ISSN: 1543-9518

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

Parents’ Motivations for Enrolling Children in a Private Gymnastic Program

Submitted by: Jenny Wald
Abstract

This study examined factors that motivated parents to involve their children in a gymnastic program. The gymnasts (N = 156) were predominantly female (n = 136, 87%) and ranged from 2 to 18 years of age (M = 7.5, SD = 3.2). Gymnasts were classified as recreational (n = 109, 70%) or competitive (n = 47, 30%). Multiple-choice items addressed the domains of skill mastery, ego competitiveness, fitness, team membership, fun and excitement, recognition, and affiliation. In rank order, the reasons that parents of competitive and recreational gymnasts supported a child’s participation in the gymnastic program were fitness (M = 4.38, SD = 1.10), skill development (M = 4.37, SD = 0.94), fun (M = 4.36, SD = 0.86), affiliation (M = 3.77, SD = 1.04), team membership (M = 3.36, SD = 1.11), recognition (M = 3.28, SD = 1.09), and competition (M = 2.64, SD = 1.13).  Parents of competitive gymnasts rated higher than other parents, statistically, the two factors competition (M = 3.53 vs. M = 3.28) and team membership (M=3.06 vs. M=2.46), p < .05.

Parents’ Motivations for Enrolling Children in a Private Gymnastic Program

The importance of physical activity for children is well documented. A physically active lifestyle is important because physical activity and fitness have been shown to be associated with lower blood pressure among adolescents (Boreham, Twisk, Savage, Cran, & Strain, 1997) and favorable cholesterol profiles (Schmidt, Stenzel, & Walkulski, 1997). For a majority of children, physical activity comes through participation in organized sport programs outside of school (Sallis, 1994). When youth are asked what motivates them to participate in organized sport programs, responses typically include skill development, affiliation, fitness, fun, competition, excitement or challenge, and release of energy (McCullagh, Matzkanin, Shaw, & Maldonado, 1993).

Parents have been shown to be powerful influences on their children’s physical activity patterns (Stucky-Ropp & DiLorenzo, 1993). The role of parents in their children’s physical activity occurs via direct and indirect support (Dempsey, Kimiecik, & Horn,1993). Direct support of children’s physical activity includes registering children for organized sport programs and paying the participation fees (Atsalakis & Sleap, 1996). Indirect support of chidren’s physical activity includes transportation of children to places where they can be active (Hoefer, McKenzie, Sallis, Marshall, & Conway, 2001). Parents who demonstrate a positive attitude toward registering children for sport programs and who perceive registration procedures to be easily accomplished are more apt to enroll their children for organized physical activities (Atsalakis & Sleap, 1996).

Dempsey and colleagues (1993) examined how parents’ beliefs about children’s physical activity influenced the activity patterns of their children. The researchers concluded it is possible that parents’ belief systems and support are the primary influences on their children’s physical activity, acknowledging that the factors most important to parents in deciding to support children’s physical activity are unknown. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study was to describe parental rationales for support of children’s participation in a private gymnastic program; the study is based on the work of McCullagh and colleagues (1993).

]Method[

The target population for the present study was parents of children participating in a private gymnastic club. Club records identified 432 registered participants who were either on competitive teams or were recreational gymnasts. The study employed a 58-item survey based on the work of McCullagh et al. (1993), who constructed the instrument using data from recreational soccer players. The questionnaire requested demographic information including age of parent, educational background of parent, and age and gender of child. It also asked about  the child’s current participation in the gymnastic program: level (competitive or recreational), length of participation, and number of days per week currently attending club programs. Parents also rated the importance of the factors that McCullagh and colleagues (1993) identified in describing parents’ rationales for support of children’s involvement in organized physical activity. To rate the factors’ importance, the parents used a 5-point Likert scale. Survey items are presented in Table 1.

During a two-week period all parents who entered the gymnastic facility to deliver or retrieve their children were approached and asked to complete the questionnaire. Children were asked to take a copy of the questionnaire to those parents who did not come into the facility during the two weeks of data collection. (Parents completing a questionnaire at the gym were asked not to complete a duplicate survey should a child bring one home.) Parents with more than one child enrolled in the gymnastic program were asked to complete one questionnaire per child. Descriptive statistics were utilized to report the parents’ responses to questionnaire items. Analysis of variance was used to identify differences between the responses of parents of recreational gymnasts and those of parents of competitive gymnasts.

]Results[

Of the 250 surveys that were distributed, 156 (62.4%) were retrieved. Of 156 parents completing surveys, 132 were female (85%) and 24 were male (15%). The respondents were generally middle-aged (M = 36, SD = 6.6 years) and well educated. The children about whom the surveyed parents reported ranged from 2 to 18 years of age (M = 7.5, SD = 3.2). There were 109 recreational (70%) and 47 competitive (28.8%) gymnasts.

Descriptive statistics addressing parents’ rationales for supporting children’s participation in the gymnastic club are presented in Table 1. The 10 top-ranked items were related to fun, skill, or exercise. All items pertaining to gymnastics’ competitive aspects were ranked in the bottom 10. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for individual items in each category and the rank order of reasons parents supported a child’s participation in the gymnastic program. The reasons were ranked identically by the parents of the competitive gymnasts and the parents of the recreational gymnasts. Parents of competitive gymnasts rated team membership as a statistically more important (p < .05) factor than did parents of recreational gymnasts, F = 4.1, p = .04, M = 3 .53, SD = 1.22 versus M = 3.28, SD = 1.08. Parents of competitive gymnasts also rated competition as a statistically more important (p < .05) factor than did parents of recreational gymnasts, F = 16.4, p = .001, M = 3.06, SD = 1.06 versus M = 2.46, SD = 1.18.

]Discussion and Conclusion[

Skill development, exercise, and fun were the three top-rated reasons reported by parents for supporting a child’s involvement in gymnastics. The gymnasts’ parents clearly were interested in providing support for sport activities that their children regarded as fun and that have potential to produce physical fitness and skill. Competition was consistently ranked as one of the least important factors, by parents of competitive and recreational gymnasts alike. These findings are consistent with studies that examined reasons youth participate in other team sport activities (McCullagh et al., 1993; Passer, 1982). Differences between scores for parents of competitive gymnasts and those for parents of recreational gymnasts were found in two instances only, that of the team construct and that of the competitive construct; because the two constructs relate directly to competition, the differences in the scores are not unexpected. Despite the differences, each parent group rated team membership and competition relatively low.

The study results are important to those who provide youth sport programs. As Passer (1982) noted, such information can be useful in efforts to structure an athletic environment that provides participants with a maximally rewarding experience. Fitness, skill development, and fun are what parents expect a child to gain from participation in organized sport programs. Coaches can use this information to attract and keep participants.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Rank of Motivational Factors Associated with Parents’ Support of Children’s Participation in Organized Gymnastics
Factor
Mean
Standard Deviation
Rank
To have a good time
 4.75 0.68 1
To have fun
 4.69 0.70 2
To get exercise
 4.62 0.77 3
To improve skills
 4.61 0.73 4
To learn new skills
 4.60 0.73 5
To feel good when s/he does well
 4.51 0.83 6
To do something s/he is good at
 4.37 1.17 7
Help to be healthy
 4.36 0.94 8
To be physically fit
 4.32 0.98 9
To feel important
 4.28 4.49 10
Motor development
 4.28 0.96 10
To help learn discipline
 4.24 0.95 12
To stay in shape
 4.22 1.03 13
The coaches
 4.15 1.02 14
The excitement
 4.07 1.07 15
The team spirit
 4.04 1.01 16
The challenge
 3.98 1.00 17
The action
 3.93 1.10 18
To meet new friends
 3.84 1.04 19
To become better at sports
 3.83 1.13 20
To get interested in sports
 3.74 1.17 21
To be with friends
 3.67 1.03 22
Physical therapy
 3.62 1.33 23
To reduce risk for disease
 3.61 1.17 24
Being on a team
 3.27 1.19 26
To gain recognition
 3.03 1.17 27
To help control weight
 2.79 1.48 28
To compete
 2.62 1.10 29
To compete against others
 2.52 1.13 30
Awards
 2.5 1.15 31
To test ability against others
 2.48 1.15 32
To help work out anger
 2.39 1.28 33
Medical advice
 2.39 1.34 33
To earn college scholarship
 2.28 1.32 35
To win against others
 1.94 1.05 36
The uniforms
 1.91 1.13 37

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Rank of Motivational-Factor Categories
Category Items
Mean
Standard Deviation
Rank
FitnessTo get exercise
To stay in shape
To be physically fit
Help to be healthy		 4.38 0.94 1
Skill/masteryTo improve skills
To feel good when s/he does well
To learn new skills
To do something s/he is good at
Motor development
To become better at sports		 4.37 0.89 2
Fun/excitementTo have a good time
To have fun
The action
The excitement		 4.36 0.86 3
AffiliationTo be with friends
To meet new friends		 3.77 1.04 4
TeamBeing on a team
The coaches
The team spirit
The uniforms
The equipment		 3.36 1.11 5
RecognitionTo feel important
To gain recognition
Awards		 3.28 1.09 6
MedicalPhysical therapy
To reduce disease risk
To help control weight
Medical advice		 3.10 1.10 7
CompetitionTo compete
The challenge
To win against others
To earn college scholarship
To compete against others
To test ability against others		 2.64 1.13 8

]References[

Boreham, C. A., Twisk, J., Savage, M. J., Cran, G. W., & Strain, J. J. (1997). Physical activity, sports participation, and risk factors in adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, 788–793.

Dempsey, J. M., Kimiecik, J. C., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Parental influence on children’s moderate to vigorous physical activity participation: An Expectancy-value approach. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 151–167.

Hoefer, W. R., McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Marshall, S. J., & Conway, T. L. (2001). Parental provision of transportation for adolescent physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21, 48–51.

McCullagh, P., Matzkanin, K. T., Shaw, S. D., & Maldonado, M. (1993). Motivation for participation in physical activity: A comparison of parent-child perceived competencies and participation motives. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 224–233.

Passer, M. W. (1982). Children in sport: Participation motives and psychological stress. Quest, 33, 231–244.

Sallis, J. F. (1994). Determinants of physical activity behavior in children. In R. R. Pate & R. C. Hohn (Eds.), Health and Fitness Through Physical Education (pp.31–43). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Schmidt, G. J., Stensel, D. J., & Walkuski, J. J. (1997). Blood pressure, lipids, lipoproteins, body fat and physical activity of Singapore children. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 33, 484–490.

Stucky-Ropp, R. C., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (1993). Determinants of exercise in children. Preventive Medicine, 22, 880–889.

Author Note

Jenny Wald, M.A.

 

2013-11-26T20:52:15-06:00February 22nd, 2008|Sports Facilities, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Parents’ Motivations for Enrolling Children in a Private Gymnastic Program
Read More

Marketing Sport and a City: The Case Of Athens 2004

Submitted by: George Karlis,

The opportunity for a city to host the Olympic Games constitutes an enormous economic, social, and cultural commitment, as the Olympics are the world’s biggest sporting event. It is an opportunity that, if properly managed and marketed, will bring a number of positive long-term benefits to the rest of the country in which the city is located.

While the Games last only 2-3weeks, 10 years of preparation will have gone before to ensure both a successful bid and the smooth operation of the Games once the bid wins. The experience of cities that have hosted the Olympic Games demonstrates that, if they are carefully planned and promoted, the Games can generate significant growth over a long period. A primary factor in such growth is the increase in tourism that  a nation can continue to enjoy long after the Olympic Games have concluded. The aim of this paper is to examine the nature of the impact hosting the Games makes on tourism and to discuss marketing strategies that the city of Athens should follow in order to maximize the positive impact of tourism surrounding the 2004 Olympic Games.

From a tourism perspective, the Olympic Games can certainly be considered the most important sporting event. Frequently, organizers’ purpose in undertaking such events is to increase tourism in a city or country. In general, the benefits from organizing such events include the following:

  1. attracting high-income tourists and creating a new generation of tourists who might visit the host country repeatedly
  2. creating a favorable image of the host country as a tourism destination
  3. creating and/or modernizing a locale’s tourism infrastructure
  4. using the international media’s presence to communicate with the world
  5. creating a skilled workforce in the organization, management, and funding sectors specializing in unique, tourist-friendly sporting events

Properly managed, the Olympic Games can change a country’s tourism industry significantly and for the long term. Effects tend to fall within three categories, the Olympic market, the internal tourism market, and the international tourism market. The Olympic market consists of a network of economic activities that result from organization of the event and require significant investment of time and funding. Aspects of the Olympic market are marketing (mainly promotion and public relations), funding and donations, preparation of athletic and related facilities, tickets and other spectator services, transportation and accommodation (of athletes, spectators, dignitaries), and safety and emergency services. For every Olympiad, a workforce is formed to undertake these tasks, creating thousands of jobs and extensive activity in the host city. (Later in this paper, an attempt is made to estimate economic and non-economic effects of the Olympic market, based on previous studies.)

A large nation’s internal tourism market also experiences an impact when one of its cities is to host the Olympic Games. However, in Greece as opposed to the U.S. or even Australia, the internal tourism market is of less significance. In terms of both area and population, Greece is the smallest country chosen to host an Olympic Games. One might go so far as to refer to Greece itself as the “city” that has undertaken the responsibility of hosting the Games.

The right to host the Olympics brings with it long-term effects on the city and nation’s international tourism market, as well. Such effects begin to be felt immediately after a country has won a bid to host the Games and persist until several years after the closing ceremony. In the case of Athens, this period covers the years 1998 to 2011. International tourism will extend to three types of tourist: visitors traveling before the Games, spectators and other visitors during the Games, and visitors drawn to the country at some point by the Olympics-related publicity. The first category comprises, for Athens, persons who will visit Greece in preparation for the Games, such as the members of the Olympic family, media representatives, sponsoring organizations’ representatives, athletes, dignitaries, and some spectators. Such individuals also constitute the second category and can be expected to peak in number as the Olympic athletes compete. Finally, the third category includes all tourists from outside Greece who will visit Greece between 1998 and 2011 due to promotional efforts linked to the 2004 Games.

Games’ Direct Impact on Tourism

The direct impact of the Olympic Games on tourism is embodied in the arrival of all those directly involved in Olympic athletic events, as well as those participating in the associated cultural Olympiad; direct impact’s chronology is before and during the Games. Whatever the city hosting the Games, demands associated with direct impact remain similar and are based mainly on  the number of sports included (currently 28). While estimating direct impact involves some rather arbitrary decisions, the final overall result is not influenced, as it is of very small size. Moreover, a slight increase in the relevant figures was allowed to reflect visitors at the cultural Olympiad. Table 3 presents estimates of the numbers of tourists anticipated to be directly associated with the 2004 Athens Games during the period 1998-2003.

The tourist category of most importance is the before-Olympics visitors, who include numbers of representatives of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC is contractually obligated to send representatives to Greece regularly to audit activities and check the progress of the Games’ organization. The second largest category of visitors includes members of international federations for various sports. They monitor the development of facilities in which competition will take place. The third category consists of athletes. As the date of the Games approaches, athletes begin to visit the country to become accustomed to the climate and sporting facilities. The final category is made up of sponsors and members of the media.

The total number of visitors expected in Greece during 1998-2004 on Olympic Games’ business will number 111,000. This figure constitutes a very small percentage of all tourists who will ultimately visit Greece as the result of the publicity about the country linked to the 2004 Games.

Consequences for Greece, for Athens

Again, the effect of the Olympic Games on tourism has relevance both for Athens and for Greece as a whole. Initially, forecasts of the numbers of tourists throughout Greece were made. These forecasts were then used to estimate the number of tourists to arrive in Athens, according to three national scenarios. The first national scenario is confined to those arrivals directly linked to the Games and assumes that the level of demand will be minimal. The second national scenario assumes a steady increase in demand leading up to the Games and stabilizing a few years after the Games. The third national scenario assumes a small increase in tourism before and during the Games, a large increase after the Games, and a small decrease several years after the Games.

The Olympic Games of 2004 will present a great opportunity for the rehabilitation of Athens and the Attica prefecture as a whole. Some infrastructure projects are already under way; together with Athens’ international promotions during the coming seven years, these projects may help Athens enhance the proportion of the Greek tourism industry it claims. Under a first city scenario, Athens will maintain, at the least, its share of all tourists arriving in Greece, which early in the 1980s was 40% but slipped to 16% in the mid 1990s.

Under the second city scenario, Athens’ share of the total number of tourists in Greece will increase significantly, attaining for the period 1998-2011 an average 22% of all tourists. During the 1990s, the proportion of tourists in Greece who were visiting Athens was as high as 22.3%, but averaged 18.22%.

According to a third scenario, Athens’ share in the numbers of foreign visitors to Greece should move from 18% in 1998 to 22% in 2004; after 2004, the city’s share should decrease, returning to the 18% figure in 2011.  Across the whole period, the average proportion of Greek tourism claimed by Athens is forecast to be 16.9%.

Each one of these scenarios for Athens is combined with the three scenarios for the whole country. Thus, the total number of possible outcomes for Attica comes to nine. The fluctuations of these effects are the same as the fluctuations relating to Greece as a whole. They are not presented here because the effects for the Attica area are estimated as a percentage of the whole. Under the first two scenarios, the percentage is assumed to follow a distribution moving from 18% to 22% and then returning to 18%.

Maximizing Benefits to Tourism Industry That May Surround the Games

The Olympic Games are a unique tourism-sport event presenting an outstanding opportunity to develop long-term gains for a nation’s tourism Industry. Supply and demand continue to figure in marketing, and in the case of Greece and the 2004 Olympics, it must be ensured that the tourism infrastructure can meet the demand for accommodation posed by extra thousands of tourists yet not overestimate the number of tourists who will visit Greece.

Figure 1 diagrams the approach to marketing the 2004 Games, one that involves three basic, interdependent elements. The first is supply, which includes organization of and preparation for the Games, the choice of the host city, all services that will be required , media (television, radio, and print), and grants offered by IOC and the host city. The second element of the marketing system comprises intermediaries between the supply and the demand. Often, these intermediaries participate in securing the successful bid for the Olympics, for instance by finding sponsors, working to attract spectators, and generally organizing the athletic events. The third element of the marketing system is demand, which includes all national athletic teams, all federations supporting the Olympic sports, spectators and tourists, the media audience (television viewers, radio listeners, and readers), and all official sponsors of the Games. The Los Angeles Games proved the importance of sponsorship to the presence of adequate funding.

How can Athens and Greece best tap into the elements of this framework to maximize publicity generated by the Games? When the Sydney Games come to an end, Athens and Greece could pursue a series of strategies, including the following:

1. Host athletic events during the period prior to the Games to allow Olympic athletes to experience the Greek climate. Events should be organized in various regions of Greece.

2. Host athletic events featuring non-Olympic sports, in cooperation with these sports’ international federations.

3. Host participative athletic events targeting those potential tourists who enjoy recreational athletics.

4. Before and after the Games, organize Olympics-related excursions highlighting the regions associated with athletics in ancient Greece.

5. Organize international cultural exhibitions and scientific and professional conferences offering an Olympics angle.

6. Supply the international media with information before and after the Games, using news broadcasts.

The forecasts presented earlier are based on the assumption the all of these strategies will be implemented to the fullest. The strategies, nevertheless, are only some of the strategies (activities and events) that could help Greece maximize benefits deriving from the Games. Other strategies should be developed to ensure the best management of the Games.

Conclusion

The Olympic Games in 2004 will have important economic effects on the host city Athens. Publicity surrounding the Olympics and the Olympic competitions themselves are expected to increase foreign tourism in Greece during 1998-201. New jobs will be created and the nation’s GDP will grow, very probably to the tune of 0.8% for annual growth from 1998 to 2011, which should increase employment by 32,000 annually.

The most important source of the increase in economic activity will be money spent by foreign tourists visiting both Athens and Greece as a result of Olympic exposure. The prediction of this study is that these such cash inflows will come to 2.3 trillion drachmas for the 14-year period 1998-2011, an average of 161 billion drachmas (1999 prices). According to the central scenario of this study, increased tourism due to the Olympic Games will come to 440,000 visitors annually for the period 1998-2011, or 6 million visitors in all.

Increased tourism will create additional need for accommodation. According to this study, such demand can be satisfied without additional investment in accommodation infrastructure, by improving existing accommodation units, especially across the Attica area. During the 2004 Games, peak demand in the Attica area will occur in August and is likely to amount to 1.9 million overnight stays during the 17 days of the Games. Existing hotel accommodations in the Attica area, along with use of temporary facilities such as camps, student dormitories, cruise ships, apartments, and private residences should provide accommodations for  2.6 million, more than adequate for the anticipated number of visitors.

While simply sheltering visitors to the Games is important, it is not enough. The supply of accommodations of various types must also be carefully managed. One conclusion of this study is that, although Greece may be able to cope with the unusual numbers of tourists arriving, this does not preclude problems while hosting them. To discourage any problems, government, organizing committee, and hotel management must work together from the time the Games in Sydney end. Especially critical will be the enhancement of the quality of Attica’s high-end hotels.

Long-term increases in demand for accommodation resulting from the 2004 Olympics is expected to be very small. At the end of the examined period, the supply of beds in Attica will amount to 100,000, while demand should be roughly the same, 103,000. The demand for beds across Greece will come to 858,000, while the supply will come to 834,000.

References

  1. Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism. New York: Cognizant Communication.
  2. Getz, D. (1998). Trends, strategies, and issues in sport-event tourism. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7(2), 8-13.
  3. Gibson, H. (1998). Sport tourism: A critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1, 45-76.
  4. Holden, K., Peel, D. A., & Thompson, J. L. (1990). Economic forecasting: An introduction. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Ludwig, S., & Karabetsos, J. D. (1999). Objectives and evaluation processes utilised by sponsors of the 1996 Olympic Games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 11-20.
  6. Moore, J. (1999). Sydney 2000: Managing the Olympic story. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 5-10.
  7. Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: The consumer perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(3), 38-43.

 

2013-11-26T21:15:22-06:00February 18th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Marketing Sport and a City: The Case Of Athens 2004
Read More

Implementation of a Sport Management Major Within an Undergraduate Exercise and Sport Science Department

Submitted by: Michael D. Kerr

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to develop an orderly process of implementing and establishing a sport management major within an undergraduate exercise and sport science department. This research examined and evaluated established, university-based, accredited undergraduate sport management programs within the United States. It was an empirical study of developmental occupational competencies and areas of curriculum content, in terms of the relative importance of their inclusion in a sport management major.

A survey instrument developed by the researcher was employed to rank 30 competencies factors and 30 curriculum factors that might be included in a sport management major. The instrument was developed using the literature, a panel of experts, and a pilot study in which Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was employed to test the validity and internal consistency reliability of the instrument. The survey instrument was e-mailed to the coordinators of 71 university-based, accredited undergraduate sport management programs. Although 50 program coordinators returned the instrument, 2 surveys were incomplete and could not be used; 48 of the 71 instruments distributed thus were utilized in the research (67.6% response rate).

The statistical analysis for this research included descriptive statistics to analyze the rankings of each of the competencies and curriculum content selections, as well as factor analysis to determine curriculum development based on these selections. The method of factor extraction used was the principal component method, and the method of rotation employed was the varimax rotation. Frequencies, percentages, means, mean rankings, and standard deviation were the descriptive statistics utilized. The factor analysis investigated areas within the competency and curriculum selections that demonstrated a high degree of correlation and thus could be identified as clusters.

The ranked order of the competency and curriculum selections, the results of the factor analysis, a review of literature, the compared responses of the sport management department coordinators, and the use of NASPE/NASSM Sport Management Program Review Council standards have all served as guidelines for the investigator’s development of a sport management major. The major has been designed to provide students with the educational background necessary to function effectively as professionals in a dynamic and multifaceted sport management setting, while meeting the needs of a contemporary sport industry.

Implementation of a Sport Management Major Within an Undergraduate Exercise and Sport Science Department

In decades past, many college and university physical education programs concerning professional preparation and career development placed an emphasis on coaching and teacher training curricula. But the area of physical education has expanded rapidly in recent years, with a resulting proliferation of dynamic physical education career possibilities. Demand for teachers and coaches is ongoing, but there is also a growing need for qualified sport professionals in the area of sport management.

Professional positions in sport require knowledge, skill, and ability beyond even what is represented by a degree in physical education. Many colleges and universities have established undergraduate and/or graduate sport management programs in an effort to provide the requisite knowledge, training, and field experience to students planning careers in the managerial and administrative portions of the sport industry. Other colleges and universities are just now choosing to implement such programs to keep pace with student interest in the sport industry. This study grew out of one institution’s decision to launch a sport management program, seeking to identify a sound process and method to implement the undergraduate  major field of study within its department of exercise and sport science.

Methods

Participants in the study included 48 out of 71 coordinators of established, university-based, accredited undergraduate sport management programs within the United States who were electronically sent a study questionnaire (return rate of 67.6%). The instrument completed and returned by the 48 sought to identify the competencies and curriculum content thought necessary for implementing and establishing a sport management major. The instrument, titled the Sport Management Questionnaire, was developed by the researcher through an identification of concepts and review of literature. A panel of experts assessed the development, reliability, and validity of this instrument, which asked respondents to rate how important each of a number of competencies and curriculum content areas was. The ratings were to reflect the participants’ expertise and experiences relating to their institutions’ undergraduate sport management programs. Ratings were assigned using a 5-point Likert scale (Leedy, 1997), with anchors ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (critically important). The research involved 60 dependent variables, 30 reflecting competencies and 30 reflecting curriculum content. Statistical analysis performed during the research included (a) descriptive statistics concerning ranking of competencies and curriculum content; (b) factor analysis determining curriculum development based on competencies and curriculum content, and (c) reliability analysis testing the reliability of the instrument. Statistical significance was accepted at an alpha level.

Results

Mean Range, Competency Items

Table 1 indicates the pattern of total mean ranges of competency items indicated by the program coordinators; the mean values were obtained for each of the 30 competencies items, from 48 respondents. The mean values ranged from a high of 4.79 (Item 2, communication skills) to a low of 2.21 (Item 9, designing fitness programs).

Table 1

Mean Range, Frequency, and Competency Items
Program Coordinators
Mean Range Competency Items Frequency
> 4.500 2, 11, 17, 23, 24
5
4.000 – 4.499 1, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 29, 30
8
3.500 – 3.999 3, 13, 15, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28
8
3.000 – 3.499 6, 12, 26
3
2.500 – 2.999 4, 5, 19
3
2.000 – 2.499 7, 8, 9
3
< 1.999 N/A
0
Total
30

According to the participating program coordinators, the top five competencies that should be included in a sport management major are, in order,

  1. communication skills (Item 2) and making decisions (Item 23)
  2. organizing or managing time (Item 24)
  3. developing long- and short-range goals (Item 11)
  4. computer skills (Item 17)
  5. hiring and supervising staff or personnel (Item 18)

Mean Range, Curriculum Content Items

Table 2 presents the pattern of total mean ranges of curriculum content items indicated by the program coordinators; the mean values were obtained for each of the 30 curriculum content items, from the 48 respondents. The mean values ranged from a high of 4.71 (Item 17, sport and business management) to a low of 1.63 (Item 13, physical education curriculum).

Table 2

Mean Range, Frequency, and Curriculum Content Items

Program Coordinators
Mean Range Curriculum Content Items Frequency
> 4.500 10, 11, 17, 18, 27
5
4.000 – 4.499 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26
12
3.500 – 3.999 9, 16, 24, 25
4
3.000 – 3.499 15, 28, 29, 30
4
2.500 – 2.999 6,
1
2.000 – 2.499 14,
1
< 1.999 1, 7, 13
3
Total
30

According to the participating program coordinators, the top five curriculum content areas that should be included in a sport management major are, in order,

  1. sport and business management (Item 17)
  2. sport finance (Item 18)
  3. legal aspects of sport (Item 10)
  4. organizational behavior and management (Item 11)
  5. sport marketing and promotion (Item 27)

Factor Analysis, Competencies

Factor analysis performed with the data from the participating coordinators identified 5 clusters of competency items with 53.0% of the total variation. Titles were assigned to each of these 5 clusters of competency items, as follows (Table 3):

Table 3

Competencies Clusters and Variance Accounted for by Each

Cluster 1 Human Resource Management 12.60% of variance
Item 11 Developing Long- and Short-Range Goals
Item 14 Evaluating Job Performance of Personnel
Item 18 Hiring and Supervising Staff and Personnel
Item 22 Maintaining Personnel Records
Item 25 Organizing Students and Personnel
Item 29 Responding to Positive and Negative Feedback
Cluster 2 Leadership and Organization Management 11.35% of variance
Item 21 Knowledge of Sports
Item 23 Making Decisions
Item 24 Organizing and Managing Time
Item 28 Preparing Job Descriptions
Cluster 3 Marketing and Financial Management 10.55% of variance
Item 1 Budgeting
Item 2 Communication Skills
Item 6 Designing Advertisements
Item 16 Fund Raising
Cluster 4 Administrative Management 9.82% of variance
Item 3 Controlling Allocation of Resources
Item 19 Knowledge of First Aid and Safety Procedures
Item 30 Understanding Sport and Business Law
Cluster 5 Planning 8.47% of variance
Item 8 Designing Computer Programs
Item 9 Designing Fitness Programs
Item 12 Developing Personnel Training Programs

Factor Analysis, Curriculum Content

Factor analysis performed with the data from the participating coordinators identified 2 clusters of curriculum content items with 41.2% of the total variation. Titles were assigned to both clusters, as follows (Table 4):

Table 4

Curriculum Content Clusters and Variance Accounted for by Each

Cluster 1 Sport and Business Management 25.38% of variance
Item 2 Business Communication
Item 5 Consumer Behavior
Item 8 Human Resource Management
Item 9 Labor-Management Relations
Item 11 Organizational Behavior and Management
Item 12 Personnel Management
Item 17 Sport and Business Management
Item 18 Sport Finance
Item 19 Sport Economics
Item 21 Sport Ethics
Item 22 Sport Facilities Management
Item 23 Sport Fund Raising
Item 24 Sport Governance
Item 26 Sport Leadership
Cluster 2 Administration of Physical Education and Recreation 15.83% of variance
Item 1 Applied Physiology of Exercise
Item 6 Fitness Management
Item 7 Health Education and Health Science
Item 13 Physical Education Curriculum
Item 14 Recreation and Leisure Education
Item 28 Sport Philosophy
Item 29 Sport Travel and Tourism

Conclusions

The results of this research allowed the investigator to develop an orderly process for designing, implementing, and establishing an undergraduate sport management major within a university exercise and sport science department. The procedures employed in designing the process included the following:

  1. The 10 top-ranked curriculum content and competencies items were incorporated in the sport management major.
  2. The results of factor analysis were employed to identify clusters of factors to serve as areas of emphasis within the sport management major.
  3. Existing literature was evaluated and considered during the design process.
  4. Curriculum standards set by NASPE/NASSM in 2000 were adopted as the foundation of the sport management major.

References

Alsop, W. L., & Fuller, G. F. (2001). Directory of academic programs in sport management. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Banks, A. L., & Wright, O. (2001). The top five employment opportunities in physical education higher education. Physical Educator, 58(3), 150-158.

Boucher, R. L. (1998). Toward achieving a focal point for sport management: A binocular perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 12(1), 76-85.

Cuneen, J., & Sidwell, M. J. (1998). Evaluating and selecting sport management undergraduate programs. Journal of College Admissions, 158, 6-13.

Kelley, D. R., Beitel, P. A., DeSensi, J. T., & Blanton, M. D. (1994). Undergraduate and graduate sport management curricular models: A perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 8(2), 93-101.

Lambert, T. (1999). Thorstein Veblen and the higher learning of sport management education. Journal of Economic Issues, 33 (14), 973-983.

Leedy, P. D. (1997). Practical research: Planning and design (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

National Association of Sport and Physical Education, North American Society for Sport Management. (2000). Sport management program standards and review protocol. Reston, VA: Author.

Parkhouse, B. L., & Pitts, B. G. (2001). Definition, evolution, and curriculum. In B. L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport (pp. 2-14). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pitts, B. G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1), 1-9.

Steir, W. F. (2001). Sport management: The development of sport management perspectives. In D. Kluka & G. Schilling (Eds.), The business of sport (pp. 39-56). Oxford, Oxfordshire, England: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

Weese, J. W. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspectives on the current and future hiring realities in the sport management academy. Journal of Sport Management, 16(1), 1-17.

Author Note

Michael D. Kerr, D.S.M.

2013-11-26T21:15:43-06:00February 18th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Implementation of a Sport Management Major Within an Undergraduate Exercise and Sport Science Department
Read More

The Sport Journal uses Accessibility Checker to monitor our website's accessibility.

Go to Top