert, Vice President Security NBA and Distinguished Weckwerth Lecturer, Springfield College Sport Management & Recreation Department 2003.

2016-10-12T11:55:38-05:00March 3rd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Best Practices For Game Day Security At Athletic & Sport
Read More

Inherent Conflicts of Interest in the National Football League Management Structure May Render the Rooney Rule Meaningless

Submitted by: Corey M. Turner, J.D./M.S.W

Introduction

Recently, the National Football League (NFL) has come under attack for its minority hiring practices at the upper echelon management positions. Lawyers Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. and Cyrus Mehri have notified the NFL that they will sue unless substantial progress is made by the NFL in the hiring of African-Americans for head coaching positions. The NFL’s response was to enact the Rooney Rule, a league policy requiring each team to interview at least one minority candidate when seeking to fill a head coaching vacancy.

Although the NFL continues to face external opposition to the Rooney Rule which many opponents state is not aggressive enough, its most formidable opposition may be internal, occasioned by the inherent conflicts of interest in the NFL’s own management structure. This article will explore the conflicts of interest inherent in the league’s structure, including the respective roles of the NFL Commissioner and league owners.

Background

The 2003-2004 National Football League season marks the league’s 83rd year since its inception in 1920. While, currently, nearly 70% of all NFL players are African American, only 3 of 32 head coaches are African-American(Simmons, 2003). In fact, the NFL’s track record in the hiring of black coaches throughout its existence has not been much better. When considering the over 400 head coaches hired all-time by the NFL, only 7 have been African-American revealing a grossly inadequate percentage of 1.75%.(Cochran & Mehri, 2002)

As illustrated in the following table, there have only been 6 African-American head coaches in the modern NFL, commencing with Art Shell in 1989. Prior to Shell, the NFL had not hired an African American head coach in sixty-four years.(Cochran & Mehri, 2002)

Table 1

African-American Head Coaches in the NFL

COACH TEAM TENURE
Fritz Pollard
Hammond Indiana Pros
1923 – 1925
Art Shell
Los Angeles Raiders
1989 – 1994
Dennis Green
Minnesota Vikings
1992 – 2001
Ray Rhodes
Philadelphia Eagles
Green Bay Packers
1995 – 1998
1999
Tony Dungy
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Indianapolis Colts
1996 – 2001
2002 –
Herman Edwards
New York Jets
2001 –
Marvin Lewis
Cincinnati Bengals
2003 –

In response to a September 2002 study by Janice Madden, Ph.D., commissioned by attorneys Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. and Cyrus Mehri titled “Black Coaches in the National Football League: Superior Performance, Inferior Opportunities” and a threatened lawsuit against the NFL for its unfair hiring practices by the two noted attorneys, the NFL’s owners agreed, in principle, in December 2002 to implement a league policy requiring that any team seeking to hire a head coach would have to interview at least one minority candidate.(Farrell, 2003) This new rule became known as the “Rooney Rule”, named after the Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, who serves as chairman of the NFL’s workplace diversity committee.(Lions’ Millen fined $200K for not interviewing minority candidate, 2003). Despite the NFL’s proactive attempt to address its own minority hiring practice problems, the Rooney Rule may never have a meaningful impact due to the inherent conflicts of interest posed by the NFL’s management structure. A “conflict of interest” is defined as a situation when an individual has a conflict between competing duties or between private interests and professional responsibilities. How does an NFL owner who sits on the league’s diversity committee and believes in the Rooney Rule in theory not in practice enforcement of the rule against other owners and himself? How does the NFL Commissioner who is hired by the owners and is accountable to the owners enforce the Rooney Rule against those very same owners?

The NFL Commissioner

In March 1941 the NFL named Elmer Layden its first commissioner. In broad terms, a commissioner’s role is to exercise broad administrative or judicial authority. More specifically, the NFL Commissioner manages the business affairs of the league and is its most visible representative.

The management structure of the NFL reveals the inherent conflicts of interest when considering the juxtaposition of the commissioner and the league’s owners in the context of such structure. While the commissioner is an employee of the owners, he also, in many ways, directs, oversees and otherwise polices the owners in the due course of his role in running the day-to-day operations of the NFL. For example, the commissioner may discipline an owner for violating a standing NFL regulation under the guise of maintaining the sanctity and integrity of the sport. However, this power is anything but unbridled as the owners hire the commissioner, and possess mechanisms to fire him when his decisions are adverse to their interests (Wong, 2002). If a commissioner’s paramount concern is his very own job security, how does he simultaneously do what is in the best interest of the sport in the face of the owners’ divergent interests?

Another glaring conflict of interest which compromises the commissioner’s ability to fairly carry out the duties of his office are the politics involved in pleasing the owners as a collective group. As a result of the varying and sometimes conflicting interests of the owners, in order to be effective, the commissioner must be diplomatic and political in his approach if he wishes to have a successful and lengthy tenure in office (Wong, 2002). How does the commissioner simultaneously, for instance, weigh the interests of owners of big market teams vs. the interests of owners of small market teams? Does he simply side with the more influential owners in name of his own job security, notwithstanding a potentially detrimental impact on the sport?

The commissioner also manages issues involving players. When the players and owners have opposing positions on a particular issue the commissioner’s conflict of interest is pronounced. Fortunately for players, the commissioner’s power over the players is regulated by three main documents: the league’s Basic Agreement, the Uniform Player Contract, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Wong, 2002).

Despite the adoption of the three main documents, professional athletes in the big four sports leagues (i.e., NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB) recognized the inherent conflicts of interest in the commissioner acting as arbitrator between players and owners in grievance proceedings. “First, players asserted that the commissioner would not be able to remain impartial if the grievance was against a decision he himself had made. Second, the players claimed that the commissioner of a professional sports league is hired and fired by the owners of that league, and therefore is not an impartial entity but may have a bias toward the owners.”(Wong, 2002) As result, players demanded and were granted a system whereby an independent party would act as final arbitrator.

The Owners

In 1900 William C. Temple took over the team payments for the Duquesne Country and Athletic Club, becoming the first known individual club owner.(NFL.com) Owners in the modern NFL are still individual or private franchise owners. As mentioned previously, the owners hire a commissioner who is charged with operating the league on a day-to-day basis and generally hire an individual they believe will advocate for their own best interest. It is not surprising then, that the current NFL commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, served as the NFL’s principal outside counsel prior to becoming commissioner. (Sportsencyclopedia.com)

The owners establish league policies through a committee structure. Through membership on the various committees (e.g., finance, rules, diversity, etc.), owner’s set policy which, in theory, promotes the sport’s long-term viability, maintains its integrity, sanctity, commercial appeal, etc. Policies approved by the various committees are implemented and enforced by the commissioner. Finally, the owners operate their individual teams all of whom must abide by the policies set by the various committees and enforced by the commissioner.

The NFL’s management structure pertaining to owners as outlined above, also reveals inherent conflicts of interest. The owners hire the commissioner and author policies as committee members that the commissioner must, in turn, enforce against them as individual franchise owners. The owners as a collective group must also be able to place the best interests of the league ahead of their individual interests as franchise owners. How does an owner simultaneously consider conflicts of interest posed by weighing their individual goals against that of the league’s and the sport’s goals as whole?

Conclusion

Due to the NFL’s management structure, which is fraught with inherent conflicts of interest, the commissioner, who is beholden to the owners, is reduced to figure head status when it comes to the enforcement of league policies such as the Rooney Rule. Sure, the commissioner is empowered to levy penalties (e.g., monetary fines, etc.) against teams that violate league policy, but such disciplinary action is discretionary with the interpretation of the letter and spirit of the rule left to the devices of the commissioner on a case-by-case basis.

The conflicts of interest in the NFL’s management structure were, by design, created by the owners to benefit the owners. Therefore, in order for the Rooney Rule or any other policy to have a meaningful impact the owners must embrace it, not only in theory, but also in practice. The commissioner may attempt to cajole the owners into complying with a policy, but it is the owners who must actually take action. Owners must embrace a policy to the point that it becomes embedded as the normal and accepted way that business is conducted, notwithstanding conflicts of interest in management structure. This is the only way a league policy, fair hiring or otherwise, will have a meaningful effect.

Simmons, C. R. (2003, August 11). Cochran and Mehri Take Aim at the NFL. Blackenterprise.com. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.blackenterprise.com/ExclusivesOpen.asp? Source=Articles/11142002CS.html

Cochran, J. L., & Mehri, C. (2002). Black Coaches in the National Football League: Superior Performance, Inferior Opportunities. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.findjustice.com/ms/nfl/indextop.html

Farrell, W. C. (2003, August 3). Walsh Network Produces Diversity as Well as Success. The New York Times, Section 8-11

 Lions’ Millen fined $200K for not interviewing minority candidates. (2003, July 25). CBS SportsLine.com. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6498949

Wong, G. M. (2002). Essentials of Sports Law (3rd ed.). Connecticut: Praeger, p. 13

NFL History — Chronology 1869-1910. NFL.com. Retrieved August 12, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://ww2.nfl.com/history/chronology/1869-1910.html

Paul Tagliabue (1989-Present). (2002, August 26). Sportsecyclopedia.com. Retrieved August 13, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/comish/tagliabue.html

Author’s Note:

Corey M. Turner, J.D./M.S.W. is an Adjunct Professor of Sports Law and Ethics in the Graduate School of Business at the Metropolitan College of New York and Instructor of Business Law / Corporations at the New York Paralegal School. He is also Principal in The Turner Law Firm, P.C., a New York City Corporate, Entertainment and Securities firm.

2020-10-06T08:28:12-05:00March 3rd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Inherent Conflicts of Interest in the National Football League Management Structure May Render the Rooney Rule Meaningless
Read More

An Investigation of Environmental Motivation Factors Affecting Fans of Minor League Baseball

Submitted by: Dr. Soonhwan Lee, Dr. Cynthia Ryder, and Dr. Hee-Joon Shin

Although they are important to the sports spectator experience, there have been few studies of crowd control, concession services, parking, and the like. These environmental motivation factors as they affect fans of specified sports were the focus of this study, which took as its premise that fans of a given sport differ from fans of other given sports in terms of their motivation to follow the progress of a team. The neo-Marxist critique of spectator sports in capitalist society holds that sports spectators are more likely than nonspectators to be actively involved both in sports and in other cultural activities, including politics. Furthermore, many spectator sports actually tend to increase hostility and aggression in fans, rather than rendering fans apathetic or providing them the lucid equivalent of an Aristotelian catharsis (Guttmann, 1981). From ancient times to the present, individuals who have demonstrated allegiance or devotion to a particular sport, a particular team, and/or a particular player have been classified as sports fans.

According to previous studies (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Zhang, Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995), there are four major factors that affect spectators’ decisions about attending games. The attractiveness of the home team is a first and vital consideration. Individual players’ skill, league standing, breaking of prior records, team record, performance, and star players together affect fans’ attendance at games (Zhang et al.,1997). In Greenstein and Marcum’s study (1981) of Major League Baseball from 1946 to 1975, hypothesized reasons for attendance at games were teams’ win-loss records, pitching staff, and home-run batters. The study results showed that 25% of the variance in attendance was due to team performance. Jones (1984) found a number of significant factors related to hockey game attendance: a winning home team relative to the league, a qualified visiting team relative to the league, a game’s role in progress to season play-offs, superstar players, and preference as to team style (i.e., fighting vs. skating).

The attractiveness of the visiting team (its quality, the presence of star players, the strength of its rivalry with the home team, etc.) is a second major factor in fans’ decision making about game attendance (Zhang et al., 1997), and a third is economic variables including ticket pricing, promotions, and advertising (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Zhang et al., 1995). Promotions and income have been found to relate positively to game attendance, while ticket price, televising of games, available entertainment alternatives, and available sport-event alternatives have generally been found to relate negatively to game attendance (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Bird, 1982; Siegfried & Eisenberg, 1980; Zhang et al., 1995). The fourth significant factor in fans’ decisions to attend games is audience preference, meaning, for example, game schedules, convenience, stadium quality, weather, and team history in a community. Weekend games and end-of-season games increase attendance, while afternoon games decrease attendance; showing no effect on attendance are double headers and home dates (Drever & MacDonald, 1981; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Hay & Thueson, 1986; Hill, Madura, & Zuber, 1982; Siegfried & Eisenberg, 1980). In addition, team attractiveness variables and audience preference variables have generally been found to relate positively to game attendance (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Becker & Suls, 1983; Bird, 1982; Demmert, 1973; Godbey & Robinson, 1979; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Jones, 1984; Wall & Myers, 1989; Whitney, 1988; Zech, 1981).

Employing psychological and sociological theories concerning sports fans, Wakefield and Sloan (1995) sought to identify specific stadium factors affecting attendance. Their study argued that spectators who enjoyed spending time at a stadium should be relatively likely to want to spend additional time there, while conversely, spectators who had had an unpleasant experience at a stadium should be relatively unlikely to want to spend additional time there (and risk repetition of the unpleasant experience). Stadium qualities that have been considered environmental motivation factors include parking, cleanliness, comfort (or convenience), food service, and fan behavior, as outlined below.

Where stadium parking spaces are ample, spectators’ enjoyment of the stadium experience may be enhanced. Low-tolerance and task-oriented individuals may experience frustration if locating a parking space and/or walking in to the stadium require excessive amounts of time (Bitner, 1992; Snodgrass, Russell, & Ward, 1988). Spectators dissatisfied with parking conditions are relatively likely to leave a game early and express less satisfaction with their stadium experience.

The cleanliness of a stadium is primarily a function of stadium service quality. For instance, as a game progresses, restrooms and concession areas can fill with trash and spilled food and drink. Spectators confronting such refuse may feel unwilling to use the facilities and may become dissatisfied (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

Physical comfort in a stadium is, as Melnick (1993) found, another important factor. The width of aisles and hallways, the arrangement of seats, and the amount of room afforded for concessions and restroom facilities (which may also be thought of as the convenience of stadium facilities) should be sufficient to accommodate social interaction and facilitate enjoyment of the game. A spectator who feels uncomfortable because other spectators are too close or who feels hampered in exiting the stands and accessing restrooms or concessions may leave a game early and hesitate to attend further games (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

From a food service perspective, spectators are virtually held captive in the stadium for the three or more hours before and during a game (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). By offering a variety of appetizing foods, a stadium facility enhances the spectator’s sports encounter.

Finally, fan behavior that is offensive to or abusive of fellow fans may, Bernstein noted (1991), prompt some spectators to leave a game early, especially when such behavior continues throughout a game. Both players’ behavior and the intensity of the two opponents’ rivalry affect fan behavior, as does alcohol consumption.  When stadium managers and personnel carefully monitor fan behavior, moving quickly to end unpleasant situations (in other words, when they practice crowd control), many negative experiences on the part of their patrons can be prevented (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

In addition, while each of the five preceding stadium factors would be expected to influence all spectators, those spectators who are most loyal to the home team should be relatively likely to stay throughout a game and to return to the stadium in future, due to their loyalty to the team. In other words, spectators who are loyal to the home team are likely to want to spend time at the stadium, and to return, primarily due to a desire to see the team play (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

]Methodology[

The purpose of this study was to examine environmental motivation factors and fan loyalty affecting Alabama residents whose communities had no Major League Baseball team, but did have a Class AA Minor League Baseball (MiLB) team. Specifically, the study sought to ascertain the types of environmental factors (parking, crowd control, stadium cleanliness, convenient facilities, and food and beverage service) affecting fans who are attending professional baseball games. Fan loyalty to specific baseball teams was also analyzed.

To obtain fan responses reflecting realistic evaluations of the related stadium and environmental factors, Wakefield and Sloan’s (1995) adapted Stadium Factors Measurement questionnaire was modified and used with an on-site distribution and collection strategy during each July 2001 home game of the Mobile (Alabama) BayBears. The BayBears are a Class AA MiLB team in the Southern League and play in Hank Aaron Stadium. The questionnaire was distributed in all 14 seating sections of the stadium. The researchers employed a stratified random sampling method with no discriminating factors except age.  Any qustionnaire collected by the researchers that had been completed by an individual under 18 years of age was excluded. Age discrimination was made subjectively in the effort to exclude children whose visit to the baseball stadium was believed to have been influenced by their parents. To promote fans’ participation in the survey, the BayBears organization provided to participants complimentary tickets to any upcoming regular season game in 2001.

To obtain reliability estimates and to establish the construct validity of the instrument, a pilot study was conducted before the data were collected from the final target population. Administration of the existing instrument also served as a field test further establishing its content and face validity. After the questionnaire items had been formulated, the survey was administered to 46 United States Sports Academy graduate students who had survey experience. Their remarks were sought concerning the appropriateness of the questionnaire, relevance of its content, clarity of its questions, ease of completion, and time required for completion. Based on the 46 students’ responses, a few minor changes were made to the instrument. In its final form, the instrument contained 20 items on four pages; average time to complete the survey was 3–4 min.

The 20 separate items comprising the survey covered both sociodemographic characteristics and environmental motivation factors. Participants’ sociodemographic information included demographics as well as behavioral variables. Demographic variables were gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, education level, employment status, income, and residence. Behavioral variables were game attendance rate, type of ticket purchased, reasons for following favorite teams’ progress, and preferred means of following favorite teams’ progress (e.g., at ball park, by television broadcast, by radio broadcast, etc.).

The modified Stadium Factors Measurement questionnaire was used with a 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale was developed and employed in order to indicate respondents’ characteristics related to environmental motivation factors and team loyalty.

]Results[

The data were collected from a stratified random sample of respondents (N = 282) at the Hank Aaron Stadium in Mobile, Alabama. The sample consisted of 155 males (n = 155, 55%) and 127 females (n = 112, 45%) (Table 1). To simplify the data analysis, the variable age was first recoded in seven categories: 18–20 years, 21–30 years, 31–40 years, 41–50 years, 51–60 years, 61–70 years, and 71 or more years. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 74 years (M = 37.97, SD = 13.07), with 89% falling between age 21 and age 60. Those fans age 18–20 constituted 6% of the sample, while fans 61 years old or older constituted 5.3% of the sample.

The majority of respondents were Caucasian (n = 251, 89.0%), followed by African-American (n = 27, 9.6%), Hispanic (n = 2, 0.7%), Asian (n =1, 0.4%), and other (n = 1, 0.4%). The majority of respondents were married (n = 180, 63.8%). Some 30% (n = 82) had completed college, and approximately 29% (n = 81) had some college education (respondents who had earned a graduate degree or completed some graduate study comprised 17.3% of the sample, n = 49). About 71% (n = 201) of the respondents were employed; 10% were full-time homemakers. Most of the respondents (n = 236, 83.7%) were residents of Alabama, although 46 individuals (16.3%) were nonresidents. More than half the respondents had yearly incomes between $20,000 and $59,999, while another 13.5% earned between $60,000 and $79,999 annually; those earning more than $80,000 comprised about 13% of the sample. The remaining 20% (approximately) had incomes below $20,000 (Table 1).

Concerning game attendance rates, during the previous season, approximately 57.0% of the study respondents (n = 159) had attended BayBears games (including home and away games) less than 3 times per month. In addition, 18.1% of the sample (n = 51) were attending their first BayBears game. The third largest group of respondents reported attending games  3 to 5 times per month during the previous season. Most of the survey participants were attending the game using a single-game ticket (n = 183, 64.9%); 33 respondents had used a group ticket to attend the game (n = 33, 11.7%). The remaining 23% of respondents fell in 5 categories: full-season ticket (4.6%), half-season ticket (2.5%), package ticket (5.7%), guest of season ticket holder (6.4%), and other, for instance a complimentary ticket (4.3%).

More than 25.0% of the respondents (n = 78) said that they followed a favorite baseball team because they had grown up in the host city or state; another 26.0% said they followed a particular team because of its geographic location. Having family members who liked the team was a reason cited by 11.0% of the sample for following a particular team. The presence of a favorite player on the team was the reason given by 11.7% of the sample for following a given team. The majority of respondents (n = 222, 78.7%) reported following a favorite baseball team by watching television; other means employed to follow teams were going to ball parks (n = 24, 8.5%), magazine and/or newspaper coverage (n = 16, 5.7%), Internet coverage (n = 9, 3.2%), radio coverage (n = 3, 1.1%), and other, such as information gained from friends or family members (n = 8, 2.8%) (Table 2).

Analysis of the data on environmental motivation factors in respondents’ attendance at the baseball stadium (Table 3) showed that the most important such factor was cleanliness (M = 5.47, SD = 1.33). Next in importance was convenient facilities (M = 5.40, SD = 1.36), followed by parking (M = 5.33, SD = 1.52), and “fan control” (M = 5.27, SD = 1.36). In terms of team loyalty, the respondents demonstrated positive opinions about a favorite MiLB baseball team even when stadium-related environmental factors were unsatisfactory (M = 5.00, SD = 1.36).

In addition, a group of t tests was employed to look for significant differences in environmental motivation factors affecting Alabama residents and nonresidents (Table 4). Those survey participants who were Alabama residents had significantly higher “loyalty factor” scores (M = 5.15, SD = 1.45) than did nonresident participants (M = 4.26, SD = 1.98), at the .01 level. No other significant difference between residents and nonresidents was observed for the remaining environmental motivation factors considered in the study.

Multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the relationship of loyalty to environmental motivation factors (Table 5). The multiple regression analysis showed three environmental motivation factors to be significantly predictive of the loyalty variable: parking (at the .01 level), convenient facilities (at the .01 level), and food and beverage services (at the .05 level).  The regression model explained 38.9% of variance.

The results of correlation analyses indicated correlations among the environmental motivation factors (Table 6). Significant positive relationships were found among all environmental motivation items, as follows:

1. correlation between parking and stadium cleanliness, r  =  .697 (p < .01)

2. correlation between parking and convenient facilities, r = .567 (p < .01)

3. correlation between parking and food and beverage services, r  =  .489 (p < .01)

4. correlation between parking and fan control, r = .598 (p < .01)

5. correlation between parking and team loyalty, r = .499 (p < .01)

6. correlation between stadium cleanliness and convenient facilities, r = .721 (p < .01)

7. correlation between stadium cleanliness and food and beverage services, r = .532 (p < .01)

8. correlation between stadium cleanliness and fan control, r = .673 (p < .01)

9. correlation between stadium cleanliness and team loyalty, r = .459 (p < .01)

10. correlation between convenient facilities and food and beverage services, r = .604 (p < .01)

11. correlation between convenient facilities and fan control, r = .745 (p < .01)

12. correlation between convenient facilities and team loyalty, r = .572 (p < .01)

Furthermore, significant positive relationships were found between food and beverage services and fan control (r  =  .710, p < .01), between food and beverage services and team loyalty (r = .482, p < .01), and between fan control and team loyalty (r = .531, p < .01). All correlations were significant at the .01 level.

Finally, one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed to compare the mean vector scores for the six environmental motivation items with respect to the behavioral variables. The structural coefficients were used to define a function based on an eigenvalue equal to .30, while the standardized coefficients were used to test redundancy of environmental motivation items (Pease & Zhang, 2001). The results of MANOVA showed significant effects on environmental motivation items both for attendance rate, Multivariate F(30, 1086) = .807, p = .001, and for ticket type, Multivariate F(36, 1188) = .811, p =.013. On the other hand, remaining MANOVA results indicated no significant effect for reason for following favorite teams, Multivariate F(42, 1265) = .868, p = .619, and no significant effect for preferred means of following favorite teams, Multivariate F(30, 1086) = .879, p = .224.

Specifically, respondents’ mean vector scores differed significantly,  at the .01 level, based on attendance rate for the preceding baseball season. The loyalty item was the main contributing factor: Respondents who had attended every home game of the preceding season had a higher mean. In addition, their mean vector scores differed significantly, at the .05 level, based on type of ticket used for game attendance. Two factors, parking and loyalty, were the main contributing factors. Respondents using single-game tickets had higher mean scores for parking and stadium cleanliness than did respondents using other kinds of tickets. Respondents using package tickets scored higher than other respondents on items pertaining to convenient facilities and fan control. Respondents who were guests of season ticket holders scored higher than other respondents on items pertaining to food and beverage services and team loyalty. Mean vector scores did not differ significantly, however, in terms of respondents’ reasons for following or preferred means of following a favorite team (Table 7).

Discussion and Recommendations

Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard (2000) have argued that a variety of marketing strategies should be applied with different types of sports consumers they refer to as “high loyal fans,” “spurious loyal fans,” “latent loyal fans,” and “low loyal fans.” Varied strategies are necessary in light of the different consumers’ differing motivations and/or reasons for attending professional sports events and making commitments to professional sports teams. The present study focused on sociodemographics and environmental motivation factors, knowledge of which may affect professional baseball franchises’ marketing strategies and frameworks. While the present study focused on residents of a state that hosts no major-league professional teams, its results may inform the development of efficient business concepts for minor-league professional teams.

The study respondents’ views on environmental motivation items suggest a number of ways to maintain fan satisfaction, perhaps thereby increasing attendance. The three most important concern stadium cleanliness, parking, and convenient facilities; relative satisfaction with these factors affects the likelihood that a spectator will return to the stadium in the future. Wakefield and Sloan’s similar results (1995) led them to advise MiLB administrators to emphasize efforts to ensure that parking, cleanliness, convenience, food and beverage services, and crowd control satisfy the baseball fans who attend games. The present study found, in particular, a correlation between team loyalty and the other environmental motivation factors, and loyalty of course plays one of the biggest roles in determining fans’ willingness to attend games. For this reason, administrators of MiLB teams should use a well-prepared stadium environment to appeal to each of Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard’s types of sports consumer.

Recommendations for future studies are, first, an extension of the scaled motivation items to include psychological and sociological motivation, adding for example promotional events, frequency of media exposure, family effects, and gambling factors. Second, the findings of this study suggest a link to be explored between baseball fans’ motivation to attend games and judgments about satisfaction with game attendance.

 

Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics, Frequency and Percentage
Sociodemographic Characteristic
Frequency
Percentage
Age, in Years (N = 282)
18–20
17
6.0
21–30
19
28.0
31–40
84
29.8
41–50
47
16.7
51–60
40
14.2
61–70
11
3.9
71 or over
4
1.4
Gender (N = 282)
Male
155
55.0
Female
127
45.0
 

Ethnicity (N = 282)

 
Caucasian 251 89.0
African-American 27 9.6
Asian 1 .4
Hispanic 2 .7
Other 1 .4
 

Marital Status (N = 282)

 
Never married 65 23.0
Married 180 63.8
Divorced 26 9.2
Separated 2 .7
Widowed 5 1.8
Other 4 1.4
 

Education Level (N = 282)
Lower than high school 9 3.2
Graduated from high school 61 21.6
Some college 81 28.7
Completed college 82 29.1
Some graduate study 19 6.7
Earned graduate degree 30 10.6
 

Employment Status (N = 282)

 
Employed 201 71.3
Unemployed 9 3.2
Retired 23 8.2
Full-time homemaker 28 9.9
Student 17 6.0
Other 4 1.4
 

Residential Status (N = 282)

 
Alabama resident 236 83.7
Not a resident of Alabama 46 16.3
 

Annual Income Level (N = 266)

 
Below $20,000 55 20.7
$20,000–$39,999 65 24.4
$40,000–$59,999 76 28.6
$60,000–$79,999 36 13.5
$80,000–$99,999 16 6.0
Above $100,000 18 6.8

Table 2 Fan Behavior, Frequency and Percentage
Behavior Variable
Frequency Percentage
 

Game Attendance Rate
First time attending a game 51 18.1
Less than 3 times per month during preceding season 159 56.4
3–5 times per month during preceding season 44 15.6
6–10 times per month during preceding season 11 3.9
Every home game during preceding season 14 5.0
Every BayBears game during preceding season 3 1.1
 

Ticket Type

 
Full-season ticket 13 4.6
Half-season ticket 7 2.5
Package ticket 16 5.7
Single-game ticket 183 64.9
Group ticket 33 11.7
Guest of season ticket holder 18 6.4
Other 12 4.3
 

Reasons for Following Favorite Teams’ Progress
Because I grew up in that state and/or city 78 27.7
Because I frequently visited the team’s ballpark with my parents 23 8.2
Because of the team’s location near my current hometown 74 26.2
Because my family (spouse, parents, children) likes the team 31 11.0
Because I remember the team treated me well as a customer 2 .7
Because the team has my favorite players 33 11.7
Because I have a membership of the team 1 .4
Other reasons 40 14.2
 

Preferred Means of Following Favorite Teams’ Progress
At ball park
By television broadcast
By radio broadcast By Internet
Magazine and/or newspaper coverage
Other

Table 3 Relative Importance of Environmental Motivation Variables
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because convenient parking spaces are easily available. 5.33 1.52
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because I like the cleanliness of the stadium. 5.47 1.33
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because there are enough and convenient facilities, including hallways, space and arrangements of seats, concessions, restrooms, etc. 5.40 1.36
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because the food and beverage services are very good. 4.91 1.42
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because of good stadium fan control. 5.27 1.36
Even if the above question items (E1 through E5) are not satisfied, I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because I am loyal to the BayBears. 5.00 1.58

Table 4 Importance of Environmental Motivation Factors by Alabama Residence vs. Nonresidence
Variable Alabama Resident Mean Number of Respondents Standard Deviation t p
Parking Yes
No		 5.39
5.02		 236
46		 1.51
1.51		 1.54 .125
Cleanliness Yes
No		 5.50
5.32		 236
46		 1.32
1.38		 0.81 .420
Convenient facilities Yes
No		 5.44
5.19		 236
46		 1.33
1.48		 1.14 .256
Food / beverage services Yes
No		 4.93
4.80		 236
46		 1.37
1.66		 0.51 .616
Fan control Yes
No		 5.27
5.23		 236
46		 1.35
1.44		 0.18 .855
Team loyalty Yes
No		 5.15
4.26		 236
46		 1.45
1.98		 2.90** .005
Note: Yes = residents of Alabama, No = nonresidents of Alabama
** Indicates significance at the .01 level

Table 5 Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Relationship of Team Loyalty to Environmental Motivation
Variable
B
SE B
B
t
p
Constant .730 .348 2.097* .037
Parking .261 .071 .250 3.662** .000
Cleanliness -.124 .098 -.104 -1.255 .210
Convenient facilities .453 .092 .388 4.900** .000
Food .178 .074 .160 2.424* .016
Fan control .045 .100 .039 .447 .655
R = .623; R2 = .389; F = 35.099** Dependent variable: team loyalty
* Indicates significance at the .05 level
** Indicates significance at the .01 level
Dependent variable: team loyalty

Table 6 Correlations Among Environmental Motivation Items
  Parking Cleanliness Convenient Facilities Food/Beverage Services Fan Control Team Loyalty
Parking 1.00
Cleanliness .697** 1.00
Facility .567** .721** 1.00
Food .489** .532** .604** 1.00
Fan control .598** .673** .745** .710** 1.00
Loyalty .499** .459** .572** .482** .531** 1.00

Spearman rho, ** Indicates significance at the .01 level

Table 7 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Environmental Motivation Items with Respect to Behavioral Variables
Behavior Variable
Parking
Clean
  

Facility

  

Food
Fan Control
Loyalty
Attendance Rate in Preceding Season:
Wilks’s (30, 1086) = .807,
p = .001
  Mean

(Standard Deviation)

  Mean(Standard Deviation)  Mean(Standard Deviation)  Mean(Standard Deviation)  Mean(Standard Deviation)  Mean(Standard Deviation)
Never 5.06
(1.27)		 5.20
(1.23)		 5.21
(1.37)		 5.02
(1.33)		 5.16
(1.35)		 4.47
(1.56)
Less than 3 times per month
5.42
(1.45)
5.49
(1.34)
5.36
(1.33)
4.92
(1.34)
5.21
(1.32)
4.90
(1.51)
3–5 times per month
5.32
(1.76)
5.61
(1.35)
5.59
(1.35)
4.82
(1.50)
5.41
(1.33)
5.36
(1.49)
6–10 times per month
5.27
(1.79)
5.82
(1.17)
5.63
(1.29)
4.27
(2.37)
5.18
(1.89)
6.09
(1.64)
Every home game
5.50
(2.17)
5.86
(1.61)
6.00
(1.66)
5.21
(1.72)
5.86
(1.66)
6.28
(1.73)
Every BayBears game
5.33
(1.53)
4.67
(1.53)
4.67
(1.15)
5.00
(1.00)
6.00
(1.00)
4.67
(1.15)
Ticket Type:
Wilks’s (36, 1188) = .811,
p = .013
Full-season ticket
5.00
(1.73)
5.31
(1.70)
5.23
(1.64)
4.85
(1.07)
5.08
(1.66)
5.46
(1.76)
Half-season ticket
5.43
(1.13)
5.43
(1.40)
5.14
(.90)
4.71
(.76)
5.00
(.00)
4.86
(1.86)
Package ticket
5.44
(1.96)
5.87
(1.45)
5.56
(1.71)
4.62
(2.06)
5.62
(1.78)
5.44
(1.90)
Single-game ticket
5.55
(1.38)
5.60
(1.21)
5.51
(1.25)
4.98
(1.42)
5.41
(1.28)
5.11
(1.53)
Group ticket
4.64
(1.76)
5.00
(1.66)
4.85
(1.72)
4.57
(1.58)
4.57
(1.52)
4.18
(1.45)
Guest of season ticket holder
4.94
(1.70)
5.00
(1.53)
5.55
(1.46)
5.17
(1.29)
5.17
(1.54)
5.61
(1.19)
Other
4.75
(1.42)
5.17
(.83)
5.17
(.94)
5.08
(.67)
5.08
(.79)
3.83
(1.58)
Reasons for Following Favorite Teams’ Progress:
Wilks’s (42, 1265) = .868,
p = .619
Because I grew up in that state and/or city

 
5.49
(1.37)
5.46
(1.24)
5.37
(1.33)
4.99
(1.49)
5.32
(1.39)
5.00
(1.59)
Because I frequently visited the team’s ballpark with my parents
6.09
(1.00)
5.78
(.90)
5.22
(1.28)
4.91
(1.00)
5.30
(1.02)
5.17
(1.37)
Because of the team’s location near my current hometown
5.16
(1.53)
5.43
(1.43)
5.32
(1.28)
4.67
(1.43)
5.08
(1.33)
4.85
(1.35)
Because my family (spouse, parents, children) likes the team
5.32
(1.64)
5.52
(1.52)
5.68
(1.42)
5.00
(1.37)
5.45
(1.50)
5.32
(1.74)
Because I remember the team treated me well as a customer
6.00
(1.41)
6.00
(1.41)
6.00
(1.41)
5.50
(2.12)

6.00
(1.41)
6.00
(1.41)
Because the team has my favorite players
5.21
(1.93)
5.45
(1.56)
5.51
(1.62)
4.79
(1.71)
5.27
(1.58)
5.30
(1.69)
Because I have a membership of the team
7.00
(.00)
6.00
(.00)
6.00
(.00)
6.00
(.00)
7.00
(.00)
6.00
(.00)
Other reasons 4.97
(1.46)		 5.32
(1.23)		 5.37
(1.41)		 5.20
(1.28)		 5.30
(1.32)		 4.65
(1.87)
Preferred Means of Following Favorite Teams’ Progress:

Wilks’s (30, 1086) = .879,
p = .224
At ball park 5.33
(1.61)		 5.67
(1.20)		 5.50
(1.32)		 4.71
(1.71)		 5.21
(1.47)		 5.17
(1.43)
By television broadcast 5.35
(1.55)		 5.47
(1.32)		 5.41
(1.34)		 4.92
(1.40)		 5.30
(1.34)		 5.06
(1.55)
By radio broadcast 4.67
(.58)		 4.33
(1.15)		 4.33
(2.08)		 4.33
(.58)		 4.00
(2.64)		 5.33
(1.53)
By Internet 5.78
(.97)		 6.11
(.78)		 6.00
(.71)		 5.67
(1.00)		 5.67
(1.12)		 4.44
(2.01)
Magazine and/or newspaper coverage 5.44
(1.09)		 5.44
(1.59)		 5.31
(1.54)		 5.06
(1.48)		 5.25
(1.18)		 5.25
(1.69)
Other 4.50
(2.00)		 4.62
(1.77)		 4.75
(1.83)		 4.37
(1.68)		 4.75
(1.98)		 3.00
(1.31)

 

]References[

Baade, R. A., & Tiehen, L. J. (1990). An analysis of major league baseball attendance, 1969–1987. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14(1), 14–31.

Becker, M. A., & Suls, J. (1983). Take me out to the ball game: The effect of objective, social, and temporal performance information on attendance at major league baseball games. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5(3), 302–313.

Bernstein, S. (1991). The sorry state of “sports heroes”: Antisocial behavior of well-paid sports figures. Advertising Age, 62(15), 25.

Bird, P. J. (1982). The demand for league football. Applied Economics, 14(6), 637–649.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.

Demmert, H. G. (1973). The economics of professional team sport. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Drever, P., & MacDonald, J. (1981). Attendance at South Australian football games. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16(2), 103.

Godbey, G., & Robinson, J. (1979). The American sports fan: “Spectatoritis” revisited. Review of Sport and Leisure, 4(1), 1–11.

Greenstein, T. N., & Marcum, J. P. (1981). Factors affecting attendance of major league baseball: Team performance. Review of Sport and Leisure, 6(2), 21.

Guttmann, A. (1981). Sports spectators from antiquity to the Renaissance. Journal of Sport History, 8(2), 5–27.

Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 3(1), 15–32.

Hay, R. D., & Thueson, N. C. (1986, October). High school attendance and related factors. Paper presented at the conference of the Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Hill, J. R., Madura, J., & Zuber, R. A. (1982). The short run demand for major league baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10(2), 31.

Jones, J. C. H. (1984). Winners, losers and hosers: Demand and survival in the National Hockey League. Atlantic Economic Journal, 12(3), 54.

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the Psychological Commitment to Team (PCT) Scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(1), 15–25.

Melnick, M. J. (1993). Searching for sociability in the stands: A theory of sports spectating. Journal of Sport Management, 7(1), 44–60.

Pease, D. G., & Zhang, J. J. (2001). Socio-motivational factors affecting spectator attendance at professional basketball games. International Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 31–59.

Siegfried, J. J., & Eisenberg, J. D. (1980). The demand for minor league baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal, 8(1), 59–71.

Snodgrass, J., Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1988). Planning, mood and place-liking. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8(3), 209–222.

Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 153–172.

Wall, G. V., & Myers, K. (1989). Factors influencing attendance: Toronto Blue Jays games. Sport Place International: An International Magazine of Sports, 3(1 & 2), 29–33.

Whitney, J. D. (1988). Winning games versus winning championships: The economics of fan interest and team performance. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 703–724.

Zech, C. F. (1981). An empirical estimation of a production function: The case of major league baseball. American Economist, 25(2), 19–23.

Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Hui, S. C., & Michaud, T. J. (1995). Variables affecting the spectator decision to attend NBA games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4(4), 29–39.

Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Smith, D. W., Lee, J. T., Lam, E. T., & Jambor, E. A. (1997, Summer). Factors affecting the decision making of spectators to attend Minor League Hockey games. International Sports Journal, 1(1), 39–53.

]Author Note[

Soonhwan Lee ; Cynthia Ryder, United States Sports Academy; Hee-Joon Shin

 

2013-11-26T20:51:54-06:00February 22nd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on An Investigation of Environmental Motivation Factors Affecting Fans of Minor League Baseball
Read More
The Sport Jounral

A peer-reviewed journal of sports,
published by the United States Sports Academy

ISSN: 1543-9518
Established 1998
The Sport Digest
Check our daily blog of sports related news!
Go to Top