The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-678X.htm

The impact of brand Impact of

brand
associations on brand associations on
brand loyalty
loyalty in the football industry
499
A comparison of fans from developed and
emerging football markets
Daniel Maderer, Dirk Holtbruegge and Rachel Woodland
Department of International Management,
Friedrich-Alexander-University, Nuernberg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of brand associations on brand loyalty
of fans toward professional football clubs in developed and emerging football markets (EFM).
In particular, the following research questions are answered: how important are different determinants
of brand associations for fans from developed football markets (DFM) and EFM? Are there any major
differences in the importance of different brand associations and their influence on brand loyalty
between fans from DFM and EFM?
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the customer-based brand equity framework the impact
of brand associations on brand loyalty is tested with a sample of 3,587 fans from DFM – Germany,
England, Spain, Italy, and France (2,032) – as well as fans from EFM – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
the USA (1,555).
Findings – Structural equation modeling is applied and shows a negative impact of brand attributes
on attitudinal loyalty, whereas brand benefits positively impact attitudinal loyalty. Furthermore,
significant differences between fans from developed and EFM are revealed. Implications for the
management of football teams and for research on brand management are derived.
Originality/value – This study extends the work of Gladden and Funk (2001) by expanding the
model used to assess brand loyalty and analyzes it empirically in different football markets. When
looking to foster attitudinal loyalty, marketers should concentrate on benefit associations instead of
attribute associations. Most importantly, marketers should be aware that when focusing on developing
brand loyalty amongst EFM fans, they should not simply apply the same strategies that proved to be
effective in DFM and vice versa.
Keywords Fans, Emerging markets, Brand loyalty, Football, Brand associations
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
With Europe’s most relevant football markets such as Germany, England, Spain, Italy,
and France becoming increasingly more saturated, and with almost all of the market
share being distributed among local clubs, very little potential remains for a club’s
business management to increase revenue. Thus, football clubs are expanding
internationally to increase their fan base and revenue streams. Most football clubs are
looking for opportunities in emerging football markets (EFM), such as the BRIC
countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and the USA, as the market potential in
these countries is currently relatively unexplored (Bridgewater, 2010; Ergenzinger,
Sport, Business and Management:
2005; Keller, 2008). An International Journal
In order to participate in these fast growing markets, many European football clubs Vol. 6 No. 5, 2016
pp. 499-519
have extended their activities. English Premier League clubs play pre-season friendlies © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2042-678X
in Asia and North America. The Supercoppa Italiana has taken place in China for five DOI 10.1108/SBM-06-2016-0026
SBM of the last seven years, matches of the Spanish Primera Division often start at noon to
6,5 bind the Asian audience to the league, and players from emerging markets are
frequently transferred to European leagues.
While several European clubs have been very successful at entering emerging
markets, there are also many examples of failed internationalizations. For example, the
Malaysian owner of Cardiff City FC, Vincent Tan, changed the home kit from blue to
500 red, replaced the bluebird crest with a dragon, and changed the nickname of the
Bluebirds to the “the Red Dragons” in order to demonstrate the fusion of Welsh and
Malaysian cultures. However, these attempts to better market the club in Asia led to
massive protests by Welsh fans. Cardiff fans still wear their full blue uniform at the
stadium and sing the song “We’ll always be blue” to protest against Tan’s decision
(Ornstein and Phillips, 2014). Thus, Tan failed to recognize strong differences between
brand associations of fans in Europe and Asia.
While current research in the area of sports management has identified brand
associations as important for managing sports clubs (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005b; Gladden
and Funk, 2002; Ross et al., 2008), there is still a lack of understanding as to how to
create strong brands to guide decision making (Gladden and Milne, 1999; Ross, 2006).
This is especially the case in the international context (Kerr and Gladden, 2008).
The empirical research conducted so far tends to focus on single geographic markets
(Bauer et al., 2005a, 2008; Gladden and Funk, 2001, 2002) and is often concentrated on
American collegiate team sports, including American football, baseball, basketball and
ice hockey, while hardly paying any attention to football (Gladden and Funk, 2002).
Moreover, most studies use students as respondents (Ross et al., 2006, 2007). Finally,
there is a lack of studies that consider the increasingly important emerging markets.
Most contributions to international sports marketing have been from developed
markets and less is known about the topic from an emerging market perspective
(Goldman and Johns, 2009).
The aim of this study is to explore the impact of brand associations on fans’ brand
loyalty towards professional football clubs in developed and emerging markets. Fans
from anywhere in the world can access information about their favorite clubs and
players, as well as watch games live on TV and via internet streaming services.
Consequently, “satellite” fans are of increasing importance to football clubs and their
marketing managers, especially as they are often a large percentage of the total number
of supporters and can even outnumber local fans (Kerr and Gladden, 2008).
Accordingly, when football clubs globalize they require information about attitudinal
differences between various markets in order to balance the expectations and
preferences of a multitude of fans to ensure their loyalty. In particular, we seek answers
to the following questions:
RQ1. How important are different determinants of brand associations for fans from
developed football markets (DFM) and EFM?
RQ2. How can brand association management increase the loyalty of football fans?
RQ3. Are there any major differences in the importance of different brand associations
and their influence on brand loyalty between fans from DFM and EFM?
The study is based on the brand equity model of Keller (1993), which considers various
determinants of brand associations and brand loyalty and has already been applied
several times in the sports context (Bauer et al., 2005b; Bodet and Chanavat, 2010;
Gladden and Funk, 2001, 2002).
 The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we Impact of
outline the theoretical framework and derive our research hypotheses. Afterwards, we brand
explain the methodology of our study. Based on primary data, we examine the impact
of brand associations on brand loyalty among fans from developed and emerging associations on
markets. This is followed by the presentation and discussion of the main results. In the brand loyalty
final section, we outline the contribution of our findings to theory and practice, as well
as present areas for future research and current study limitations. 501
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
2.1 Brand associations and brand loyalty
Previous research argues that it is imperative to assess brand equity from the
consumer’s perspective (e.g. Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993), especially in sports markets
(Bauer et al., 2005a, 2008; Gladden and Funk, 2001, 2002), as the consumer plays a
pivotal role in the creation of brand equity. “Customer-based brand equity (CBBE)
occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong,
and unique brand associations in memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 2). Brand associations are
anything that consumers connect to the brand in their memory (Aaker, 1991). As each
association is based on the consumers’ memories and experiences of the brand, they are
therefore likely to differ between consumers. Keller (1993) posits that the CBBE
framework provides a way in which brand associations can be categorized into three
dimensions based on their level of abstraction (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987): attributes,
benefits, and attitudes.
Brand associations related to attributes are based upon the features that typify the
product or service. Those associations related to benefits stem from the personal
value the consumer attaches to the product or service attributes. Attitudes consist of
the consumer’s complete appraisal of the brand and as a result often depend on the
strength and favorability of the attribute and benefit associations (Keller, 1993).
In the current sports marketing literature, CBBE is also used in conjunction with
means-end theory to highlight the causal effects of brand associations and their impact
on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (Bauer et al., 2005a, 2008). According to Aaker
(1991) and Keller (1993), strong brand associations lead to brand loyalty. The
attitudinal dimension of fan loyalty has long been neglected in the sports context, but
in several studies attitudinal loyalty has been explored as a prerequisite to behavioral
loyalty (e.g. Funk et al., 2000; Mahony et al., 2000). Bauer et al. (2005a) even found a
strong and highly significant impact of attitudinal loyalty on behavioral loyalty. In line
with the majority of previous research on brand equity in sports, we exclude brand
attitudes due to a high correlation with attitudinal loyalty (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005a, b;
Biscaia et al., 2013; Gladden and Funk, 2001; Ross et al., 2006, 2008).
In extending Keller’s (1993, 2008) framework to a measurement of CBBE in the
context of professional sports, Gladden and Funk (2001) identified and found empirical
support for 13 associations linked to attributes and benefits (Gladden and Funk, 2002).
The selected associations are based on previous conceptual foundations (Gladden et al.,
1998; Gladden and Milne, 1999) and sports literature. The attributes Gladden and Funk
(2001, 2002) identify are success, star player, coaches, front office, logo, stadium,
product delivery, and tradition. Benefit associations are based on intangible outcomes
of consuming a sports product, and include escape, fan identification, peer group
acceptance, nostalgia, and pride in place. In the following section we develop research
hypotheses about the impact of brand associations on brand loyalty and the differences
between DFM and EFM fans.
SBM 2.2 Hypotheses
6,5 Attributes. It is widely accepted that the attributes of a football club, such as its past
success, star players and traditions, affect the loyalty of its fans. While these attributes
are key in initially attracting fans, their long-term effect may be negative (Gladden and
Funk, 2001). According to the “glory hunter phenomenon” (Giulianotti, 2005), fans who
support a club for a long period of time get accustomed to the highs and lows associated
502 with success, as well as with the comings and goings of star players and coaches. As a
result, situational elements such as their social environment in the stadium or their
nostalgic memories, have a greater influence on their loyalty (Bauer et al., 2005a, 2008).
Additionally, CBBE states that brand associations and their importance can change over
time as experiences and exposure to marketing lead to the development of relationships
between association nodes (Keller, 1993, 2008). Therefore, fans may look to justify the
basis of their support from a different standpoint. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H1a. Attributes have a negative impact on attitudinal loyalty.
Kerr and Gladden (2008) show that there are several areas in which differences in
attributes can manifest for fans from different countries. They propose that success can
have a greater negative impact on attitudinal loyalty of DFM fans because success may
not play such a significant role in their initial attraction to their club as it does for EFM
fans (Bodet and Chanavat, 2010; Bridgewater, 2010; Chanavat and Bodet, 2009; Kerr
and Gladden, 2008). As a result, they are less affected by negative or positive match
outcomes, especially when they have supported the club for a longer period of time
(Bauer et al., 2008).
Kerr and Gladden (2008) also propose that the role of star players in building
attitudinal loyalty varies across markets, with it being more influential in foreign markets.
Whereas EFM fans are known for their initial attraction to a club based on a star player
(e.g. Chanavat and Bodet, 2009), this is less common for DFM fans (Bridgewater, 2010).
On the other hand, the stadium has a greater influence on fans who can attend
games and make experiences first hand (Gladden and Funk, 2002). Aaker (1991) states
that the experience of the product or service can be essential in the development of
brand loyalty. For satellite fans in EFM, it is often a “bucket list” item or form of
pilgrimage to attend a match of their club in the home stadium (Richelieu and Pons,
2006). Many fans in DFM are upset by the rising ticket prices, especially in the Premier
League, where representatives at the House of Commons have even encouraged the
boycotting of matches (BBC, 2012).
Fans from EFM may base their initial decision to support their club on visual aspects,
such as the logo. For example, the large number of fans of Manchester United and FC
Liverpool in Asia is often attributed to their red logos and jerseys, which stand for success
and loyalty (Shuttleworth, 2012). On the contrary, some fans in DFM are discouraged by
recent changes to logos, as in the case of Cardiff City FC mentioned above.
The impact of tradition on attitudinal loyalty might be lower for EFM than for DFM
fans as football and the development of clubs and leagues is relatively new, especially
in India and China (Gladden and Funk, 2001). On the other hand, Bodet and Chanavat
(2010) show that traditions have an impact on the loyalty of Chinese fans. Based on
these considerations, we hypothesize that:
H1b. Attributes have a more negative impact on attitudinal loyalty of DFM fans
than EFM fans.
Benefits. Lancaster (1966) states that consumers do not buy product features and Impact of
attributes, but rather bundles of benefits. In contrast to the physical features associated brand
with attributes, benefits represent the value consumers attach to a product or service
and can be viewed as satisfying consumer motivations for consumption (Keller, 1993). associations on
In the context of football, benefits are linked to increased involvement and interaction brand loyalty
with the club, especially those benefits based on experiences such as nostalgia and
escape (Bauer et al., 2008). This is because benefits are established through increased 503
personal value, in this case of the supported club, as well as through cognitive
stimulation (Keller, 1993). Increased involvement leads to higher levels of loyalty and
stronger attitudes (Funk and Pastore, 2000; Hill and Green, 2000). Thus, the impact of
benefits on attitudinal loyalty increases over time.
Previous studies confirm that benefits, such as pride in place, escape, and nostalgia,
are decisive in creating attitudinal loyalty (Bauer et al., 2005a; Gladden and Funk, 2001).
Positive emotions are generated in a fan’s mind, by escaping daily routine at a football
match as well as by evoking fond memories (nostalgia), thus leading to stronger
attitudinal loyalty toward a club. Furthermore, if a club helps the local residents to be
proud of where they live (pride in place) and elevates the image of its community, the
attitudinal loyalty of its fans is strengthened. Gladden and Funk (2001) find
identification, nostalgia, and escape particularly significant in positively impacting
loyalty and show that benefits provided by the team sports product are more strongly
related to brand loyalty than attributes. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2a. Benefits will have a positive impact on attitudinal loyalty.
The cognitive process to create loyalty takes time for factors beyond attributes to
influence attitudinal loyalty (Funk and James, 2006). Therefore, we expect that for
fans who have supported their club for a longer period of time, benefit associations
will have a greater impact on attitudinal loyalty. As the popularity of football in
EFM is relatively recent, we expect that DFM fans support their clubs for longer
periods of time and consequently benefit associations have had more time to
influence attitudinal loyalty. For example, it is likely that one cannot develop
nostalgic feelings without time passing between the original experience and fondness
and reflection upon it.
Furthermore, we expect that for many EFM fans, the connection between
themselves and the home location of the club they support is weaker than for DFM
fans. While clubs from DFM often compete internationally (Champions League,
European League), the cities of the participating DFM clubs receive international media
exposure, which leads to a higher pride in place of the favorite club’s location. As a
result, the impact of the pride in place association on attitudinal loyalty is expected to
be weaker for EFM fans. Furthermore, fans from DFM have the chance to physically
escape their daily routines by going to the stadium while satellite fans cannot travel as
easily to their favorite club’s matches. Moreover, the DFM average attendances are
generally much higher than in EFM, suggesting that more fans from DFM experience
their club’s match day program, enabling them to truly escape and immerse themselves
not only in the match itself but in additional activities organized by the club. It is
therefore expected that:
H2b. Benefits have a more positive impact on attitudinal loyalty of DFM fans than
EFM fans.
SBM Loyalty. Throughout the development of the literature on brand loyalty, two concepts
6,5 have emerged: attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty (Aaker, 1991; Baldinger and
Rubinson, 1996; Day, 1969). In the sporting context, attitudinal loyalty consists of the
knowledge about the club, the importance the club has in the life of the fan, and the
extent to which the fan personally feels the successes and failures of the team (Krosnick
et al., 1993). Furthermore, the prevention of switching allegiance to a competitor team is
504 included. Fans with a more positive attitude towards their favorite team develop a
higher social attachment with the team and its players. Thus, this attachment will
likely become evident in the behavioral dimension of repeated consumption of fans,
culminating in purchasing behaviors, for example by following matches and buying
club merchandise (Martin, 2013). Accordingly, attitudinal loyalty impacts the
behavioral dimension of repeated consumption. In previous sports studies,
attitudinal loyalty was explored as a prerequisite with a strong positive impact on
behavioral loyalty (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005a; Funk et al., 2000; Mahony et al., 2000). Thus,
we hypothesize that:
H3a. Attitudinal loyalty has a positive impact on behavioral loyalty.
Fans residing a large geographical distance from the club they support are restricted in
their opportunities to consume the club’s products and often do not have direct
experience of all its facets. For example, as the football industry is much more
developed in DFM, DFM clubs receive much higher media attention than EFM clubs.
This in turn increases the knowledge of DFM fans about their favorite club. Thereby,
the importance of the club in the fan’s life determines the extent to which the fan
personally feels the successes and failures of the team. Subsequently, DFM fans have a
higher attitudinal loyalty. As attitudinal loyalty is a reflection of the past, and the
length of time supported is higher in DFM, DFM fans have had more time for
experiences to influence their future behavior. Thus, they are less likely to be swayed
by results and the continual coming and going of players and managers, so their
attitudes and consequent behaviors are more likely to be stable over time.
Furthermore, benefit associations are higher order associations (Gladden and Funk,
2002) and have a strong impact on attitudinal loyalty (e.g. Bauer et al., 2008). We also
argue that this will manifest itself more strongly in DFM than EFM fans. Subsequently,
we argue that through this causal chain of events, the impact of attitudinal loyalty on
behavioral loyalty will be higher in DFM. Moreover, in the study of Chanavat and
Bodet (2009), Chinese fans state that if their favorite players leave the club, they are not
sure whether to support the team anymore. Thus, they are more open to switching their
allegiance to a competitor and consequently have a lower attitudinal loyalty. On top of
following the star player to other teams, Bridgewater (2010) also states that Chinese
fans were more likely to adopt a second team if their favorite team was not playing,
whereas such behavior is often seen as unfathomable in DFM and indicates a
propensity to change support. Consequently, this demonstrates a weaker relationship
between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty for their favorite club. Therefore, we
expect a stronger impact of attitudinal loyalty on behavioral loyalty of DFM fans
than EFM fans:
H3b. Attitudinal loyalty has a more positive impact on behavioral loyalty of DFM
fans than EFM fans.
Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses and integrates them in our research model.
 Fans of DFM vs Fans of EFM Impact of
brand
Success
associations on
H1b H3b
Entertainment brand loyalty
Staff

Stadium
Attributes
H1a 505
Logo
Attitudinal H3a Behavioral
Tradition H2b Loyalty Loyalty

Pride in Place H2a

Escape Benefits Control variables

Age; Gender;
Control variables Figure 1.
Education;
Nostalgia
Geographic
Income
Research model
distance to club

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and data collection
In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted an online survey in five DFM (England,
Germany, Spain, Italy, and France) and five EFM (China, India, Brazil, Russia, and the
USA). The survey was made available for respondents from all ten football markets
from May until July 2013, coinciding with the traditional summer break from football
for the majority of the leagues, except for Brazil and the USA. We chose this period in
order to reduce potential bias of the success/loss of the previous match on the
responses. Various points of contact were established to encourage football fans to
complete the survey. In order to attract highly committed football fans, the focus was
placed on contacting the clubs, fan clubs, forums, and webpages via e-mail or social
media. Furthermore, we asked the marketing or media department of each football club
in the top division for assistance in each of the ten countries included in the research
project. For social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo, contact was initiated
with the administrators of these official club pages in order to ask for the creation of a
new post with the link included. A brief explanation of the survey was also provided.

3.2 Measures
The survey instrument used is a compilation of three existing instruments, including
constructs and items that have been previously tested for reliability and validity, albeit
with smaller samples and different market focuses. One instrument was used for the
measurement of brand associations (Gladden and Funk, 2001, 2002) and another two
for the measurement of brand loyalty. For the measurement of attitudinal loyalty, the
psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale was applied (Mahony et al., 2000). For
behavioral loyalty, a combination of previous measures was compiled (Bauer et al.,
2005a; Funk and Pastore, 2000; Gladden and Funk, 2001; Mahony et al., 2000;
Shank and Beasley, 1998; Trail et al., 2003). A detailed description of each item can be
found in Table I.
At the beginning of the survey, the respondents were asked to note their favorite
football club and to answer the questions on brand associations and brand loyalty
based on their support for this club. Based on Gladden and Funk (2001, 2002), we
distinguished between attributes (success, star player, head coach, front office, logo
SBM SU 1 I do not care whether my favorite club wins or loses
6,5 SU 2 It is very important to me that my favorite club reaches a good position
SU 3 It is important that my favorite club competes for league championships
SP 1 I like to watch my favorite club’s star players
SP 2 My favorite club has star players that I like to watch
HC 1 I like the head coach of my favorite club
HC 2 My favorite club’s head coach is well known throughout sport
506 HC 3 The head coach of my favorite club does a good job
FO 1 The front office of my favorite club does its best to field a good team
FO 2 My favorite club’s front office does a good job of running the team
FO 3 The front office of my favorite club makes wise player personnel decisions
LO 1 I like the colors of my favorite club
LO 2 I like the logo of my favorite club
LO 3 My favorite club’s uniforms are attractive
ST 1 The architecture of my favorite club’s stadium is attractive
ST 2 My favorite club’s stadium has “character”
ST 3 My favorite club’s stadium enhances the enjoyment of attending matches
PD 1 My favorite club’s matches are exciting
PD 2 My favorite club’s matches are entertaining
PD 3 My favorite club’s matches are enjoyable
TR 1 My favorite club has a history of winning
TR 2 My favorite club has a rich history
ES 1 Watching, reading, and talking about my favorite club provides a temporary escape from
life’s problems
ES 2 Watching, reading, and talking about my favorite club helps me forget my day-to-day problems
ES 3 Watching, reading, and talking about my favorite club takes me away from life’s hassles
NO 1 Thinking of my favorite club brings back good memories
NO 2 I have fond memories of following my favorite club
NO 3 I have fond memories of following my favorite club with friends and/or family members
PIP 1 My favorite club helps its citizens to be proud of where they live
PIP 2 My favorite club helps elevate the image of its community
PIP 3 My favorite club brings prestige to the community
BL 1 How often do you watch your favorite club’s matches on TV?
BL 2 How often do you consume other club-related media?
BL 3 How often do you purchase club merchandise?
BL 4 How often do you wear the colors and/or logo of your favorite club?
BL 5 How often do you participate in discussions about your favorite club?
BL 6 How often do you purchase products from companies that support the club (e.g. club sponsors)?
AL 1 I might rethink my allegiance to my favorite club if this team consistently performs poorly
AL 2 I would watch a game featuring my favorite soccer club regardless of which club they are playing
AL 3 I would rethink my allegiance to my favorite club if management traded away its best players
AL 4 Being a fan of my favorite soccer club is important to me
AL 5 Nothing could change my allegiance to my favorite soccer club
AL 6 I am a committed fan of my favorite soccer club
AL 7 It would not affect my loyalty to my favorite soccer club if management hired a head coach that
I disliked very much
AL 8 I could easily be persuaded to change my favorite soccer club preference
AL 9 I have been a fan of my favorite club since I began watching professional soccer
AL 10 I could never switch my loyalty from my favorite soccer club even if my close friends were fans of
another club
AL 11 It would be unlikely for me to change my allegiance from my current favorite soccer club to another
AL 12 It would be difficult to change my beliefs about my favorite soccer club
AL 13 You can tell a lot about a person by their willingness to stick with a club that is not performing well
AL 14 My commitment to my favorite soccer club would decrease if they were performing poorly and there
appeared little chance their performance would change
Table I. Notes: SU, success; SP, star player; HC, head coach; FO, front office; LO, logo; ST, stadium; PD, product delivery;
Description of items TR, tradition; ES, escape; NO, Nostalgia; PIP; pride in place; BL, behavioral loyalty; AL, attitudinal loyalty
design, stadium, product delivery, tradition) and benefits (escape, fan identification, Impact of
peer group acceptance, nostalgia, pride in place). All constructs were measured with brand
three items, except for star player and tradition (measured by two items each), and fan
identification (measured by four items). In all cases, the respondents were asked how associations on
strongly they agree with the statements on a seven-point Likert scale with brand loyalty
1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 7 ¼ “strongly agree”. The internal reliability was high
(0.71 o Cronbach’s α o 0.95). 507
In order to assess attitudinal loyalty, the PCT (Mahony et al., 2000) was
implemented, which has been identified as the most suitable construct for measuring
the attitudinal dimension of brand loyalty of sports fans (Bauer et al., 2005a) and is
often used in previous studies (Funk and Pastore, 2000; Funk and James, 2006; Wann
and Pierce, 2003). The scale consists of 14 items and again was measured using a seven-
point Likert scale (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.84).
To assess behavioral brand loyalty, six items were taken from previous studies (e.g.
Bauer et al., 2005a; Gladden and Funk, 2001; Mahony et al., 2000) that asked how often
the respondents engage in activities related to the football club including: “How often
do you wear the colors and/or logo of your favorite club?” “How often do you purchase
club merchandise?” and “How often do you participate in discussions about your
favorite club?” These items were again measured on a seven-point Likert scale with
response options ranging from 1 ¼ “never” to 7 ¼ “often” (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.72). We had
to eliminate questions about the frequency of attending the favorite club’s games live in
the stadium due to the high number of satellite fans in the sample. Instead, we added
the question, “How often do you purchase products from companies that support the
club?” which better reflects our sample composition.
Each respondent was also asked to provide basic demographic information
including age, gender, level of education, and annual income, as well as how far he/she
lives from his/her favorite club. These five control variables were recognized in
previous studies as potentially impacting fans and their behavior (e.g. Bauer et al., 2008;
Wann and Waddill, 2003). The categorization of respondents from DFM vs EFM was
based upon the current residence of the respondents rather than their nationality.
As further recommended by Hult et al. (2008), the construct equivalence was
carefully considered with the ten target markets in mind. To ensure that the survey
instruments were appropriate for interpreting the items in a similar manner across
contexts and cultures in terms of functions, concepts, and categories (Craig and
Douglas, 2005), the questionnaire was translated from English into all relevant
languages (German, Spanish, Italian, French, Russian, Mandarin, and Portuguese) by
native speakers. The translations were then back-translated to English by another
native speaker (Mullen, 1995). Additionally, reverse coding was kept to a minimum to
maintain reliability (Hult et al., 2008).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive statistics
Within the time period that the full survey was open, a total of 3,587 complete
responses were collected. 82 percent of the respondents are males and 18 percent are
females. The average age of the respondents is 27.4 years. In total, 52 percent of EFM
fans support a club from a country other than the country of their current residence,
while only 11 percent of DFM fans are satellite fans. Table II shows the country-wise
distribution of respondents.
Table III provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables.
 6,5

508
SBM

Table II.
Sample overview
Total DFM EFM England Germany Spain Italy France China India Brazil Russia USA

Sample n 3,587 2,032 1,555 272 737 311 160 552 140 336 431 151 497
Age Mean 27.4 28.8 25.5 35.1 29.7 30.8 27.6 22.2 27.7 26.0 23.8 23.8 26.9
Gender Male % 82 85 78 79 79 94 86 92 82 9 86 80 55
Education Mean (1-7) 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.3 4.0 4.3 3.1 3.8 3.3
Income Mean (1-5) 2.5 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.8 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.9
Distance to club Mean (1-10) 6.7 5.7 7.7 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.9 8.7 8.0 7.2 7.0 8.4
Satellite fans Sat % 29 11 52 18 1 6 14 21 80 59 27 38 65
 Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Success 4.9 1.1 1

2. Entertainment 4.9 0.9 0.314** 1
3. Staff 5.6 1.3 0.180** 0.670** 1
4. Stadium 5.2 1.1 0.239** 0.630** 0.545** 1
5. Logo 5.7 0.8 0.382** 0.644** 0.513** 0.658** 1
6. Tradition 5.0 0.9 0.393** 0.582** 0.460** 0.569** 0.664** 1
7. PIP 5.6 1.2 0.230** 0.525** 0.452** 0.480** 0.520** 0.468** 1
8. Escape 5.1 1.6 0.185** 0.318** 0.216** 0.280** 0.356** 0.256** 0.435** 1
9. Nostalgia 5.9 1.2 0.216** 0.362** 0.295** 0.359** 0.481** 0.404** 0.552** 0.432** 1
10. Attitudinal
loyalty 6.1 0.9 0.154** 0.190** 0.134** 0.202** 0.365** 0.267** 0.350** 0.335** 0.441** 1
11. Behavioral
loyalty 4.9 1.2 0.184** 0.242** 0.152** 0.246** 0.305** 0.214** 0.364** 0.402** 0.389** 0.409** 1
12. Age 27.4 11.7 0.061** −0.013 0.026 −0.028 −0.063** 0.008 0.077** −0.149** 0.015 −0.073** −0.020 1
13. Gender 0.2 0.4 −0.066** 0.098** 0.073** 0.059** −0.001 −0.018 −0.006 0.010 −0.026 −0.112** −0.082** −0.104** 1
14. Education 3.4 1.7 0.024 −0.047** −0.039* −0.099** −0.094** −0.016 −0.033* −0.135** −0.081** −0.109** −0.077** 0.295** −0.075** 1
15. Income 2.5 1.4 0.015 −0.027 0.016 −0.026 −0.078** −0.029 0.032 −0.126** 0.004 −0.061** 0.017 0.570** −0.106** 0.272** 1
16. Distance
from club 6.7 3.6 0.072** 0.174** 0.100** 0.136** 0.064** 0.156** −0.013 0.057** −0.111** −0.084** −0.027 −0.088** 0.079** 0.031 −0.028 1
Notes: *p o 0.05; **p o 0.01
brand

correlations
deviation,
Means, standard
brand loyalty

Table III.
associations on
Impact of

509
SBM 4.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
6,5 First, we conducted an EFA for all brand association items with IBM SPSS
Statistics 21. We adopt a factor loading criterion of 0.40 for inclusion of the item in the
interpretation, consistent with Comrey and Lee (1992). The principal components
analysis with varimax rotation indicates eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.
They account for 68.3 percent of the variance and showed that the data are appropriate
510 (KMO ¼ 0.909; BT ¼ 61,076, p o 0.001). In accordance with the findings of the EFA, we
exclude the two symbolic benefits “fan identification” and “peer group acceptance”
because their sub-items load highly on several different factors. This is supported by
Gladden and Funk (2002) who state that fan identification can be a symbolic and
experiential benefit at the same time. Furthermore, peer group acceptance is the
only dimension that respondents did not rate as important in previous studies
(Gladden and Funk, 2002).
The EFA also provides evidence to integrate “product delivery” and “star player”
into one factor named “entertainment.” This is reasonable because star players also
increase the level of excitement and entertainment (product delivery) for football fans.
“Head coach” and “front office” are also merged into one new factor “staff.” This is
reasonable because both factors only have an indirect effect on the success of a team
and are considered less important than the actual players of a team. “Nostalgia” and
“pride in place” remain two distinct factors, because nostalgia has low loadings on two
factors not exceeding the 0.60 level (Table IV). Thus, the number of brand association
factors is reduced from 13 to 9 (attributes are success, entertainment, staff, stadium,
logo, and tradition; benefits are pride in place, escape, and nostalgia).

4.3 Structural equation model

We apply structural equation modeling (SEM) using IBM AMOS 22 to test our
hypotheses. The reliability and validity of the structural model is assessed through
goodness-of-fit (Bagozzi and Baumgartner, 1994). Table V shows reliability and
validity criteria, namely Cronbach’s α, corrected item-total correlation, the factor
loading, as well as construct reliability for dependent and independent variables. All
reliability criteria are above the respective critical values. While global fit criteria are
used to evaluate the consistency of the structural model as a whole, local fit criteria test
the fit of single indicators and factors. Absolute fit indices used in our study are:
χ2 value divided by degrees of freedom, Goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-
of-fit index (AGFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). Additionally, we employed three comparative
fit measures: normed fit index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and comparative
fit index (CFI).
χ2 tests have a number of limitations. They assume multivariate normality and severe
deviations from normality may result in model rejections (McIntosh, 2006). Second, a χ2
statistic is sensitive to sample size and nearly always rejects the model when large
samples are used (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). Our sample size
of 3,587 and the non-normal distribution limits the validity of χ2 in our model
(4,463). The goodness-of-fit statistic (GFI) is an alternative to the χ2 test and calculates
the proportion of variance that is accounted for by the estimated population covariance.
The GFI of 0.93 in our model exceeds the cut-off point of 0.90 (Shevlin and Miles,
1998). The AGFI adjusts the GFI based upon degrees of freedom (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2007). The AGFI of 0.91 in our model exceeds the cut-off point of 0.90. The RMSEA
is one of the most informative fit indices (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000) and shows
 Factor
Impact of
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 brand
Product delivery 3 0.765
associations on
Product delivery 2 0.726 brand loyalty
Product delivery 1 0.722
Star player 2 0.683
Star player 1 0.617
511
Head coach 3 0.803
Head coach 1 0.779
Front office 2 0.739
Front office 1 0.726
Front office 3 0.700
Head coach 2 0.487
Pride in place 2 0.766
Pride in place 3 0.758
Pride in place 1 0.664
Nostalgia 2 0.551 0.500
Nostalgia 3 0.530 0.431
Nostalgia 1 0.509 0.475
Escape 2 0.912
Escape 1 0.905
Escape 3 0.885
Logo 1 0.716
Logo 2 0.673
Logo 3 0.581
Stadium 3 0.789
Stadium 1 0.780
Stadium 2 0.757
Tradition 1 0.705
Tradition 2 0.664
Success 2 0.783 Table IV.
Success 1 0.676 Exploratory factor
Success 3 0.668 analysis

Factor No. of items Cronbach’s α CITTC Factor loading Construct reliability

Attributes 6 0.838 0.82

Success 0.349 0.42
Entertainment 0.762 0.77
Staff 0.604 0.62
Stadium 0.682 0.77
Logo 0.751 0.86
Tradition 0.688 0.76
Benefits 3 0.711 0.74
Pride in place 0.571 0.75
Escape 0.492 0.61
Nostalgia 0.567 0.72 Table V.
Attitudinal loyalty 14 0.835 Reliability of
Behavioral loyalty 8 0.715 variables
SBM how well the model with unknown but optimally chosen parameter estimates would fit
6,5 the population covariance matrix (Byrne, 1998). The RMSEA of 0.04 in our model does
not exceed the stringent cut-off value of 0.06 and shows a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
The SRMR is the square root of the difference between the residuals of the sample
covariance matrix and the hypothesized covariance model. The SRMR of 0.06 in our
model does not exceed the cut-off value of 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The NFI compares
512 the χ2 value of the model to the χ2 of the null model. Our NFI of 0.91 indicates a good fit
according to Bentler and Bonnet (1980) who recommend values greater than 0.90 while
the same applies for TLI (0.90) in our model (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980). The CFI is a
revised form of the NFI, which takes the sample size into account. Our CFI of 0.92
indicates an acceptable fit. To summarize, both the global fit criteria and the local fit
criteria indicate a high reliability and validity of our structural model.

4.4 Multi-group analysis

χ2 difference test. In a subsequent multi-group moderation analysis, we used a χ2
difference test to analyze significant differences between DFM fans and EFM fans.
Therefore, we divided the sample into two groups, DFM fans (2,032) and EFM
fans (1,555). In the first step, the unconstrained overall model and the fully constrained
overall model are compared based on χ2 values. The p-level for the difference shows
that the model is significantly different between the groups (Table VI). This allowed us
to conduct a path-by-path analysis based on the χ2 differences. Path-by-path analysis
showed that the χ2s of all relevant paths are above the χ2 thresholds for this model and
thus differ significantly between DFM and EFM (benefits + attributes→ attitudinal
loyalty; attitudinal loyalty→behavioral loyalty). On the other hand, with the exception
of income, the impact of all control variables on the dependent variables are not
significantly different.

Overall model difference

df χ2 p
Unconstrained 50 614.004 Groups are different at the
Fully constrained 58 642.996 model level
Difference 8 28.992 0.000***
χ2 thresholds
Confidence levels χ2 thresholds p
90% confidence 616.71 0.10*
95% confidence 617.85 0.05**
99% confidence 620.64 0.01***
Path-by-path difference
DV IV χ2 p
Attitudinal loyalty ← Benefits 620.81 0.01***
Attitudinal loyalty ← Attributes 620.57 0.05**
Behavioral loyalty ← Attitudinal loyalty 628.29 0.01***
Attitudinal loyalty ← Age 615.17 No significant difference
Attitudinal loyalty ← Gender 614.15 No significant difference
Attitudinal loyalty ← Distance to team 614.02 No significant difference
Behavioral loyalty ← Income 618.90 0.05**
Table VI. Behavioral loyalty ← Education 614.60 No significant difference
χ2 difference test Notes: *p o0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o 0.001
Z-score comparison. To further check for the robustness of the χ2 difference test results, Impact of
we used pairwise parameter comparisons with critical ratios (Z-scores) to identify brand
significant differences between groups. A significant difference is indicated by a critical
ratio greater than 1.65 for 90 percent confidence, 1.96 for 95 percent, and 2.58 for associations on
99 percent. Table VII shows that the results of the Z-score comparison using Gaskins brand loyalty
(2014) Excel tool are similar to the results of the χ2 difference test.
513
4.5 Analysis and test of hypotheses
Figure 2 shows the SEM results for the total sample. It shows that the R2 for attitudinal
loyalty is 0.60 and significant on a 0.001 level. Furthermore, it is estimated that the
predictors of behavioral loyalty explain 69 percent of its variance. Attributes have a
significant negative effect (standardized path coefficient ¼ −0.28) on attitudinal loyalty,
consequently H1a is supported. H1b is also supported showing a highly significant
difference between the impact of attributes on attitudinal loyalty between fans from
DFM and EFM ( χ2 difference is significant on 0.05 level; Z-score difference −5.625;
p o 0.001). This is in line with the hypothesis because the impact of attributes on
attitudinal loyalty for DFM fans is significantly more negative than for EFM fans.
Furthermore, the expectation in H2a that benefits impact attitudinal loyalty
strongly and positively is confirmed (standardized path coefficient ¼ 0.95). The results

EFM DFM Difference

Estimate p Estimate p Z-score

Attitudinal loyalty ← Benefits 0.351 0.000 0.491 0.000 3.826***

Attitudinal loyalty ← Attributes −0.067 0.003 −0.312 0.000 −5.625***
Attitudinal loyalty ← Age −0.002 0.030 −0.004 0.000 −1.449
Attitudinal loyalty ← Gender −0.077 0.000 −0.101 0.000 −0.915
Attitudinal loyalty ← Distance to team −0.006 0.010 −0.006 0.008 0.137 Table VII.
Behavioral loyalty ← Income 0.095 0.000 0.030 0.086 −2.214** Multi-group analysis
Behavioral loyalty ← Education −0.033 0.044 −0.017 0.136 0.776 for EFM and DFM
Behavioral loyalty ← Attitudinal loyalty 1.809 0.000 1.516 0.000 −3.824*** fans via Z-score
Notes: *p o 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 comparison

Success 0.42*** Distance to Team

Entertainment 0.77***
Gender Age
0.38***
0.62*** 0.27***
Staff
0.77*** Attributes 0.43***
Stadium
0.86*** –0.08*** –0.04* –0.10***

Logo 0.76***
–0.28*** Education

Tradition 0.00

0.75*** Attitudinal loyalty Behavioral loyalty 0.22***

0.03*
0.83***

0.95*** R 2 = 0.60 R 2 = 0.69 Income

Pride in place 0.75***

0.61*** Figure 2.
Escape Benefits
0.72***
Structural equation
Nostalgia model for total
sample
Notes: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001
SBM also show that the impact of benefits on attitudinal loyalty is stronger for DFM fans
6,5 than for EFM, thus confirming H2b ( χ2 difference is significant on 0.01 level; Z-score
difference 3.826; p o0.001).
Finally, attitudinal loyalty has a strong positive impact on behavioral loyalty
(standardized path coefficient ¼ 0.58), thus supporting H3a. Contradictory to our
argumentation in H3b, the impact of attitudinal loyalty on behavioral loyalty is
514 stronger for EFM fans than for DFM fans ( χ2 difference is significant on 0.01 level;
Z-score difference −3.824; p o 0.001).
With the exception of income, there is no significant impact of all control variables
on the dependent variables between EFM and DFM fans. The impact of income on
behavioral loyalty is stronger for EFM fans than for DFM fans. One reason for this
could be that the average income in EFM is generally lower than in DFM. Thus, for
fans from EFM, money is a limiting factor. However, if their income is high, they
willingly spend it on their club. The relatively small impact of the control variables and
the similarity of the results between the groups indicate that the model is robust, as the
associations account for more of the variance in the explanation of the development of
attitudinal and behavioral loyalty.

5. Contributions to theoretical and practical knowledge

This research makes several contributions to both the practical and theoretical
understanding of brand equity in the football industry. This study extends the work of
Gladden and Funk (2001) by expanding the model used to assess brand loyalty. By
conducting an EFA, we have shown that the previous scale ought to be revised. Fan
identification and peer group acceptance had to be deleted, while product delivery and
star player had to be combined to one factor, “entertainment,” while head coach and
front office merged to become “staff.” The deletion of fan identification is interesting
because previous studies showed a high impact of fan identification on brand loyalty
(Gladden and Funk, 2001; Sutton et al., 1997). The more general items of fan
identification (e.g. “It is important that my friends see me as a fan of my favorite club,”
“When someone praises my favorite club, it feels like a compliment”) combined with
our findings raise some doubts concerning previously used methodology.
This research empirically confirms Keller’s (1993) model of CBBE and the impact of
brand associations on brand loyalty in an area that is currently limited in terms of
empirical analysis. Furthermore, it also shows the applicability of CBBE in the service
industry. Our results support previous research by confirming the strong impact of
brand benefits on attitudinal loyalty. On the other hand, our study is the first to show
the negative impact of brand attributes on attitudinal loyalty. Moreover, we
demonstrate the usefulness in assessing consumers across multiple markets, as well as
from markets in different stages of development.
We contribute to cross-cultural research and extend previous studies by applying the
scale developed by Gladden and Funk (2001, 2002) to a greater range of markets in the
football context. Two categories of football markets, DFM and EFM, have been developed
for this purpose. This includes several European countries as well as countries included in
EFM where the scale has not previously been empirically tested. As the results indicate
that the research model explains a similar amount of variance for EFM fans and DFM
fans, it suggests that the scale can be used in both groups of markets. However, by
showing differences between the two categories via multi-group moderation, we
demonstrate that the theoretical model could be adjusted for both groups. For example,
the attributes’ factor loading of success is much higher in EFM (0.60) than in DFM (0.28).
 Our study also has several practical implications. First, our results show that Impact of
attributes have a negative impact on attitudinal loyalty. When looking to foster brand
attitudinal loyalty for DFM fans, marketers should be wary of focusing on attributes
such as the successes of a club, or their current star players. Although literature associations on
provides information on the potential benefits of attribute experience of consumers and brand loyalty
its impact on loyalty (e.g. Aaker, 1991; Gladden et al., 1998; Keller, 1993), the results
suggest that these benefits are not being utilized by football clubs. The general 515
approach of presenting star players and visualizing the previous success of a club
seems to have detrimental effects on the development of attitudinal loyalty. As the
impact of attributes on attitudinal loyalty is not as negative for EFM fans as for DFM
fans, the approach of presenting star players and visualizing previous success of a club
during marketing tours to EFM is not as harmful as in DFM, however the impact on
attitudinal loyalty is still negative. On the contrary, Chanavat and Bodet (2009) showed
that the initial attraction to a club for EFM fans is often based on star players.
In order to develop attitudinal loyalty, marketers of football clubs should
concentrate on benefit associations as they have a strong positive influence on
attitudinal loyalty. This would involve personalizing the many facets of football clubs
for their fans so that they perceive them as adding meaning to their lives and develop
positive emotions toward the club.
Our findings also reveal the importance of nostalgia. Marketers should provide
opportunities for fans to engage further with the club through events that focus on
reminiscing on past experiences.
Our study also shows that attitudinal loyalty has a strong positive impact on
behavioral loyalty. Thus, clubs should strengthen the fans’ knowledge about the club,
and the extent to which fans personally feel the successes and failures of the team.
Contrary to our assumption, the impact of attitudinal loyalty on behavioral loyalty is
stronger for EFM fans than for DFM fans. Despite the large geographic distance
between satellite fans from EFM and their favorite clubs, they need less attitudinal
loyalty to behave more loyally and to spend more money on their club.
Most importantly, marketers should be aware that when focusing on developing
brand loyalty amongst EFM fans, they should not simply apply the same strategies
that proved to be effective in DFM and vice versa. One example is the above-mentioned
Cardiff City FC logo change from blue to red.

6. Limitations and future research

Despite the valuable contributions made to both the theoretical and practical
understanding of brand associations and brand loyalty in DFM and EFM, several
limitations of the research need to be considered. First, the CBBE framework was
originally developed for the US context and for other types of sports. Although we use
several measures, such as translating the questionnaire to all relevant languages, we
cannot completely ensure its cross-country validity. For example, it may be that other
attributes and benefits are relevant for the evaluation of football clubs in EFM and are
not considered in the CBBE framework. For example, Bauer et al. (2008) included
sponsors and owners as another brand attribute. Similarly to our argumentation in
H1b, football clubs from DFM might attract EFM fans because they have sponsors or
owners who are native to the target market.
Second, the survey was only conducted online, and although measures were taken to
ensure the representativeness of the data, some highly committed fans may not have
accessed the survey. For example, older football fans are less likely to spend time
SBM browsing the Internet and come across the survey. To supplement the online surveys, the
6,5 survey may also be distributed at games to increase the representativeness of the study
and reach fans, such as the elderly and families, who may not frequently use the internet.
Third, it is assumed that the respondents to the survey are highly committed fans
and knowledgeable of the football industry. While this is the most valuable group of
fans for football clubs (Bauer et al., 2008), implications are consequently limited to such
516 fans. Future studies may target individuals who are not yet committed to a particular
club and analyze which instruments football clubs may apply to attract new fans in
those countries, particularly in EFM.
Finally, this research project deliberately does not measure brand awareness or
recognition as it can be assumed that committed fans would score highly and that the
variance would be low (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005b). However, EFM brand awareness and
recognition may still be an area in which football clubs can improve, especially for the
lesser known football clubs seeking to fill in the gaps left by larger football clubs. EFM
may also host a larger number of casual fans, or potential casual fans, for whom brand
awareness and recognition should be measured (Bauer et al., 2008). Future research
may follow the technique used by Ross (2006), and suggested by Kerr and Gladden
(2008), and use free associations to determine whether different associations are more
prevalent in different markets. Any differences may prove crucial for attracting and
retaining fans in foreign markets. Unlike in previous research (e.g. Tapp and Clowes,
2002) where fans did not admit supporting or following a second club, 72 percent of the
EFM fans in our study indicated that they did. This may also be an important area of
fandom to research, especially if these fan groups are willing to spend money on their
second favorite clubs. Future research may reveal a different set of associations as the
basis for brand equity for clubs in this instance, and different relationships between
these associations and brand loyalty.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-454.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Baumgartner, H. (1994), “The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypothesis testing”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Principles in Marketing Research, Blackwell
Publishers, Cambridge, pp. 386-422.
Baldinger, A.L. and Rubinson, J. (1996), “Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and behavior”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 22-34.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2005a), “The loyalty of German soccer fans: does a team’s
brand image matter?”, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 8-16.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E. and Schmitt, P. (2005b), “Customer-based brand equity in the team sport
industry-operationalization and impact on the economic success of sport teams”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 5/6, pp. 496-513.
Bauer, H.H., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2008), “Brand image and fan loyalty in
professional team sport: a refined model and empirical assessment”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 205-226.
BBC (2012), “Price of football: boycott expensive clubs, says MP”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/
sport/0/football/20078528 (accessed October 26, 2015).
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.C. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of Impact of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
brand
Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Ross, S., Rosada, A. and Maroco, J. (2013), “Spectator-based brand equity
in professional soccer”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 20-32.
associations on
Bodet, G. and Chanavat, N. (2010), “Building global football brand equity: lessons from the
brand loyalty
Chinese market”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Bridgewater, S. (2010), Football Brands, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 517
Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic
Concepts, Applications and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Chanavat, N. and Bodet, G. (2009), “Internationalisation and sport branding strategy: a French
perception of the Big Four brands”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 460-481.
Comrey, A.L. and Lee, H.B. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, MI.
Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2005), International Market Research, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Day, G.S. (1969), “A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 29-36.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL, Sage Publications, London.
Ergenzinger, V. (2005), “Die Fußball-Bundesliga und der chinesische Markt: Handlungsoptionen
für deutsche Bundesligisten”, China Analysis, Vol. 41, pp. 1-28, available at: http://
chinapolitik.de/resources/no_41.pdf (accessed February 6, 2014).
Funk, D.C. and James, J.D. (2006), “Consumer loyalty: the meaning of attachment in the
development of allegiance”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Funk, D.C. and Pastore, D. (2000), “Equating attitudes to allegiance: the usefulness of selected
attitudinal information in segmenting loyalty to professional sports teams”, Sport
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 175-184.
Funk, D.C., Haugtvedt, C.P. and Howard, D.R. (2000), “Contemporary attitude theory in sport:
theoretical considerations and implications”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 125-144.
Gaskin, J.E. (2014), “StatWiki”, available at: http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/wiki/Main_Page
(accessed July 1, 2015).
Giulianotti, R. (2005), “Sport spectators and the social consequences of commodification:
critical perspective from Scottish football”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 386-410.
Gladden, J.M. and Funk, D.C. (2001), “Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport:
examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty”, International Journal of
Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-94.
Gladden, J.M. and Funk, D.C. (2002), “Developing an understanding of brand associations in team
sport: empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 54-81.
Gladden, J.M. and Milne, G.R. (1999), “Examining the importance of brand equity in professional
sport”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-29.
Gladden, J.M., Milne, G.R. and Sutton, W.A. (1998), “A conceptual framework for assessing brand
equity in division I college athletics”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Goldman, M. and Johns, K. (2009), “Sportainment: changing the pace of limited-overs cricket in
South Africa”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 124-136.
SBM Hill, B. and Green, B.C. (2000), “Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty,
and the sportscape across three football contexts”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2,
6,5 pp. 145-162.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
518 Hult, G.T., Ketchen, D.J. Jr, Griffith, D.A., Finnegan, C.A., Gonzalez-Padron, T., Harmancioglu, N.
and Cavusgil, S.T. (2008), “Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business
research: assessment and guidelines”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 1027-1044.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the SIMPLIS
Command Language, Scientific Software International Inc, Chicago, IL.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kerr, A.K. and Gladden, J.M. (2008), “Extending the understanding of professional team brand
equity to the global marketplace”, International Journal of Management and Marketing,
Vol. 3 Nos 1/2, pp. 58-77.
Krosnick, J.A., Boninger, D.S., Chuang, Y.C., Berent, M.K. and Carnot, C.G. (1993), “Attitude
strength: one construct or many related constructs?”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 1132-1151.
Lancaster, K. (1966), “A new approach to consumer theory”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 74
No. 2, pp. 132-157.
McIntosh, C. (2006), “Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: a commentary
and elaboration on Barrett (2007)”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 859-67.
Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R. and Howard, D. (2000), “Using the psychological commitment to team
(PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty”, Sport Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Martin, C.A. (2013), “Investigating National Football League (NFL) fan loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Mullen, M.R. (1995), “Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-596.
Ornstein, D. and Phillips, R. (2014), “Vincent Tan: Cardiff City owner will consider return
to blue kit from red”, available at: www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27358728 (accessed
May 15, 2014).
Richelieu, A. and Pons, F. (2006), “Toronto Maple Leafs vs Football Club Barcelona: how two
legendary sports teams built their brand equity”, International Journal of Sports Marketing
& Sponsorship, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 231-250.
Ross, S.D. (2006), “A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity”,
Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Ross, S.D., Bang, H. and Lee, S. (2007), “Assessing brand associations in intercollegiate ice
hockey”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 106-114.
Ross, S.D., James, J.D. and Vargas, P. (2006), “Development of a scale to measure team
brand associations in professional sport”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 260-279.
Ross, S.D., Russell, K.C. and Bang, H. (2008), “An empirical assessment of spectator-based brand Impact of
equity”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 322-337.
brand
Shank, M.D. and Beasley, F.M. (1998), “Fan or fanatic: refining a measure of sports involvement”,
Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 435-443. associations on
Shevlin, M. and Miles, J. (1998), “Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on brand loyalty
the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 85-90. 519
Shuttleworth, P. (2012), “Cardiff City’s ‘whimsical’ rebrand gamble on red”, available at: www.
bbc.com/sport/0/football/18338444 (accessed August 17, 2014).
Sutton, W.A., McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R. and Cimperman, J. (1997), “Creating and fostering fan
identification in professional sports”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 15-22.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon,
New York, NY.
Tapp, A. and Clowes, J. (2002), “From ‘Carefree Casuals’ to ‘Professional Wanderers’:
segmentation possibilities for football supporters”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36
No. 11, pp. 1248-1269.
Trail, G.T., Fink, J.S. and Anderson, D.F. (2003), “Sport spectator consumption behavior”, Sport
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-17.
Wann, D.L. and Pierce, S. (2003), “Measuring sport team identification and commitment: an
empirical comparison of the sport spectator identification scale and the psychological
commitment to team scale”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 365-372.
Wann, D.L. and Waddill, P.J. (2003), “Predicting sport fan motivation using anatomical sex and
gender role orientation”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 485-498.

Corresponding author
Daniel Maderer can be contacted at: daniel.maderer@fau.de

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.