Download - MEASURING THE IMPACT FACTOR OF “SENSE OF SECURITY” BY AN ATHLETE, SPORTS FAN, OR NON-SPORTS FAN WHEN ATTENDING A NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING EVENT

Global Journal of Management and Research July – September ISSN 2278-0955 Page 43

MEASURING THE IMPACT FACTOR OF “SENSE OF

SECURITY” BY A SPORTS FAN OR NON-SPORTS FAN WHEN

ATTENDING A SPORTING EVENT

Mr. Diptesh Andrew DeChoudhury

1658 Greenfield Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025/USA

Abstract

The primary goal of a sport organization is to nurture the relationship with the fan as

well continuing to build and strengthen the dichotic relationship between the sports fan

and sports organization. This is considered very crucial to the sport organization‟s

marketing effectiveness and efficiency. After the successful marketing of a sport‟s

organization attracting new fans, it makes great business sense to further strengthen and

build on that relationship through local, state, and national commercial sponsorships.

Moreover, this dynamic effect enables the fan to connect with more desire and passion.

This pilot study presents an overview of studies measuring the various impacts/factors on

why sports fans attend their chosen sporting events. This mission statement is to clearly

define the essential elements that enhance venue attractiveness. Studies from academic

and consultancy backgrounds are assessed, with a focus on the models and

methodologies used, the types of impact factors that vary which are investigated for their

effectiveness. The extensive study concludes with a discussion of key trends in the past,

present, and future along with research variables and inefficiencies.

Introduction

As the range of major sports events have grown over the past 100 years, along with their

economic values, the impacts and variable factors have increasingly come under the scrutiny of

funders, policy-makers, planners, and business owners. Therefore, the purpose of this research is

to examine studies and measure their impact on factors of sports events/venue attractiveness.

Sports fans and non-sports fans at major sports events have exhibited the fact that variety of

influences; which may include facility accessibility, trade area/drawing radius, parking (the

design layout), amenities, personnel, a solid sense of community service, security awareness,

winning teams, and environmental considerations. Furthermore, this research study will ask a

field of experts that can influence the list of factors by adding or deleting to it. Much of the

literature studying sports event and venue impact builds on the early work in the area of event

tourism and sports event management. A total of 25-50 publications will be identified and

consequently grouped according to the impact factors. The overall plan is to complete the

qualitative and quantitative research utilizing the Likert scale. This type of measurement

includes a one-dimensional scaling method (Babbie, 2007).


Literature Review

A. Deciphering the Important Elements That Enhance Sports Venue/Event

Attractiveness for the Spectator, Sports Fan, and Non-Sports Fan.

Important elements that enhance sports venue/event attractiveness studies are a major area of

research for many sports franchises and teams in order to increase revenue. For example, it is

very crucial for sport marketers to identify which factors influence people to attend major

sporting events. This clarity of focus would allow marketers to implement effective market

segmentation and targeting; which can then be utilized as a resource tool to help in determining

which important elements or factors are required by sports fans and spectators to enable them to

plan, strategize, and market events effectively. In time before, there has been evidence of where

examining spectators‟ decisions to attend sporting events; that includes facility accessibility,

sense of security, trade area/drawing radius, a winning team, parking and surroundings such as

design layout, amenities, personnel, and environmental awareness (See & Yusof, 2008).

B. Sense of Security

With the unknown uncertainty of terrorist actions and unruly or violent fan behavior what

has become a growing concern in the United States to retain and ensure a risk free environment

at our sporting venues (Hall, Marciani, & Cooper, 2008). Furthermore, major national sporting

events constitute potential terrorist targets which have become a major concern and create undue

stress for many sports fans, franchise owners, and facility managers (Hall, 2008).

For these reasons, a sport specific risk assessment model had been developed while

conducting research through a Homeland Security grant. For example, a study investigating

spectators‟ perceptions at a NASCAR event, via survey administered by the Center for Sports

Security Management collaborating with Turnkey Sports and Entertainment where 64%

indicated an opinion that professional sporting events are a prime target of terrorist attacks (Hall,

Marciani, & Cunningham, 2009). This “sense of security” factor is important in order to create

a positive game environment which is engrained in mission statements and good sportsmanship

initiatives at NCAA Division II Universities which can be seen as very important as stated by

Mr. Fran Reidy, an Athletic Director at a Division II University. (F. Reidy, personal

communication, September 10, 2009)

C. Methods/Research Plans: Methods/Design/Procedures/Results.

Assessments

Mr. Rensis Likert (Babbie, 2007) created a method by which this Likert questionnaire format

could be used to determine the relative intensity of different items. The questionnaire

item/format contains response categories such as strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly


disagree. This unique style of questionnaire is one of the most commonly used formats in

contemporary questionnaire design (Babbie, 2007).

Advantages

This method can determine the relative intensity of different factors. Likert scale goes

one step further and calculates the average index score for those agreeing with each of the

individual statements. As a result of item analysis, respondents can also be rescored to form a

comparative scale. This type of survey research is a mode of observation utilized primarily in the

social sciences. In a typical survey, the researcher selects a sample of respondents and

administers a standardized questionnaire to them. Many researchers agree that this method is

readily available to a social researcher who is interested in collecting reliable data for describing

a population too large to merely observe directly from a small sample size. The use of survey

results has become a valuable tool of survey research, and is especially useful for students and

others with limited research funds (Babbie, 2007).

In addition, surveys and their research questions may be used for descriptive,

explanatory, and exploratory purposes. They are chiefly utilized in studies that focus on

individual people as the units of analysis. The three major research question formats are open-

ended and close-ended questions, matrix questions, and contingency questions for which survey

research is an appropriate technique of observation (Babbie, 2007).

In comparison, open-ended questions are questions where the respondent is asked to

provide his or her own answers and this method usually provides for in-depth qualitative

interviewing. For contrasting purposes, close-ended questions is when the respondent is asked to

select an answer from a list provided by the researcher. Close-ended type questions are popular

in research because they provide for a greater uniformity of responses and are easily processed

than open-ended questions (Babbie, 2007).

Another type of question that is applicable to this type for research is the contingency

question where the survey question is intended for a narrow range of respondents, as determined

by their responses to another question. For example, all respondents might be asked whether

they have a season ski pass to Vail Resorts, and only those who said yes would be asked how

often they go skiing at Keystone (1 of the 6 Vail Ski Resorts). The latter would be a contingency

question (Babbie, 2007).

F. Methods Continued

Participants

The participants were taken from a volunteer sample of Saint Leo University and

Global Journal of Management and Research July – September ISSN 2278-0955 6

University of South Florida undergraduate students, and Saint Leo University graduate students

through Saint Leo University college classrooms and the Saint Leo University library.

Furthermore, a volunteer sample of working professionals from Vail Resorts in Colorado, Team

In Training Suncoast Chapter affiliated with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, faculty and

staff at Saint Leo University during office meetings were also taken. These samples were taken

through college classrooms, email, library study, and office meetings spanning a one month

period. A demographic questionnaire assessed the age, gender, and occupation or working role

of the participants. The respondents were asked to complete a “Measuring the Impact Factors a

Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan Considers Important When Attending a Sporting Event: A Likert

Survey.”

Design

Participants are split into two conditions and given a Likert questionnaire. In condition 1, the

participants are defined as major sports fans and are asked to fill out/complete the Likert

questionnaire to the best of his or her ability. In condition 2, the participants are defined as non-

sports fans and are asked to fill out/complete the Likert questionnaire to the best of his or her

ability. The dependent measures will be identifying which are the most important factors on why

sports fans and non-sports fans attend sporting events.

A.The Basic Structure of the experiment. A Likert Questionnaire.

B.The details of each condition (levels of the independent variable). Sports Fans vs. Non-Sports

fans.

C.The dependent variable. Questions detailing with each factor.

Controls for this experiment should be outlined: Non-sports fans would be my control

group while Sports fans would be my experimental group.

Materials and Stimuli

This section will list the materials and stimuli utilized within in this experiment. The

stimuli used in this experiment would be the Likert Questionnaire. Paper and pen will also be

provided for this survey. A Likert Questionnaire that could be completed on-line for participants

that live in far away states and foreign countries.

Procedures

The procedures ready and set for the college classroom, office settings, library, stadium

fans at the gate before a game, or an online questionnaire. I was hoping that I could provide this

Likert Questionnaire in a variety of settings to get the maximum amount of responses from a

variety of demographic groups.

Other procedures include:


1. Defining the focus.

2. Generating the items.

3. Rating the items.

4. Selecting the items.

5. Administering the scale

Results

This section contains the experimental findings of the experimental group and control group

provided by my assessments and statistical data taken from the Likert Questionnaires. Reporting

of the results will start with reporting the descriptive statistics, Pearson‟s correlations analysis,

regression analysis, top rank order, and then moves forward to the results utilizing the Likert

questionnaire and how it should be reported and analyzed.

Descriptive Statistics

Geometric Means, Medians, Modes, Averages, Standard Deviations, Variances, and

Demographics.

Groups:

A. Undergraduate Students 80 Total Research Participants/52.6%.

1. Sports Business Majors 50 Total Research Participants.

2. Non-Sports Business Majors 30 Total Research Participants.

B. Graduate Students.

1. MBA students and other Master Degree students: 48 MBA Students/2 MA Students:

50 Total Research Participants/32.9%.

C. Working Professionals: 22 Total Research Participants/14.5%.

Participants

The sample consisted of 152 participants. The data was collected through college

classrooms, email, library study, and office meetings spanning one month. In total, 152 usable

Likert surveys were collected. Respondent ages ranged from 18 to 68 [18-21=38.2%, 22-

39=40.8%,40-68=21.1%] and 80 undergraduate students (52.6%), 50 graduate students (32.9%),

and 22 working professionals (14.5 %) . To expand and enrich the quantitative findings of the

Likert a ranking of highest order topic was utilized immediately following the Likert Survey.

The topics to rank from this Likert Survey list included “Team Quality/Winning Team”,


“Facility Accessibility”, “Sense of Security”, “Amenities”, and “Corporate Social

Responsibility.” Furthermore, five on-site administration of questionnaires to active sports

administrators were given to provide their opinions and facts on the subject of Measuring the

Impact Factors A Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan Considers Important When Attending A

Sporting Event: A Likert Survey.

Data Analysis

Five-Point Likert Rating Scale and Credibility

Data credibility was achieved in three ways (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) through the

independent coding of data, checking of the categorization process by researchers experienced in

qualitative and quantitative methods, and careful examination of the researchers‟ scripts for each

participant.

The reasons for the five point Likert scale for my research study, “Measuring the Impact

Factors a Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan Considers Important When Attending a Sporting

Event: A Likert Survey”, is based on past research studies that have indicated that the 4-point

scale was less reliable than Likert scales with 5, 6, or 7 options. The same research found that in

examining the reliability of the data, 5, 6, or 7 provided similar data quality and suggested five-

point rating scales should be used in situations where moderate responses are expected such as

my Likert Survey. When examining reliability and preference, a five-point was optimum for the

respondents in this study (McDonald, 2004). In addition to this, two recent research studies have

found that more than three responses are necessary to achieve stable responses from respondents

(Preston and Coleman, 2000; Weng, 2004). Furthermore, reliability estimates with 4 point rating

scales or less fluctuated from sample size to sample size, and recommended that 5 or more points

be utilized for designing a rating scale (Weng, 2004).

Likert Questionnaire and Investigation of the Highest to Lowest Topic Rank Order

Sample Size

The statistical data for this research study was collected from 152 participants [80

undergraduate students (52.6%), 50 graduate students (32.9%), and 22 working

professionals(14.5%)].

Instrument and Procedure

There were no previous available Likert questionnaires in the research literature

combining the research question into one set of impact factors into one “Measuring the Impact

Factors a Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan Considers Important When Attending a Sporting

Event: Likert Survey”. The scales related to these constructs were specifically developed during


this time for this new and improved research study. Following the analysis of sports

administrator interviews and previous research studies on “impact factors” associated with sports

fans and non-sports fans were identified and included in this Likert questionnaire and “Impact

Factor” topic order. The purpose of the questionnaire was to perform relevant exploratory

descriptive statistical analyses, correlation and regression analysis to determine which “impact

factor” was the highest priority for the sports fan and non-sports fan when attending a sports

event which can be further utilized in the future by security advisors, sports administrators and

sports marketers.

The questionnaire for this new research study was distributed directly to the participants

by the researcher after he had explained the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of the

participants‟ responses. The constructs under examination were : 1) Team Quality/Winning

Team 2) Facility Accessibility 3) Sense of Security 4) Amenities, and 5) Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR). To determine the highest rank impact factors respondents were asked to

answer statements utilizing a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5 and then perform a simple topic

rank to identify the highest topic rank to the lowest topic rank.

Table 1. Age Groups

18-21 22-39 40 and Over

58/38.2% 62/40.8% 32/21.1%

Table 2. Age Statistics

Mean

Median Mode Average Standard

Deviation

Variance

28.43 23.00 21.00 28.43421053 11.172 124.8035901

Table 3. Gender

Gender Male Female/Unknown

72/47.4% 79/52.0%/1/.7%


Table 4. Overall Topic Rank: Mean, Median, Mode, and Average

Overall Topic Rank Geometric

Mean

Median Mode Average

Team Quality/Winning 2.9774 4 4 3.4605

Facility Accessibility 2.836216893 3 3 3.0789

Sense of Security 2.656134462 3 3 2.9868

Amenities/Concession

/Merchandising/

Ticket-Pricing/

Environmentally-

Conscious

2.618156972 3 2 3.03289

Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR)

2.043388734 2 1 2.440789

Table 5. Overall Topic Rank: Standard Deviation and Variance

Overall Topic Rank Standard Deviation Variance

Team Quality/Winning 1.564852273 2.448762635

Facility Accessibility 1.101030918 1.212269083

Sense of Security 1.2966898195 1.681944929

Amenities/Concession

/Merchandising/

Ticket-Pricing/

Environmentally-Conscious

1.466706737 2.151228651

Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR)

1.4269569 2.036205995


Table 6. Measuring the Impact Factors A Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan Considers

Important When Attending A Sporting Event

A. Sports Fan or Non-Sports Fan

Sports Fan or

Non-Sports Fan

Geometric Mean Median Mode Average

1A. I enjoy

watching sports.

4.07 5 5 4.25

2A. I enjoy

playing sports.

3.975 5 5 4.21

3A. I consider

myself an avid

sports fan.

3.273024898 4 5 3.66

4A. I regularly

attend high

school sporting

events.

2.038 2 2 2.37

5A. I regularly

attend college

sporting events.

2.891 3.5 4 3.22

6A. I regularly

attend

professional

sporting events.

2.887 3 4 2.37


Primary Motivating Impact Factor for attending a sporting event through Highest Rank

Order Analysis

Study findings revealed that the primary motivating impact factor for respondents

attending sporting events with the following highest ranking topic percentages with the #1

ranking was “Team Quality/Winning Team” (39.5% of the total respondents) followed by

“Amenities” (22.5% of the total respondents), “Security” (15.1% of the total respondents),

“Corporate Social Responsibility” (14.5% of the total respondents), and “Facility Accessibility”

(8.6% of the total respondents).

Please see below the Histogram charts that display frequency of highest topic rank for each

topic/impact factor utilizing the SPSS program.

Sports Fan or Non-Sports

Fan

Standard Deviation Variance

1A. I enjoy watching

sports.

1.024533491 1.049668874

2A. I enjoy playing

sports.

1.125452544 1.26664343

3A. I consider myself an

avid sports fan.

1.41395167 1.999259324

4A. I regularly attend

high school sporting

events.

1.279922444 1.638201464


college sporting events.

1.318223611 1.737713489


professional sporting

events.

1.211295163 1.467235971


Figure 1. Histogram of Winning Team/Team Quality


Figure 2. Histogram of Facility Accessibility


Figure 3. Histogram of Security


Figure 4. Histogram of Amenities


Figure 5. Histogram of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)


Regression Analysis Produced No Significant Results

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, r (A Bivariate Correlation Coefficient)

The coefficient in equation is known as the Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient which statistically emphasizes that by standardizing the covariance the researcher

ends up with a value that has to lie between -1 and +1. If the researcher fins a coefficient less

than -1 or more than +1 then the researcher knows that something has gone wrong (Field, 2009).

A coefficient of +1 indicates that the two variables are perfectly positively correlated, so

as one variable increases, the other increases by a proportionate amount. Conversely, a

coefficient of -1 indicates a perfect negative relationship where if one variable increases, the

other decreases by a proportionate amount. A coefficient of zero indicates no linear relationship

at all and so if one variable changes, the other stays the same (Field, 2009).

The correlation coefficient is a standardized measure of an observed effect and is

commonly used to measure the size of an effect and that values of +-.1 represent a small effect,

+-.3 is a medium effect and +-.5 is a large effect (Field, 2009).

Pearson’s Correlation Analysis Results

Enjoyed Watching Sports

Study findings reveal strong positive correlations if the subjects enjoyed watching sports:

1. .249**=small/medium effect: subjects very strongly agreed that they felt secure when

sport franchises employed professional security agencies at sporting events at stadiums,

venues, and arenas.

2. .310**=medium effect: subjects very strongly agreed that pat downs at the front gates of

stadiums and arenas provided them with a heightened sense of being secure.

3. .287**=medium effect: subjects very strongly agreed that they felt secure when United

States Homeland Security Department measures are being appropriately applied for

stadiums and arenas nationwide.

4. .368**=medium/large effect: subjects very strongly agreed that they felt secure when

attending major sporting events in the United States of America.

5. .378**=medium/large effect: subjects very strongly agreed feeling high sense of security

when watching a major sporting event with my family and friends at a major sports

venue in the United States of America.

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Played Sports

Study findings revealed very strong positive correlations with thinking that if the subjects

enjoyed playing sports:

1. ..226**=small/medium effect: subjects strongly agreed that they felt a heightened sense

of security with pat downs at the front gates of stadiums and arenas.

2. .251**=medium effect: subjects strongly agreed that they felt secure at major sporting

events in the United States of America.

3. .269**=medium effect: subjects strongly agreed that they felt secure when watching a

major sporting event with my family and friends at a major sports venue in the United

States of America.


Study findings revealed very strong positive correlations if the subjects enjoyed playing

sports:

1. .169*=small effect: subjects agreed that they felt secure when Homeland Security

Department measures were being appropriately applied to stadiums and arenas

nationwide.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Avid Sports Fan

Study findings reveal that subjects found very strong positive correlations that if you are an avid

sports fan:

1. .257**=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure when sports franchises employ

security agencies at sporting events at stadiums, venues, and arenas.

2. .261**=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure that pat downs at the front gates at

stadiums and arenas provided me with a heightened sense of being secure.

3. .239**=small/medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure that the United States

Homeland Security Department measures were being applied appropriately for stadiums

and arenas nationwide.

4. .342**=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure at major sporting events in the

United States of America.

5. .370**=medium/large effect: subjects felt extremely secure watching a major sporting

event with family and friends at a major sports venue in the United States of America.



College/Professional

College

Study findings reveal that subjects found very strong positive correlations that if you regularly

attend college sporting events:

1. **.221=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure watching major sporting events

with their family and friends at major sports venues in the United States of America.

Discussion and Conclusions

One of the important goals of a sport organization is to nurture the relationship with the

fan, to enhance, to strengthen, is crucial to the sport organization‟s marketing effectiveness and

measuring efficiency as well as building a “a sense of security”. One of main goals of a

marketing and security department of a sport organization is to attract new fans and keep present

fans safe which makes great business logic to strengthen and build on that evolving relationship

and strengthen that sport fan‟s “sense of security” (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007).

A. Primary Motivating Impact Factor for Attending A Sporting Event Through Highest Rank

Order Analysis

Findings revealed that the primary motivating impact factor for respondents attending

sporting events with the following highest ranking topic percentages with the #1 ranking was

Team Quality/Winning Team (39.5% of the total respondents) followed by Amenities (22.5% of

the total respondents), Security (15.1% of the total respondents), Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR) (14.5% of the total respondents), and Facility Accessibility (8.6% of the total

respondents).

For this reason, a sports administrator, sports marketer, and security advisor could utilize

this survey data appropriately by budgeting for a sports organization, sports franchise, or sports

event security agency.

After reading Measuring the Impact Factors A Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan

Considers Important When Attending A Sporting Event: A Likert Survey in an email Pittsburgh

Steelers Youth Football/Marketing Marketing Manager, Mr. Mike Marchinsky stated in writing,

“Surveys are good if used properly.” (M. Marchinsky, personal communication, November 7,

2009).


B. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, r (A Bivariate Correlation Coefficient)

Implications for Security Advisors, Sports Marketers, and Sports Administrators plus

Suggestions For Future Research

Significant Medium and Large Effects

When analyzing sports event security through the medium and large effects of Pearson‟s

correlation analysis in dealing with subjects who enjoy sports, play sports, and are avid sports

fans, a sports security advisor or sports marketer can utilize this research evidence for adhering

to security measures as outlined by the Department of Homeland Security and the United States

Government. Furthermore, this research evidence can also be used to promote positive security

practices and purposes that directly influence positive public relations for sports organizations as

well as public and private security agencies.

Enjoyed Watching Sports

Study findings reveal strong positive correlations if the subjects enjoyed watching sports:

1. .249**=small/medium effect: subjects very strongly agreed that they felt secure when

sport franchises employed professional security agencies at sporting events at stadiums,

venues, and arenas.

2. .310**=medium effect: subjects very strongly agreed that pat downs at the front gates of

stadiums and arenas provided them with a heightened sense of being secure.

3. .287**=medium effect: subjects very strongly agreed that they felt secure when United

States Homeland Security Department measures are being appropriately applied for

stadiums and arenas nationwide.

4. .368**=medium/large effect: subjects very strongly agreed that they felt secure when

attending major sporting events in the United States of America.

5. .378**=medium/large effect: subjects very strongly agreed feeling high sense of security

when watching a major sporting event with my family and friends at a major sports

venue in the United States of America.


Avid Sports Fan

Study findings reveal that subjects found very strong positive correlations that if you are an avid

sports fan:


1. .257**=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure when sports franchises employ

security agencies at sporting events at stadiums, venues, and arenas.

2. .261**=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure that pat downs at the front gates at

stadiums and arenas provided me with a heightened sense of being secure.

3. .239**=small/medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure that the United States

Homeland Security Department measures were being applied appropriately for stadiums

and arenas nationwide.

4. .342**=medium effect: subjects felt extremely secure at major sporting events in the

United States of America.

5. .370**=medium/large effect: subjects felt extremely secure watching a major sporting

event with family and friends at a major sports venue in the United States of America.


Played Sports

Study findings revealed very strong positive correlations with thinking that if the subjects

enjoyed playing sports:

4. ..226**=small/medium effect: subjects strongly agreed that they felt a heightened sense

of security with pat downs at the front gates of stadiums and arenas.

5. .251**=medium effect: subjects strongly agreed that they felt secure at major sporting

events in the United States of America.

6. .269**=medium effect: subjects strongly agreed that they felt secure when watching a

major sporting event with my family and friends at a major sports venue in the United

States of America.


Study findings revealed very strong positive correlations if the subjects enjoyed playing

sports:

2. .169*=small effect: subjects agreed that they felt secure when Homeland Security

Department measures were being appropriately applied to stadiums and arenas

nationwide.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

For instance, by examining these medium and large effects of Pearson‟s correlation

analysis, a researcher can see that the Department of Homeland Security policies and procedures

are efficient and effective. The general “sense” by sports fans and non-sports is that Homeland


Department of Security presents security measures that are being appropriately applied for

stadiums and arenas nationwide. Subjects who enjoyed watching sports and were avid sports

fans measured “medium effects”. Subjects felt strongly secure when pat downs occurred at

stadiums and arenas, thus providing a greater “sense of security”, and “large effects” when

attending major sporting events and sports venues with friends and family. Subjects who played

sports felt secure but the statistical strength only reached small and medium effects. Meaning

that sports fans who enjoyed watching sports and were avid sports fans felt more secure at

sporting events than the subjects who enjoyed playing sports themselves.

Moreover, Measuring the Impact Factors A Sports Fan and Non-Sports Fan Considers

Important When Attending A Sporting Event: A Likert Survey should be utilized as reinforcement

to tough Department of Homeland Security measures where September 11th

and noted sports

related terrorism in the past such as the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, and the

1996 Atlanta Olympic Games made clear that stadium and arena operators must operate and

incorporate security safeguards and measures at America‟s great sporting venues (Hall,

Marciani, Cooper, & Rolen, 2008).

This research pinpoints and illustrates that it is critical to continue to develop and

improve current security measures so that in the future “large effects” in the realm of “sense of

security” is felt by subjects who enjoy sports, play sports and are avid sports fans. As Former

Secretary Tom Ridge, Department of Homeland Security stated, “The homeland is secure when

the home town is secure.” This homeland includes sporting events because they are strongly

connected to the American Economy and culture, thus have become prime targets of terrorism

(Miller, Veltri, and Gillentine, 2008). Furthermore, this research provides positive evidence and

validation that the Department of Homeland Security in conjunction with the Mississippi

Emergency Management agency, was appropriate in awarding the University of Southern

Mississippi a $568,000 research grant to create and continue to develop and fine tune a research

based model for the security management of university sport venues such as the The Sports

Event Security Assessment Model (SESAM) and develop “basic steps to event security” and

Sports Event Security Aware Systems (Hall, Marciani, Cooper, & Rolen, 2008).

References:

Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. California: Thomson Wadsworth.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Female and Male Sports fans: A comparison of sport consumption motives.

Journal of Sport Behavior (2009). Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://goliath.ecnext.com.

Hall, S. (2008). Effective security management of university sport venues. The Sport

Journal. Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.thesportsjournal.org.

Hall, S., Marciani, L., Cooper, W. E., & Rolen, R. (2008). Introducing a risk assessment model for

sport venues. The Sport Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2009 from

http://www.thesportsbusinessjournal.org.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/

http://www.thesportsjournal.org/

http://www.thesportsbusinessjournal.org/


Hall, S., Marciani, L., Phillips, D., & Cunningham, T. (2009). Spectator perceptions of

security management at a NASCAR event. The Sports Journal. Retrieved

September 9, 2009, from http://thesportsjournal.org.

Howard, D. R., & Crompton, J. L. (2005). Financing Sport (2nd ed., pp. 351-382).

Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Lee, J. (2001). Colleges work up an appetite for pro service.

Sports Business Journal. Retrieved August 30, 2009 from

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/5006.

Lee, N., & Lings, I. (2008). Doing business research, a guide to theory and practice.

London:Sage.

Lemke, T. (2008). Yankees, cowboys make concessions. The Washington Times,

Retrieved August 28, 2009 from

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/21/yankeescowboys-make-concessions

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Miller, J., Veltri, F. & Gillentine, A. (2008). Spectator perception of security at the super

bowl after 9/11: implications for sport facility managers.

The SMART Journal, 4(2), 16-25.

McDonald, J. L. (2004). The optimal number of categories for numerical rating scales (Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Denver, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International. 65 (05),

1664. (UMIN.3134422.

Mullin, B., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. (2007). Sport marketing. Human Kinetics Publishers.

Nyeck, S., & Pons, F. (2006). Consumer orientation toward sporting events.

Journal of Service Research, 8(3), 276-287.

Official Site of the Pittsburgh Steelers (2009). Retrieved on October 11, 2009

from http://news.steelers.com/fanzone.

Official Site of the Tampa Bay Rays (2008). Retrieved on July 16, 2009

from http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tb.

Preston, C. C., & Coleman, M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating

scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences.

Acta Psychologica 104, 1-15.

Rosner, S., & Shropshire, K. (2004). The Business of Sports. Sudbury , MA :

Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

See, L. H., & Yusof, A. (2008). Spectator perceptions of physical facility and team

quality: A Study of a Malayasian super league soccer match. Research Journal

of International Studies, 8, 132-140.

Stoldt, Dittmore, & Branvold, Sport Public Relations. (2006).

**************************

.

http://thesportsjournal.org/

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/5006

http://news.steelers.com/fanzone

http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tb