Greenhalgh, Simmons, Hambrick, & Greenwell (2011) Spectator support: Examining the attributes

Volume 20 • Number 1 • 2011 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 41

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2011, 20, 41-52, © 2010 West Virginia University Spectator M

otives

Introduction

There is little doubt the sports world is different todaythan it was 20 years ago as there are now a number ofofferings designed to appeal to smaller, more focusedsegments. There are now a variety of cable and satellitechannels including the Golf Channel, SPEED Network,and the Outdoor Channel. On today’s newsstands,there are a variety of options such as Inside Lacrosse,VeloNews, and Paddling. And where the major teamsports such as football, baseball, men’s basketball, andmen’s ice hockey (Kahn, 2000) have traditionally pro-vided the majority of spectating opportunities in theUS, there are now numerous nonmainstream sports toappeal to sports fans with unique tastes.Each of these products appeals to smaller, more

focused audiences, also known as niche markets orniche segments. Marketing to smaller segments allowsorganizations to capitalize on the interests of homoge-nous groups with distinct tastes by specializing to theirunique needs (Dalgic & Leeuw, 1994; Kara & Kaynak,

1997; Parrish, Cassill, & Oxenham, 2006; Toften &Hammervoll, 2009). Sport properties marketed tothese narrow markets are often referred to as nichesports. Niche sports have been identified as sports thatare not mainstream and do not appeal to a mass audi-ence (Miloch & Lambrecht, 2006) and include sportssuch as bull riding, beach volleyball, women’s basket-ball, and lacrosse (Lehman, 2007). These niche sportsare becoming more prevalent in the sport landscape,yet little research has been conducted to examine thedifferences between traditional mainstream sportproducts and niche sport products. In the US, the term “mainstream sports” typically

refers to professional football, professional basketball,professional baseball (Rinehart, 2005), and arguablyprofessional hockey, golf, and auto racing (SportBusiness Research Network, 2010). The sport proper-ties commonly tagged as “mainstream” in the US typi-cally include the National Football League (NFL),Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Hockey

Spectator Support: Examining theAttributes That Differentiate Nichefrom Mainstream Sport

Greg P. Greenhalgh, Jason M. Simmons, Marion E. Hambrick, and T. Christopher Greenwell

Greg Greenhalgh, PhD, is an instructor in the Department of Health and Sport Sciences at the University of Louisville. Hisresearch interests include marketing of niche sport, sport sponsorship, and effects of social media on sport.Jason M. Simmons PhD, is an instructor in the Department of Health and Sport Sciences at the University of Louisville. Hisresearch interests include fan-family conflict and effect of social media on sport.Marion Hambrick, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Health and Sport Sciences at the University ofLouisville. His research interests include sport product innovation and information dissemination, and effects of socialmedia on sport.T. Christopher Greenwell, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Health and Sport Sciences at the Universityof Louisville. His research interests include customer service and customer satisfaction.

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to identify the attributes consumers use to distinguish between main-stream and niche sports and determine which of those attributes were related to support for niche sports.Niche sports were classified as those sports not attracting mainstream media attention or large scale liveaudiences (Miloch & Lambrecht, 2006). Participants (n = 197) were asked to rate their perception ofseven attributes (i.e., accessibility, popularity, uniqueness, affordability, star power, player similarities,and player skill) with four niche sports and one mainstream sport. Results indicated that consumers dif-ferentiate niche sports from mainstream sports across several attributes. Specifically, fans associatedaffordability and player similarity with niche sports, and star power and popularity with the mainstreamsport. These findings illustrate which aspects the respective sports should emphasize to reach consumersand suggest how niche sport marketers may position their sport property against mainstream sports.

42 Volume 20 • Number 1 • 2011 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

League (NHL), and the National BasketballAssociation (NBA) (Titlebaum & Lawrence, 2010).Commonalities among mainstream sports includelarge fan bases, broad appeal, and widespread mediacoverage. Conversely, niche sports receive limited fansupport and media attention. This division is evidentfrom the findings of Sport Business ResearchNetwork’s (SBRnet) 2009 survey of 12,000 US con-sumers age 16 and over. SBRnet reported that 47.2% ofrespondents had watched or attended at least one NFLgame in 2009. Similarly, 35.7% of the respondentsreported attending or watching an MLB game, and19.5% had attended or watched an NBA game.Alternatively, respondents indicated only 8.5% hadviewed or attended a Minor League Baseball (MiLB)game, 5.3% a Major League Soccer (MLS) game, and2.5% a minor league hockey game (Sport BusinessResearch Network, 2010).Niche sport properties, such as the Women’s

National Basketball Association (WNBA), MLS,Association of Volleyball Professionals (AVP),Professional Bull Riders (PBR), MiLB, NationalBasketball Development League (NBDL), Women’sTennis Association (WTA), and Major League Lacrosse(MLL), face unique challenges not faced by their main-stream counterparts. Unlike mainstream sports, nichesport properties do not have the luxury of daily newscoverage in the local and national newspaper sportssections. In fact, most of these sports are not featuredon any of the sports news outlets or highlight showssuch as ESPN’s SportsCenter. As a result, niche sportproperties must create and sustain their own publicity,market share, and fan base in order to survive. In addi-tion, franchise and league attrition is more prevalentwithin niche sports. Quite often, leagues will expandand contract, trying to find the optimal size and geo-graphic reach to make their properties more profitableand sustainable. These challenges make niche sports avery volatile industry segment with little direction orsupport to enhance their sustainability. Niche sportproducts such as the Extreme Football League (XFL)and the Women’s United Soccer Association (WUSA)are just two examples of niche sport properties failingto sustain a unique slice of the sport spectator marketshare, and thus they faltered after only a short life-span. Despite the challenges, the task of creating and sus-

taining a profitable niche sport league, or team, is notinsurmountable. After struggling to survive for manyyears, the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) hasdeveloped a growing, loyal fan base. While the sport isstill far from being considered mainstream, organiza-tions such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship(UFC), Dream, and Strikeforce have been able to expe-rience a degree of success marketing to a niche seg-

ment (Kim, Andrew, & Greenwell, 2009). Lacrosse isanother example of a nontraditional sport capitalizingon the opportunity to attract younger spectators andparticipants with the hopes of turning them into life-long lacrosse fans (Kojima, 2010). As a result, lacrossehas witnessed significant growth among spectators andparticipants in recent years. An estimated 100,000 fansattended the 2009 NCAA Division I men’s champi-onship weekend held at Gillette Stadium, home of theNew England Patriots. Over one million youth andadults played the sport at least once in 2007, a 40%jump from 1999 (Trachtenberg & Evans, 2009). As part of an effective marketing strategy for reach-

ing niche segments, niche properties’ marketing strate-gies should be focused on developing a competitiveadvantage through product differentiation (Toften &Hammervoll, 2009). Product differentiation has previ-ously been examined within sport marketing researchin an effort to better understand the factors and attrib-utes which drive professional sport attendance(Hansen & Gauthier, 1989) and the unique attributesassociated with selected intercollegiate sports (Pan &Baker, 1999). According to Dickson and Ginter (1987),product differentiation is the consumers’ perceptionthat a product offering is different from its competitorson any “physical or nonphysical product characteristicincluding price” (p. 4). Within sport marketing, anunderstanding of product differentiation would allowfor the creation and implementation of strategies bestable to meet the needs and wants of a particular sport’starget market by capitalizing on the unique attributesconsumers/fans associate with a given sport (Pan &Baker, 1999). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify

the attributes consumers associate with niche sports.Further, this study intended to determine the relation-ship between these attributes and spectator support ofniche sports and compare them against attributes associ-ated with mainstream sports. To help guide these pur-poses, two research questions were developed. Whichattributes predict spectator support for various nichesports? How is support for niche sports different fromsupport for mainstream sports? A better understandingof these characteristics will assist niche sport marketers todifferentiate their sport product from competing sportproducts. Understanding which aspects of their respec-tive sports should be emphasized to reach consumerswill allow niche sport marketers to better position theirsport property among the more well-established proper-ties like the NFL, MLB, and NBA.

Review of Literature

A significant amount of research has been devoted toinvestigating various economic, social-psychological,


and audience preference factors related to spectatorattendance. However, much of this research has beendevoted to individual teams or markets rather thansports or sport properties. For example, variables suchas community size (Ferreira & Bravo, 2007; Pan, Zhu,Gabert, & Brown, 1999; Robinson & DeSchriver,2003), competing entertainment options (Armstrong,1999; DeSchriver & Jensen, 2002), facility characteris-tics (Roy, 2008; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995), team win-ning percentage (Davis, 2009; Wells, Southall, & Peng,2000), ticket price (Donihue, Findlay, & Newberry,2008), and promotional support (Gifis & Sommers,2006) have all been correlated with variations in atten-dance between teams within a specific league or sport.While this research is useful in predicting attendancefor specific teams, it does little to predict what attractsspectators to one sport over another. It is important for marketers to understand what

makes their sport product unique and how they candifferentiate their product from other sports.Differentiation is especially important for propertiesmarketing to a smaller segment, or niche, which haveto differentiate their product to appeal to the specificneeds of a limited market (Dalgic & Leeuw, 1994).Considering many niche sport properties have mettheir demise due to the intensely competitive atmos-phere surrounding professional sports, niche sportswould be wise not to market themselves head-to-headagainst mainstream sport properties. Hence, a betterunderstanding of the ways in which fans differentiateniche sport products versus mainstream sport productsmay help to even the playing field.Previous research has identified a number of differ-

ences between sport products. Studies focusing on themotives of sport spectators have revealed that fans’motives vary based on a variety of factors. For exam-ple, Wann, Grieve, Zapalac, and Pease (2008) discov-ered divergent fan motives for individual sportsopposed to team sports, aggressive sports compared tononaggressive, and stylistic versus nonstylistic sports.Specifically, fans of individual sports (e.g., figure skat-ing, gymnastics, golf, boxing, auto racing, tennis, andprofessional wrestling) indicated significantly higheraesthetic motivation for consumption than fans ofteam sports (e.g., professional football, college football,professional basketball, college basketball, and profes-sional hockey). Conversely, the eustress (positivestress), self-esteem, group affiliation, entertainment,and family motivational scores were significantly high-er for fans of team sports. Women’s sports have been found to attract fans

based on the provision of role models, the perceptionof providing opportunity for women, and the provi-sion of wholesome family entertainment at a reason-

able cost (Funk, Ridinger, & Moorman, 2003).Women’s intercollegiate hockey and basketball havebeen found to be significantly different than men’shockey and basketball with respect to popularity,degree of physical contact, game attractiveness, freeofferings and promotions, game entertainment, pre-game and in-game entertainment, convenience andaccessibility, facility, cost, and communality (Ferreira& Armstrong, 2004). Fans of intercollegiate sports havealso been found to associate different attributes with avariety of sport products. Fans associated similarattributes to major sports (football, men’s basketball,and baseball) but not other intercollegiate sports (Pan& Baker, 1999). In terms of professional sports, Hansen and Gauthier

(1989) found that marketing managers within six pro-fessional North American leagues (i.e., NFL, NHL,NBA, MLB, Minor League Baseball, and Major IndoorSoccer League) placed disparate levels of importanceon a variety of product attributes (e.g., facility cleanli-ness, ticket price, and game atmosphere). Most inter-estingly, the NFL was reported to be statisticallysignificantly different from at least one other league onall attribute categories. Looking at minor league sportproperties, Greenwell, Lee, and Naeger (2007) foundspectators of minor league baseball and the ArenaFootball League (AFL) identified qualities related tothe sport were considered to be key attributes moreoften than product extensions such as promotions andin-game entertainment. These findings imply fans ofniche sports may be attracted to the sport first, and theother peripheral amenities later, indicating a need tobetter understand what it is about these niche sportsthat is attractive to spectators.In sum, numerous researchers have identified attrib-

utes differentiating a variety of sport products. Distinctproduct attributes have been identified as means ofsport product differentiation when comparing inter-collegiate sport products (Ferreira & Armstrong, 2004;Pan & Baker, 1999), women’s sport products (Funk etal., 2003), and professional sport properties (Hansen &Gauthier, 1989; Greenwell et al., 2007). While manysport products have been compared and contrastedbased on a variety of product attributes and fanmotives, little is known about the attributes consumersuse to differentiate between mainstream and nichesport products.

Niche Sports

The term “niche” has been used within business litera-ture to distinguish smaller consumer product marketsand companies from their larger, more mature coun-terparts (Dean, Brown, & Bamford, 1998). Examples ofsuccessful niche companies can be found within a vari-


ety of consumer products industries. For instance, thesoft drink industry is dominated by multinationalpowerhouses Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, yet manufactur-ers like Jones Soda Co. have created a $200 to $300million premium soft drink niche market by offeringuniquely flavored products to consumers lookingbeyond traditional cola offerings (Gabriel, 1997).Similarly, independent film studio Lions Gate targetedAfrican-American moviegoers with movies featuringactor Tyler Perry. By identifying and addressing theneeds of their target market, Lions Gate has realizedrevenues in excess of $113 million (Gimble, 2006).While the term niche can be readily applied to con-

sumer products, defining niche sports products provesto be a much more difficult task. The main reason forthis is that not all niche sports are the same. One couldeasily make the case that sports such as rowing, bil-liards, and table tennis qualify as niche sports. Theschism begins to blur, however, when sports such asgolf, tennis, and soccer are considered. Clearly, a golftournament such as the Reno-Tahoe Open would notbe considered mainstream, but what about the majors?The PGA Championship attracts a large audience andreceives media coverage comparable to MLB and theNBA. The same can be said about tennis. Even soccer,whose popularity in the US pales in comparison toother countries around the world, morphs into one ofthe most popular sports once every four years duringthe World Cup. It appears, then, that spectator sportsexist on a vast continuum of popularity ranging fromextremely unique (i.e., synchronized swimming) toubiquitous (i.e., NFL). In light of this difficulty, some have attempted to

classify sports into mainstream and niche categories.For example, Miloch and Lambrecht (2006) used theterm “grassroots sports” to describe “sports that arenot mainstream and do not appeal to a mass audience.Participants and supporters of these sports usually rep-resent a niche demographic or a subsegment of sportconsumers” (p. 147). Perhaps acknowledging the lackof uniformity among these niche sports, Rosner andShropshire (2004) illustrated that niche sports couldfall into different categories. Rosner and Shropshire(2004) identified four categories of niche sports. Thefirst category includes minor league sports not repre-senting elite levels of competition, such as MinorLeague Baseball (MiLB) and the National BasketballDevelopment League (NBDL). The second category isemerging sports representing the top level of competi-tion in their sport but not receiving the same level ofmedia coverage or spectatorship as mainstream sportsenjoy. Examples of sport products included in this cat-egory are MLS, AVP, and PBR. Indoor alternatives totraditionally outdoor sports such as the AFL, the

National Lacrosse League (NLL), and the ProfessionalArena Soccer League (PASL) represent Rosner andShropshire’s third categorization of niche sports. Thefinal category is gender specific leagues, which includethe WNBA and the Ladies Professional GolfAssociation (LPGA). While these categories are notnecessarily exhaustive or mutually exclusive, they doprovide guidance in identifying the diversity and vari-ety of niche sport products within the US.Although the literature has demonstrated some dif-

ferences between mainstream and niche sport products(e.g., Ferriera & Armstrong, 2004; Funk et al., 2003;Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Miloch & Lambrecht, 2006;Pan & Baker, 1999; Wann et al., 2008), little is knownabout the attributes consumers use to differentiateniche from mainstream sport products, as well as howthose attributes affect spectator support. These resultsclearly indicate a gap in the examination of attributesthat consumers associate with niche sports. Consideringthis gap in the literature, the purpose of this study is toidentify the attributes consumers use to distinguishbetween mainstream and niche sports. Further, thisstudy seeks to determine the relationship between theseattributes and spectator support of niche sports.

Method

The first step in the process was to identify relevantattributes that may differentiate niche sport frommainstream sport. Four attributes were identified fromthe existing literature: accessibility (Hansen &Gauthier, 1989; Zhang, Pease, Smith, Lee, Lam, &Jambor, 1997), popularity (Ferreira & Armstrong,2004), affordability (Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002),and star power (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005; Gladden &Funk, 2002). To identify additional attributes, data were collected

from a group of 51 undergraduate students enrolled inthe sport administration program at an urban,Midwestern university. Students were selected fromthree sections of an entry-level sport administrationcourse. Sport administration students were chosenspecifically due to their increased interest in sport andknowledge of different sport offerings, both main-stream and niche. Each subject was asked three open-ended questions related to niche sports: identify asport outside the mainstream, list the attributes youlike about the sport, and identify what differentiatesthis sport from mainstream sports. Many other studieshave used similar techniques of soliciting unaidedresponses rather than using or relying solely upon pre-formed questions (e.g., Bilyeu & Wann, 2002; Ferreira& Armstrong, 2004; Greenwell et al., 2007). In doingso, the researchers hoped to capture salient attributesotherwise missing from prior literature. To identify


common themes, responses were independently ana-lyzed by four judges to identify common themes. Thiseffort yielded three additional attributes: player simi-larities, player skill, and uniqueness.A four-item measure of spectator support adapted

from Funk et al. (2002) was used as the outcome vari-able: “I watch, listen, or read about this sport often,” “Ihave been a fan of this sport for a long time,” “I amknowledgeable about the rules of this sport,” and “Iam interested in this sport.” While prior studies havefocused solely on attributes that predict attendance,attendance may not always be an appropriate measureto assess what attracts consumers to niche sports.Specifically, niche sporting events may be held in avariety of locations where fans may have difficultyattending (e.g., touring events such as cycling, whichdo not have an established “home course”). Instead,fans of such sports may rely more heavily on alterna-tive outlets to watch live sporting events or highlightsas well as keep abreast of the news about the partici-pants and upcoming activities. This is consistent with aplethora of research which has expanded definitions ofconsumption to include watching sports on television(Armstrong, 2002; Bennett, Sagas, & Dees, 2006; Fink,Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Kim, Greenwell, Andrew,Lee, & Mahony, 2008; Mehus, 2005; Pritchard & Funk,2006), reading newspapers and magazines (Armstrong,2002; Fink et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2008; Pritchard &Funk, 2006), listening to the radio (Pritchard & Funk,2006), and searching for sports-related content on theInternet (Hur, Ko, & Valacich, 2007; Kim et al., 2006).Thus, the spectator support measure adapted fromFunk et al. (2002) appears to be a more appropriatemeasure of consumption for niche sports.A questionnaire was utilized to collect information

about how each attribute related to five different sports– four niche sports and one mainstream sport. Selectedsports reflected the most common responses reportedin each of Rosner and Shropshire’s four categories dur-ing part one of the study to ensure that a variety ofniche sports were represented and the sports chosenwere familiar to the majority of respondents. The cate-gories identified by Rosner and Shropshire (2004) wereused to ensure that a mix of niche sports were includedwithin the study. The four niche sports mentionedmost by respondents in the first part of the study andsubsequently chosen for analysis were MiLB, WNBA,AFL, and MLS. The mainstream sport was the NFL. Surveys were administered to undergraduate students

enrolled in general physical activity classes, within alarge Midwestern university. Classes included basket-ball, volleyball, weight-lifting, fitness walking, racquet-ball, and indoor soccer. Students enrolled in more thanone activity class were only permitted to complete the

survey once. Activity classes were specifically targeted asthey provide a variety of students from both an aca-demic major perspective as well as a class level (fresh-men – senior). The use of a variety of activity classesrepresenting both mainstream and niche sport was astrategic choice of the researchers in an effort to capturea sample of individuals with divergent tastes.Participants rated their level of agreement (1 =

Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree) for each ofthe 28 items representing the seven attributes, andrated their level of agreement with the four items rep-resenting spectator support. This was repeated for eachof the five sports (four niche and one mainstream). An exploratory factor analysis was used to establish

the reliability of the constructs. To identify whichattributes most strongly predicted spectator support,this variable was regressed on each of the seven attrib-ute factors for each of the five different sports (fourniche and one mainstream).

Results

Subjects for this study were 215 undergraduate studentsenrolled in physical activity classes at an urbanMidwestern university. The sample was largelyCaucasian (75.2%). African Americans represented anadditional 19.4% of participants, Asians 3.2%,Hispanics 1.1%, and 1.1% indicated other. One partici-pant declined to indicate their ethnicity. Additionally,70.1% of respondents were male. In terms of age,80.7% of participants were under the age of 24. Finally,respondents were asked to indicate the degree to whichthey considered themselves to be a sport fan. Responseswere reported on a seven-point Likert response formatwith anchors of 1 (not at all) and 7 (fanatic). Most ofthose responding (85.7%) indicated a high degree ofsport fandom (those indicating a 5 or greater).A response rate of 100% was attained as the 215 sur-

veys distributed were returned. However, only 197 ofthe collected surveys were deemed usable for analysis.Eighteen of the responses were deemed unusable dueto missing data or respondents selecting the sameresponse for every item. This sample was considered adequate for two rea-

sons. First, the sample size of 197 met Tinsley andTinsley’s (1987) criteria for a stable factor structure.Second, Stevens (2002) suggested at least 15 subjectsper predictor for purposes of statistical power and reli-ability. This study had seven predictors, and exceededthe 120 subjects required for statistical power and reli-ability. Yet, the findings of the current study should beinterpreted with some degree of caution as this is anexploratory study utilizing a sample of college studentsfrom a single institution.

Following an exploratory factor analysis, the unique-ness factor was converted into a three-item measure asone item failed to load significantly on the construct.Additionally, two popularity items failed to load signif-icantly on any construct, thus popularity was convert-ed into a two-item measure. With these changes, theinstrument demonstrated acceptable inter-item relia-bility with all factors within each of the sport productsproducing a Cronbach’s Alpha ranging between 0.66and 0.94 (Garson, 2010), (see Table 1). According to

Garson (2010) a Cronbach’s Alpha of .60 is consideredacceptable in exploratory research. For each sport, spectator support was regressed on

the seven attributes in order to determine which attrib-utes predicted spectator support for that sport. ForMiLB, the attributes collectively accounted for 50% ofthe variance in spectator support (R2 = .504, adjustedR2 = .486, F(7, 189) = 24.46, p < .001), with accessibil-ity (b = .184, p = .026) and affordability (b = .386, p<.001) emerging as significant predictors of spectator


Table 1.Scale Items and Construct Reliabilities

SportAttribute MiLB WNBA AFL MLS NFL

Spectator Support .884 .776 .854 .929 .940I watch, listen, or read about this sport often.I have been a fan of this sport for a long time.I am knowledgeable about the rules of this sport.I am interested in this sport.

Accessibility .748 .787 .704 .766 .738I can easily find information about this sport.This sport can easily be accessed via television or the internet.There are lots of opportunities for me to watch this sport.It is very easy for me to watch this sport.

Popularity .817 .801 .752 .806 .708I watch this sport because people are always talking about it.I like this sport because my friends/family do.

Uniqueness .749 .718 .672 .741 .773This sport is unique.This sport is different than other sports.Not many other sports are like this one.

Affordability .738 .701 .659 .703 .764This sport is great entertainment for the price.This sport is affordable entertainment.People are interested in this sport because it is an entertaining event for a reasonable price.It is affordable to be a fan of this sport.

Star Power .849 .796 .674 .767 .789This sport has recognizable athletes.This sport has star athletes.Players in this sport are celebrities.I hear a lot about athletes in this sport.

Player Skill .821 .836 .790 .858 .818Athletes in this sport are experts at what they do.These players are the best at their sport.Players in this sport have superior skills.Players in this sport are the best athletes.

Player Similarities .739 .693 .682 .723 .750These players are much like the people I know.Players in this sport are a lot like me.Athletes in this sport share my values.I can relate to the athletes in this sport.


support. For the WNBA, the seven attributes account-ed for 42% of the variance in spectator support (R2 =

.424, adjusted R2 = .403, F(7, 189) = 19.86, p < .001),as accessibility (b = .279, p < .001) and player similari-

Table 2.Summary of Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Spectator Support for Selected Niche Sports and the NFL (N = 197)

Variable R2 B SE B b t P

MiLB 0.504 Accessibility .213 .095 .184 2.24 .026*

Popularity .055 .082 .047 .670 .504 Uniqueness .152 .079 .131 1.92 .055 Affordability .600 .115 .386 5.23 .000**

Star Power .053 .095 .049 .557 .578 Player Skill .001 .087 .001 -.043 .966Player Similarity .161 .086 .116 1.87 .067

WNBA 0.424Accessibility .265 .074 .279 3.57 .000**

Popularity -.018 .067 -.016 -.266 .790Uniqueness .078 .066 .082 1.17 .240Affordability .143 .086 .125 1.67 .096Star Power .071 .082 .075 .876 .382Player Skill -.062 .073 -.067 -.850 .397Player Similarity .368 .081 .323 4.55 .000**

AFL 0.391Accessibility .336 .081 .298 4.13 .000**

Popularity .112 .074 .101 1.50 .135Uniqueness .087 .073 .083 1.19 .233Affordability .270 .096 .196 2.80 .006**

Star Power -.105 .103 -.083 -1.02 .308Player Skill -.111 .078 -.099 -1.42 .158Player Similarity .452 .086 .351 5.23 .000**

MLS 0.501Accessibility .595 .108 .427 5.49 .000**

Popularity .185 .069 .156 2.68 .008**

Uniqueness .208 .086 .156 2.43 .016**

Affordability .256 .121 .148 2.12 .036*

Star Power -.111 .115 -.078 -.966 .335Player Skill -.099 .094 -.070 -1.05 .296Player Similarity .299 .099 .196 3.02 .003**

NFL 0.488Accessibility .724 .148 .371 4.88 .000**

Popularity .126 .047 .148 2.68 .008**

Uniqueness .063 .068 .058 .926 .356Affordability .036 .079 .030 .456 .649Star Power .030 .140 .016 .213 .832Player Skill .452 .117 .279 3.87 .000**

Player Similarity .060 .071 .053 .838 .403

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


ty (b = .323, p < .001) emerged as significant predic-tors of spectator support. For the AFL, the sevenattributes combined to account for 39% of the vari-ance in spectator support (R2 = .391, adjusted R2 =.368, F(7, 189) = 17.31, p < .001). Accessibility (b =.298, p < .001), affordability (b = .196, p = .006), andplayer similarity (b = .351, p < .001) were identified assignificant predictors of spectator support within theAFL. For MLS, the seven attributes accounted for 50%of the variance in spectator support (R2 = .501, adjust-ed R2 = .483, F(7, 189) = 27.33, p < .001), with accessi-bility (b = .427, p < .001), popularity (b = .156, p =.008), uniqueness (b= .156, p = .016), affordability (b= .148, p = .036), and player similarity (b = .196, p =.003) all surfacing as significant predictors. Finally, theseven attributes accounted for 49% of the variance inspectator support for the NFL (R2 = .488, adjusted R2

= .469, F (7, 189) = 25.75, p < .001). Accessibility (b =.371, p < .001), popularity (b = .148, p = .008), andplayer skill (b = .279, p < .001) all significantly con-tributed to the prediction of spectator support.Regression results are found in Table 2. Table 3 pro-vides a summary of means for each construct. As shown in Table 2, several attributes were signifi-

cant predictors of niche sports only, while othersappeared to significantly predict spectator support ofthe mainstream sport. Only one attribute, accessibility,was found to be a significant predictor of all four nichesports (p = .026 – p <.001, b = .184 – b = .427) as wellas the mainstream sport (p < .001, b = .371). Popularitywas a significant predictor of spectator support for bothMLS (p = .008, b = .156) and the NFL (p = .008, b =.148). The attributes of affordability and player similari-ties provided the most noticeable differences betweenthe niche and mainstream sport products. Affordabilitywas a significant predictor of spectator support forMiLB (p < .001, b = .386), AFL (p = .006, b = .196),and MLS (p = .036, b = .148) but was not found to be a

significant predictor of spectator support for the NFL(p = .649, b = .030). Likewise, player similarities wasfound to be a significant predictor of spectator supportfor the WNBA (p < .001, b = .323), AFL (p < .001, b =.351), and MLS (p = .003, b = .196) but not the NFL (p= .403, b = .053). The only attribute found to be pre-dictive of spectator support for the mainstream sport(NFL) but none of the niche sports was player skill (p <.001, b = .279). Player skill was found to be the second-greatest predictor of spectator support for the NFL,trailing only behind accessibility.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify the attributesrespondents use to distinguish between mainstreamand niche sports and determine which of these attrib-utes are predictive of spectator support. Niche sportmarketers, or at least those still operating, realize theycannot compete against mainstream sports head-to-head and have to find a way to differentiate their prod-uct from mainstream sports products like the NFL andMLB (Newman, Grainger, & Andrews, 2003). Thisstrategy has already been employed by the NLL, as evi-denced through the comments of NLL CommissionerGeorge Daniel when he stated “we’ve already posi-tioned ourselves as a lower-cost form of entertain-ment” (Tedesco, 2009, p. 23). Mainstream sports havemuch larger operations budgets, receive significantlymore media attention, and are often viewed as the pin-nacle of the sporting world. However, niche sports canprovide fans with an experience not currently suppliedby many mainstream sport properties. Niche sportmarketers who can focus on promoting these uniqueattributes will be more successful in attracting andretaining fans. For example, the NLL mandates that allplayers must attend an informal post-game receptionat a local restaurant (usually a sponsor of the team)after all home and away games. Fans are also encour-

Table 3.Comparison of Means

Construct SportMiLB WNBA AFL MLS NFL

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Support 3.44 1.77 3.08 1.39 2.81 1.45 2.81 1.45 5.82 1.63Accessibility 4.13 1.53 3.96 1.46 3.67 1.29 3.67 1.29 6.47 0.84Popularity 2.59 1.51 2.22 1.28 2.40 1.32 2.40 1.32 4.39 1.93Uniqueness 3.81 1.53 3.79 1.45 4.60 1.39 4.38 1.44 4.96 1.53Affordability 4.26 1.14 4.22 1.22 4.51 1.05 4.51 1.05 4.66 1.38Star Power 3.55 1.63 3.91 1.45 2.98 1.15 2.98 1.15 6.44 0.87Player Skill 4.16 1.47 4.84 1.50 4.16 1.31 4.16 1.31 6.22 1.01Player Similarity 3.83 1.28 3.39 1.22 3.46 1.13 3.46 1.13 4.01 1.46

aged, via the public address system at the game, toattend the post-game reception and interact with theplayers (Livingstone, 2009). The following section dis-cusses the attributes most likely to predict spectatorsupport and differentiate niche sport properties frommainstream sport properties.Accessibility, the relative ease in which fans can

watch, listen to, or gather information about a sportproperty, was found to be an important predictor forall sports, whether mainstream or niche. This is a keyfactor in explaining differing levels of spectator sup-port as mainstream sports are typically televised more,highlighted more on television news and other majormedia, and discussed more on popular websites. Nichesports, on the other hand, receive far less attentionfrom mainstream media. This was evidenced in theresults as respondents felt the NFL was much moreaccessible (M = 6.47) than any of the niche sports (M= 3.67—4.13). Therefore, the challenge for niche sportmarketers is to identify alternative means to reachpotential customers. Considering changes in technolo-gy and the emergence of new media, it appears thatniche sports would be well-served to utilize these toolsto make their sports more accessible to more people. Additionally, the Internet has revolutionized the dis-

semination of sport information, allowing fans 24/7access to their favorite sport teams, leagues, or players.This, coupled with the amplified use of Twitter andFacebook by many athletes and teams, both main-stream and niche, has created a sporting environmentwhere fans rarely have to search very hard for informa-tion regarding their favorite sports entities. Therefore,as technology continues to evolve, it has becomeincreasingly more important for all sports organiza-tions to keep fans up-to-date on the team’s latest hap-penings via news releases, press conferences, andthrough more innovative methods such as statusupdates and text alerts. With respect to the findings ofthe current study, niche sport properties looking toincrease their level of spectator support may be wellserved in using social media outlets to make theirproduct more accessible.While accessibility was important for all sports

included in this study, affordability and player similari-ties only predicted spectator support for niche sports.Respondents viewed MiLB, AFL, and MLS as economi-cal alternatives to mainstream sports. Spectatorsattending these events are able to purchase tickets at afar discounted rate compared to most major leaguesports. Fans attending niche sports often benefit fromgame promotions such as $1 beer and hotdog nights,themed nights ranging from the Altoona Curve’s(MiLB team) “Awful Night” to “Kids Run the Bases”offered by the Louisville Bats (MiLB team), and other

value-based activities catering to families. Niche sportorganizations often emphasize the importance of pro-viding a “bigger bang for the buck” to their fans(Tedesco, 2009). The results of the current investiga-tion suggest that an even greater need exists for nichesports to promote the value of their product as a cost-effective alternative to other sporting or general enter-tainment options.Player similarity was also found to be a significant

predictor for niche sport support. This factor meas-ured the extent to which respondents believed athleteswithin a given sport were like themselves or people thespectator knows. When respondents indicated the ath-letes of a particular sport were perceived as similar tothemselves, they were more likely to support the sport.According to the results, respondents were more likelyto relate to athletes of niche sports, which often lackthe celebrity status of more mainstream athletes.Results of the current study indicated that respondentsfelt, not surprisingly, that athletes within niche sportswere more like everyday people than unreachablecelebrities. This perceived similarity can be enhancedby emphasizing player accessibility for niche sports.Niche sport properties like the WNBA, AFL, NLL, andMLS provide numerous opportunities for spectators tointeract with their athletes such as allowing fans tocome onto the field and having players sign autographsafter the game. For instance, it is not uncommon forplayers from competing NLL teams to all be present atthe post-game party hosted at a local restaurant or bar,interacting with fans and representing their sport offthe field (Livingstone, 2009). In many cases players arerequired to attend as part of their contract and thesepost-game parties are promoted on the public addresssystem throughout the game. Many NCAA women’sbasketball teams allow fans to come down to courtsidefollowing the game to meet the athletes. All nichesports should pay heed to the importance of thisattribute and the simplistic ways in which they canreally foster a positive relationship between their fansand the players. Rather than glorifying their athletes,teams may want to highlight the real-life, humanaspects of their players and provide fans with opportu-nities to interact with them, getting to know players forwho they really are as opposed to what fans may see ontelevision or on the field. Conversely, different attributes tended to predict

spectator support for the mainstream sport in thisstudy, the NFL. Primarily, player skill was related tospectator support for the NFL, but not for any of theniche sports. NFL athletes are often perceived to be themost skilled athletes in their sport, and arguably someof the most elite athletes in general. Results from thisstudy suggest spectators tend to watch the sport to see


the best athletes at their sport. This contrasts with thefindings related to the niche sports, which suggest fansdo not base their support on the skill of the players.Fans of niche sports may be focusing on aspects of thesport other than player skill. Therefore, a niche sportmarketer would be much better served focusing theirefforts on many of the other attributes discussed with-in this study. For example, the WNBA may be betterserved by focusing on their players’ similarities toyoung female basketball players or perhaps the accessi-bility fans have to the players, rather than promotingthe high level of skill their players possess such as thecase in their “Expect Great” campaign. This is not todegrade or take away from the level of WNBA players’skills. Simply, the respondents of this study demon-strated they might be more affected by focusing onother aspects the WNBA has to offer.Similarly, popularity was an important predictor of

spectator support for the NFL and MLS, but not forany of the other niche sports. Popularity measured thedegree to which people are attracted to a sport proper-ty based on the way others feel about the sport proper-ty. The NFL is the most popular spectator sport in theUS (Sport Business Research Network, 2010) and has aprominent position in the media (Amato, Peters, &Shao, 2005). This extensive coverage may lead to fanstalking more about the sport and planning time towatch with family and friends. While MLS does notenjoy nearly as much popularity in the US, the sport ingeneral tends to be recognized as the most popularsport in the world. Results from this study indicatethat many spectators may be attracted to these twosports due to their perceived popularity. Both the NFLand MLS use these themes often in their marketingcampaigns. For example, the NFL often trumpets thehuge television ratings generated by the Super Bowl,and MLS often reminds fans they are watching theworld’s most popular game. Fans of niche sports, onthe other hand, do not seem to care whether thesesports are popular. Niche sport marketers would beadvised to stay away from these themes as they mostlikely could not support their claims and, more impor-tantly, their fans may not care whether their sport ispopular. This finding is analogous to fans of independ-ent film or independent music who may revel in theidea that what they like is not popular. Many fans ofniche sports may be drawn to the sport specificallybecause it goes against the mainstream. These nichesports may create a clique in which fans feel as thoughthey are a tighter knit group simply because “theirsport” does not conform to the mainstream. Some mayeven go so far as to compare fans of niche sports topunk music fans who were looking for the alternativeto popular “pop” music and would be offended if you

considered them, or their music, to be mainstream.Niche sport marketers may be better served to feedinto this mentality and boast their uniqueness whencompared to the goliaths of the sport spectating world.The results of this study illustrate which attributes

respondents associated with niche sports and howrespondents differentiated niche sport products frommainstream sport products. Further, results of thisstudy identify attributes significantly predicting specta-tor support for niche sports. From a theoretical per-spective, this study adds to the growing body ofliterature examining factors that influence sport con-sumption and provides insight into the consumptionof niche sport properties. From a practical perspective,this study gives niche sport marketers insight intowhich attributes respondents perceived to be impor-tant. Practitioners can use these results to understandwhich attributes of their product are relevant to someof their consumers, which attributes differentiate theirproduct from mainstream competitors, and whichattributes to highlight when creating marketing strate-gies to reach consumers.The current study was not without its limitations.

First, the sample for the current study was limited tocollege students within one Midwestern university.Also, more than three-quarters of the sample wasunder the age of 24. This number may not reflect theactual age demographic of the sport properties includ-ed in this study. However, this particular populationwas important because, not only does this demograph-ic have substantial buying power over a long period,they seem to have a shifting interest towards nichesports (Bennett, Segas, & Dees, 2006; Kojima, 2010).Also, as spectators age they become more set in theirways and less susceptible to engage in a new or uniquesport viewing experience. Yet, in order to gain a morerepresentative perspective of sports fans within the US,a more heterogeneous sample should be used in futurestudies. Therefore, findings of the current study mustnot be generalized too liberally as the sample was limit-ed to a population of college students at a single insti-tution. Second, there exists a wide range of niche andmainstream sports beyond the five discussed here.While this study attempted to identify attribute differ-ences between niche and mainstream sport products,future research should examine the attributes predic-tive of spectator support for other niche sport proper-ties in order to determine if certain attributes areconsistent across the majority of niche sport products.In order to gain a better understanding of the attrib-utes that differentiate niche from mainstream sports, acomparison across other mainstream sport propertiessuch as MLB, the NBA, or even the NHL, should alsobe examined. Third, differentiating between niche and


mainstream sports is very subjective in nature withoutany clear guidance from past research. Further, the dis-tinction between niche and mainstream sports is notabsolute. Rather, sports tend to fall on a continuumwith each sport experiencing different degrees of popu-larity. This point is evidenced in this study where MLShad some of the characteristics of a niche sport as wellas mainstream sport. Therefore, future studies maywant to investigate more sports across a wider spec-trum.

ReferencesAmato, C. H., Peters, C. L. O., & Shao, A. T. (2005). An exploratory investi-

gation into NASCAR fan culture. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 71-83.Armstrong, K. (1999). A quest for a market: A profile of the consumers of a

professional women’s basketball team and the marketing implications.Women’s Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 8(2), 103-126.

Armstrong, K. L. (2002). Race and sport consumption motivations: A pre-liminary investigation of a Black consumers’ sport motivation scale.Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(4), 309-330.

Bennett, G., Sagas, M., & Dees, W. (2006). Media preferences of actionsports consumers: Differences between Generation X and Y. SportMarketing Quarterly, 15, 40-49.

Bilyeu, J. K., & Wann, D. L. (2002). An investigation of racial differences insport fan motivation. International Sports Journal, 6(2), 93-106.

Braunstein, J. & Zhang, J. (2005). Dimensions of athletic star power associ-ated with Generation Y sports consumption. International Journal ofSports Marketing and Sponsorship, 6(4), 242-267.

Dalgic, T., & Leeuw, M. (1994). Niche marketing revisited: Concept, appli-cations and some European cases. European Journal of Marketing, 28(4),39-55.

Davis, M. C. (2009). Analyzing the relationship between team success andMLB attendance with GARCH effects. Journal of Sports Economics, 10,44-58.

Dean, T. J., Brown, R. L., & Bamford, C. E. (1998). Differences in large andsmall firm responses to environmental context: Strategic implicationsfrom a comparative analysis of business formations. StrategicManagement Journal, 19, 709-728.

DeSchriver, T. D., & Jensen, P. E. (2002). Determinants of spectator atten-dance at NCAA Division II football contests. Journal of SportManagement, 6, 311-330.

Dickson, P. R., & Ginter, J. L. (1987). Market segmentation, product differ-entiation, and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 1-10.

Donihue, M. R., Findlay, D. W., & Newberry, P. W. (2008). An analysis ofattendance at Major League spring training games. Journal of SportsEconomics, 8, 39-128.

Ferreira, M., & Armstrong, K. L. (2004). An exploratory examination ofattributes influencing students’ decisions to attend college sport events.Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 194-208.

Ferreira, M., & Bravo, G. (2007). A multilevel model analysis of profession-al soccer attendance in Chile 1990-2002. International Journal of SportsMarketing and Sponsorship, 8, 254-271.

Fink, J., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). An examination of teamidentification: Which motives are most salient to its existence?International Sports Journal, 6(2), 195-207.

Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., & Ridinger, L. L. (2002). Characterizing con-sumer motivation as individual difference factors: Augmenting theSport Interest Inventory (SII) to explain level of spectator support. SportMarketing Quarterly, 11(1), 33-43.

Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L. L., & Moorman, A. M. (2003). Understandingconsumer support: Extending the sport interest inventory (SII) toexamine individual differences among women’s professional sport con-sumers. Sport Management Review, 6(1), 1-32.

Gabriel, T. (1997, July 30). The newest bubbly on the shelf: Micro-sodasseek their niche. The New York Times. Retrieved from:http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/30/garden/the-newest-bubbly-on-the-shelf-micro-sodas-seek-their-niche.html

Garson, G.D. (2010). Reliability Analysis. Retrieved fromhttp://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/reliab.htm

Gifis, L. S., & Sommers, P. M. (2006). Promotions and attendance in minorleague baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal, 34, 513-514.

Gimble, B. (2006, August 2). Last of the indies. Retrieved from:http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/24/8381696/index.htm

Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2002). Developing an understanding ofbrand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers ofprofessional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 54-81.

Greenwell, T. C., Lee, J., & Naeger, D. (2007). Using the critical incidenttechnique to understand critical aspects of the minor league spectator’sexperience. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 190-198.

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

Hur, Y., Ko, Y. J., & Valacich, J. (2007). Motivation and concerns for onlinesport consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 521-539.

Kahn, L. M. (2000). The sports business as a labor market laboratory.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 75-94.

Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (1997). Markets of single customer: Exploiting con-ceptual developments in market segmentation. European Journal ofMarketing, 31, 873-895.

Kim, S., Andrew, D. P. S., & Greenwell, T. C. (2009). An analysis of specta-tor motives and media consumption behaviour in an individual combatsport: Cross-national differences between American and South KoreanMixed Martial Arts fans. International Journal of Sport Marketing andSponsorship, 10(2), 157-170.

Kim, S., Greenwell, T. C., Andrew, D. P. S., Lee, J., & Mahony, D. F. (2008).An analysis of spectator motives in an individual combat sport: A studyof Mixed Martial Arts fans. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 109-119.

Kojima, S. (2010, January 22). NLL seeks new sponsorship, Reebok dealexpires in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nllinsider.com/2010/01/22/nll-seeks-new-sponsorships-reebok-deal-expires-in-2010/

Lehman, P. (2007, September). Offbeat thrills now, big money later?Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_37/b4049077.htm

Livingstone, S. (2009). PBR stays in saddle. USA Today. Retrieved from:http://usatoday.com/sports/2009-01-14-tough-economy-impact_N.htm

Mehus, I. (2005). Sociability and excitement motives of spectators attendingentertainment sport events: Spectators of soccer and ski-jumping.Journal of Sport Behavior, 28(4), 333-350.

Miloch, K., & Lambrecht, K. W. (2006). Consumer awareness of sponsor-ship at grassroots sport events. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(3),147–154.

Newman, J. I., Granger, A. D., & Andrews, D. L. (2003). Even better thanthe real thing? The XFL and football’s future imperfect. Football Studies,6(2), 5-21.

Pan, D. W., & Baker, J. A. W. (1999). Mapping of intercollegiate sports rela-tive to selected attributes as determined by a product differentiationstrategy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 69-82.

Pan, D. W., Zhu, Z., Gabert, T. E., & Brown, J. (1999). Team performance,market characteristics, and attendance of Major League Baseball: Apanel data analysis. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 35(2/3), 77-91.

Parrish, E. D., Cassill, N. L., & Oxenham, W. (2006). Niche market strategyfor a mature marketplace. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(7), 694-707.

Pritchard, M. P., & Funk, D. C. (2006). Symbiosis and substitution in spec-tator sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20(3), 299-332.

Rinehart, R. (2005). “Babes” & boards: Opportunities in new millenniumsport? Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29, 232-255.


Robinson, M. J., & DeSchriver, T. D. (2003). Consumer differences acrosslarge and small market teams in the National Professional SoccerLeague. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 80-87.

Rosner, S. R., & Shropshire, K. L. (2004). Start-up leagues and niche sports.In S. Rosner & K. Shropshire (Eds.), The business of sports (pp. 323-330). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Roy, D. P. (2008). Impact of new minor league baseball stadiums on gameattendance. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 146-153.

Sport Business Research Network. (2010). Sport fan market 2010: Overviewreport. Retrieved from http://sbrnet.com/pdf/overviewreport.pdf

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4thed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tedesco, R. (2009, February). Second string: ‘Smaller’ sports are scoring intough times. Promo Magazine, 22-24.

Tinsley, H.E.A., & Tinsley, D.J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counselingpsychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414-424.

Trachtenberg, J. A., & Evans, K. (2009, May 20). Lacrosse muscles its waywest. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/arti-cle/SB124278087620937367.html

Titlebaum, P., & Lawrence, H. (2010). Perceived motivation for corporatesuite ownership in the ‘Big Four’ leagues. Sport Marketing Quarterly,19(2), 88-96.

Toften, K., & Hammervoll, T. (2009). Niche firms and marketing strategy:An exploratory study of internationally oriented niche firms. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 43, 1378-1391.

Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty andselected stadium factors on spectator attendance, Journal of SportManagement, 9, 153-172.

Wann, D. L., Grieve, F. G, Zapalac, R. K., & Pease, D. G. (2008).Motivational profiles of sport fans of different sports. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 17(1), 6-19.

Wells, D. E., Southall, R. M., & Peng, H. H. (2000). An analysis of factorsrelated to attendance at Division II football games. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 9, 203-210.

Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Smith, D. W., Lee, J. T., Lam, E. T. C., & Jambor,E. A. (1997). Factors affecting the decision making of spectators toattend minor league hockey games. International Sports Journal, 1(1),39-53.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Greenhalgh, Simmons, Hambrick, & Greenwell (2011) Spectator support: Examining the attributes

Documents

Transcript of Greenhalgh, Simmons, Hambrick, & Greenwell (2011) Spectator support: Examining the attributes