Rival Conceptions of Rivalry: Why some competitions mean more than others

Rival Conceptions of Rivalry:Why some competitions mean more than others

European Sport Management Quarterly, 2015, v. 15(2), 227-248.

Joe B. Cobbs, PhD

Northern Kentucky University

B. David Tyler, PhD

Western Carolina University

Introduction

Relevance

Applied perspective

Research perspective

Purpose of the research

Exploratory

Antecedents

Presentation Overview

Literature review

Research efforts

Qualitative

Quantitative survey

Factor analysis

Conclusion

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Theoretical foundation

Social Identity Theory Group-based categorizations to develop self-concept (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Hogg, 1992, 2003; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1982)

Social categorization theory: similar to self are ‘ingroup;’ different comprise ‘outgroup’ (Stets & Burke, 2000)

Metacontrast principle: maximize differences between categories; minimize differences within categories (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1998)

Definition of rival:“a highly salient outgroup that poses an acute threat to the identity of the ingroup or to ingroup members’ ability to make positive comparisons between their group and the outgroup”

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Existing use of rivalry

Popular use Sport entities, media, fans

Rivalry in strategic management Competitive interaction

Presence of rival firms reduces margins

Also benefits to rivalry

Different reaction in sport…

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Short-run demand estimation models A = β0+BX+e

Inconsistent application Use rivalry proxies

Divisional affiliation

Distance – radius, border, mileage

Subjective rivalries

Panel of judges

Authors’ own beliefs

Missing: Clear understanding of what makes a rivalry

Rivalry in sport research

•Bruggink & Eaton, 1996

•McDonald & Rascher, 2000

•Paul, 2003

•Welki & Zlatoper, 1999

•Baimbridge et al., 1995

•Falter et al., 2008

•Morley & Thomas, 2007

•Peel & Thomas, 1988; 1992

•Boyd & Krehbiel, 2003

•Pacey & Wickham, 1985•Benz et al., 2006

•Buraimo, 2007

•Forrest et al., 2005

•Garcia & Rodriguez, 2002

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Qualitative inquiry

Description of sample

Purposeful convenience sample

38 respondents

81% response rate

75 rivalries

53 unique

Football (NCAA)25%

Football (pro)23%

Baseball (MLB)23%

Basketball (NCAA)

9%

Basketball (pro)4%

Hockey4% Other

12%

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Questions

Characteristics of rivalry (open-ended) Think of your favorite team & that team’s rival

What characteristics make it a rivalry?

Emergent antecedents to rivalry

Defining moment Geography Star factors

Frequency of competition Competition for personnel Relative dominance

Parity (historical) Cultural similarity Unfairness

Parity (recent) Cultural difference

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Why is this a rivalry? (antecedents)

Initial qualitative inquiry – Results

“They are two best currently, but also have the most championships in the history of the sport.There is some national pride as well. Ferrari for Italy, but also McLaren (English).”

Coded as:•Parity •Cultural difference

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Why is this a rivalry? (antecedents)

Initial qualitative inquiry – Results

“Proximity. Fan Base that overlaps. Long standing programs. Jim Brown versus the always stellar Pittsburgh Defense”

Coded as:•Geography•Cultural similarity•Fan dedication/loyalty•History•Star factors

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Questionnaire

Sample

Undergraduate students at three large, public universities

429 usable responses

Choose rival of favorite team

Think about rival compared to other competitors

Evaluate antecedents to rivalry

Rate importance of each factor (Likert scale)

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Descriptive stats: Importance to rivalry

Rivalry elements Mean SD

Frequency of competition 5.12 1.03

Defining moment 4.72 1.22

Recent parity 4.72 1.23

Historical parity 4.70 1.22

Star factor 4.70 1.25

Geography 4.61 1.41

Relative dominance 4.52 1.35

Competition for personnel 4.38 1.34

Cultural similarity 4.12 1.38

Cultural difference 3.51 1.49

Unfairness 3.37 1.51

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

EFA pattern matrix

Rivalry elements Conflict Peer Bias

Recent parity 0.73 0.04 -0.06

Frequency of competition 0.69 -0.18 -0.07

Historical parity 0.64 0.02 -0.02

Star factor 0.56 -0.01 0.20

Defining moment 0.47 0.03 0.23

Competition for personnel 0.33 -0.23 0.23

Geography 0.01 -0.85 -0.04

Cultural similarity 0.07 -0.38 0.30

Unfairness 0.01 0.07 0.72

Cultural difference -0.03 -0.08 0.62

Relative dominance 0.18 -0.06 0.43Note: Extraction via principal axis factoring; oblimin rotation.

Loadings > |0.3| in bold

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Contribution

First attempt: empirical exploration of sports rivalries

Qualitative inquiry and analysis

Factor development

Benefits

Academic

Demand estimation accuracy

Practitioner

Efforts to develop rivalry

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Challenges/Limitations & Future directions

Concept of rivalries

Heterogeneity of rivalry factors

Potential bi-directionality of rival intensity

Measuring rivalry intensity

Advance understanding of sport rivalries

Predictive model

Quantifiable outcomes

Expand to corporate rivalry

Beyond Porter’s 5-forces

Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

Thank you for your time and feedback

Any questions?