Journal of Sport Management, 2008, 22, 205-226

© 2008 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Brand Image and Fan Loyalty

in Professional Team Sport: A Refined
Model and Empirical Assessment
Hans H. Bauer, Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer, and Stefanie Exler
University of Mannheim

This study highlights the importance of brand image for fan loyalty in team sport.
A parsimonious 4-factor, 20-indicator structure effectively represents brand image.
In contrast to Keller’s proposed model, relationships between the brand image’s
components were discovered. Thus, in line with means-end theory, a brand-image
model should incorporate causalities among brand attributes, benefits, and attitudes.
Fan loyalty is positively influenced by a fan’s brand attitude. Relationships among
the brand-image dimensions and loyalty are confirmed via structural equation
modeling. The non-product-related brand attributes (i.e., logo or tradition) have
a particularly large impact on attitudes and behavior. They represent promising
starting points for a successful and differentiating team brand strategy.

In marketing practice, an increasing interest in customer relationships has

become apparent, turning customer retention into a top priority for many firms
(Homburg & Giering, 1999). Recent developments in the sport industry, such as
the growing commercialization and professionalization of team-sport clubs and
leagues, have resulted in the growing importance of a stable fan base as an imperative
driver of a team’s competitive advantage. The pivotal role of brand loyalty has been
summarized as follows: “First, brand loyalty ensures a more stable following even
when the core product’s performance falters (i.e., the team has a losing season). .
. . Second, brand loyalty creates opportunities for product extensions beyond the
core product” (Gladden & Funk, 2001, p. 68).
In Germany’s professional team sport, however, customer- or fan-retention
activities still lack broad acceptance (Mussler, 1999). This can be traced back to
the fact that, traditionally, German sports clubs are nonprofit organizations (i.e.,
registered associations). Major-league clubs have only recently founded commercial
marketing companies or changed their legal form into limited-liability corpora-
tions. As a consequence, commercial goals, such as a stable sports performance or
media and commercial returns, have clearly gained in importance. Nevertheless,
the development of effective marketing strategies and instruments to retain and
expand the fan base is still in its infancy.

The authors are with the Dept. of Business Administration and Marketing II, University of Mannheim,
Mannheim, Germany.

205
206 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

One promising strategy for sport marketers to drive sport consumers’ prefer-
ences and loyalty is to build strong, positive, and unique consumer beliefs about
the club—in other words, to construct a strong brand image. Given its highly
competitive nature, branding can play an important role by influencing fan prefer-
ences and perceptions regarding the club and by differentiating it from competing
clubs and other leisure activities. Therefore, it is essential to understand how strong
brands are established in sports. Moreover, Ross (2006) recommends research that
theoretically and empirically investigates the relationship between a strong brand
and such consequences as team loyalty and merchandise sales.
This article develops a parsimonious model to measure brand image in the
team-sport industry while at the same time demonstrates the importance of brand
image for fan loyalty. In so doing, we examine the link between brand image and
fan loyalty. The concept and operationalization of brand loyalty in team sport (fan
loyalty) is first presented. We focus on fans rather than casual spectators because
fans represent the most important customer segment for team-sport clubs. Second,
brand image in team sport is described, and a measurement model is suggested.
Third, relationships among the constructs are examined from a theoretical point of
view and verified through an empirical study of fans of German soccer clubs. Finally,
the results of this study and their implications for sport marketers are discussed.
There are many reasons for choosing soccer as the context for our study. The
key reason is that European soccer clubs enjoy an extensive global popularity and
generate high incomes and revenues. Today, European clubs and federations pro-
duce more than US$12.5 billion of income, and European soccer’s leading clubs
even earn larger revenues than American sports franchises. Manchester United, for
example, generated more than US$300 million in revenues in 2002 and 2003. The
biggest earner in the German Bundesliga is Bayern Munich, with revenues totaling
approximately US$200 million (Deloitte, 2004). In addition, with few exceptions
(e.g., Bauer, Sauer, & Schmitt, 2004), team-sports brands have not been analyzed
by scholars outside the United States. Nevertheless, soccer is only chosen as an
exemplar; our model and theoretical considerations are applicable to other team
sports. The study’s importance lies in the fact that it enhances our understanding of
fan behavior, showing that a parsimonious model of brand image in a team-sport
setting can cover the aspects relevant to sport teams. The model can readily be
applied by managers of sport teams to measure their team’s brand image.

Loyalty as a Fundamental Success Measure

The Concept of Fan Loyalty
In the sports context, generally speaking, a fan can be defined as someone who
perceives him- or herself as a fan of a certain team or a sport in general (Dietz-
Uhler, Harrick, End, & Jaquemotte, 2000). Apart from behavioral characteristics,
fans can be differentiated by their degree of attachment to a team, which is their
attitudinal loyalty to the team. Although attitudinal loyalty is a particularly impor-
tant concept in the sports context, it has only recently been examined. For a rather
long time, sport management and psychology research have focused on behavioral
indicators of fan loyalty such as spectator attendance figures (e.g., DeSchriver &
Jensen, 2002; Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989). The
 Brand Image 207

attitudinal dimension of fan loyalty comprises the inner relatedness of fans to their
team and distinguishes between spurious loyalty and “true” loyalty. Spurious loy-
alty characterizes a sport spectator who does not possess a strong positive attitude
but who nevertheless watches games on an ongoing basis (Backman & Crompton,
1991). Although repeat attendance is the most obvious manifestation of a person’s
behavioral attachment to a team, the exclusive use of such a behavioral indicator
ignores important underlying psychological processes such as a deep inner soli-
darity with the team (Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000). A measure of game
attendance, for instance, does not provide insights into the behavioral pattern of
fans watching the team’s games on a regular basis. For example, games might be
watched regularly because the person was given a season ticket. In another case,
games might be watched as a result of the strong personal attachment the person
has for the team. Consequently, researchers have recently developed both pure
attitudinal and composite (i.e., attitude + behavior) measures of fan loyalty (e.g.,
Gladden & Funk, 2001; Hill & Green, 2000; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000;
Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999). As Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) note, neither
behavioral nor psychological relatedness alone can sufficiently explain consumer
loyalty. Thus, to capture the full content of the loyalty concept, it is necessary to
include both behavior and attitude criteria when examining fan loyalty.

The Attitudinal Dimension of Fan Loyalty

The attitudinal dimension of fan loyalty is represented by the psychological com-
mitment of a fan to a team. Commitment is typically defined as the emotional or
psychological attachment to a brand (Beatty & Kahle, 1988). Previous measures
of fans’ psychological commitment have included three components of commit-
ment: inner attachment, persistence, and resistance (e.g., Gladden & Funk, 2001;
Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999). Fans
therefore show a high level of psychological commitment if they feel a deep inner
attachment to their favorite team and if their commitment is persistent over time
and resistant to criticism.
It is useful to note that the organizational-behavior literature has examined
commitment extensively (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1984). That literature suggests that
measures of commitment should also include indicators regarding the degree to
which individuals care about the long-term success of the organization (O’Reilly
& Chatman, 1986)—in this case their favorite club or team. We therefore integrate
the concern of fans for the future welfare of their team into our attitudinal loyalty
framework.

The Behavioral Dimension of Fan Loyalty

According to Homburg and Giering (1999), behavioral loyalty represents past
behavior, as well as behavioral intentions. Past behavior comprises past purchasing
behavior and past positive word-of-mouth. By transferring the loyalty concept to
fan behavior, the following activities constitute past loyal behavior in the team sport
context: attending the favorite club’s games live in the stadium, watching the favorite
club’s games on television, consuming other club-related media, purchasing club
merchandise, wearing the colors or logo of the favorite club, and trying to convince
208 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

others that the favorite club should be supported (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2003;
Funk & Pastore, 2000; Gladden & Funk, 2001; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard,
2000; Shank & Beasley, 1998).
The intentional component represents the positive and persistent future behavior
of the fan. It embraces intended loyal behavior and positive word-of-mouth, as well
as cross-buying intentions (Homburg & Giering, 1999). The behavioral intentions
correspond with the activities noted above such as intended stadium visits, intended
merchandise purchases, and so forth. Positive word-of-mouth is referred to as all
informal communication between a consumer and others concerning evaluations
of goods or services, particularly including recommendations to others (Ander-
son, 1998). Cross-buying refers to a fan’s practice of buying additional products
and services from a favorite club brand in addition to the ones he or she currently
purchases or owns (Ngobo, 2004). Cross-buying intentions seem to be particularly
relevant for sport marketers today because most professional clubs now have brand
extension strategies whereby they are expanding the range of branded products and
services beyond club merchandise (Apostolopoulou, 2002; Chadwick & Clowes,
1998). For example, FC Bayern Munich signed a licensing agreement with HypoV-
ereinsbank and now offers “FC Bayern Banking.”

Brand Image as an Antecedent of Fan Loyalty

in Professional Team Sport
Brand Image as a Central Component of Brand Equity
Especially in North America and the UK, brand management has become an
accepted issue for professional team-sport clubs and leagues. Sport marketers and
researchers believe that a strong brand helps sport organizations to insulate them-
selves from potentially detrimental financial effects of losses (Gladden & Funk,
2001; Rifkin, 1999). It is assumed that a superior brand can distinguish the team-
sport product from other team-sport clubs, as well as from alternative recreational
offers (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007). Continental European sport clubs are also
starting to view brand management as an essential management task, as is evident
in increasing brand extensions and marketing activities tailored to additional (e.g.,
Asian) markets. Empirical support for the assumed positive economic consequences
of strong brands in team sport is rare so far, however. Some support comes from
Gladden and Funk’s (2001) study that shows that brand image strongly influences
the attitudinal loyalty of a club’s fans. Other research also suggests that brand
strength is positively related to economic success (e.g., Bauer, Sauer, & Schmitt,
2004; Robinson & Miller, 2003).
The concept of brand equity is often used to analyze the ways that brands
create value. Brand equity is the effects or outcomes that accrue from marketing
a product with its brand name as compared with effects or outcomes that would
accrue from marketing the same product in an unbranded condition (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993). To measure the brand equity of a team brand in the sport industry,
the consumer-based analysis of brand equity turns out to be critical. The most
prevalent models to measure brand equity from the consumer’s perspective are
proposed by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). Aaker (1991) regards brand equity
 Brand Image 209

as a synopsis of advantages and disadvantages that a customer relates to a brand

or symbol and that drive the value of a product or service. Keller draws on Aaker’s
conceptual framework and suggests a customer-based brand equity model that
treats customer knowledge as the central driver of brand equity. Today, Keller’s
(1993) model is one of the most widely used conceptual frameworks to measure
brand equity. In this conceptualization, brand equity consists of two components:
brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness relates to a consumer’s ability
to recognize and recall a brand. Brand awareness is the vital first step in building
brand associations that are attached to the brand node in memory. Unless brand
awareness has occurred, brand associations cannot be formed, and intentions to
buy cannot occur. Keller further suggests measuring brand associations through a
three-dimensional framework including the favorability, strength, and uniqueness
of brand associations in the consumer’s memory.
There are a number of reasons for applying Keller’s (1993) customer-based
brand equity concept to measure the brand equity of a team-sport brand. First, the
model provides far more detail than other models regarding the necessary consid-
erations when measuring brand equity. Second, compared with other models, it
fosters more useful insight into the dimensions of consumers’ knowledge structures
that determine brand equity—dimensions that club managers can at least partly
control. Third, some of Keller’s key ideas have been successfully adapted to the
team-sport context (e.g., Gladden & Funk, 2001, 2002).
For those reasons, we base our empirical model on Keller’s (1993) work. We
focus on brand image, rather than brand awareness, because brand awareness is
usually high for professional clubs in popular sports like soccer. Put differently,
in the case of major-league clubs, it can be assumed that brand recognition and
recall are already high for people interested in the particular sport. Furthermore,
because media exposure is strongly influenced by the team’s competitive success,
the opportunities to manage brand awareness actively are mitigated. Thus, brand
management for popular professional sport teams should focus on building favorable
and distinct brand beliefs among actual and potential fans. Given the unpredictability
and instability of the team-sport product, which we define as the performance and
outcomes at games, brand image has the potential to represent one of the few con-
stants in fans’ perceptions. Brand image, therefore, offers sport marketers a unique
opportunity to present a consistent and stable club appearance to their fans and the
public. Consequently, we only measure brand image in this article. It might be the
case, however, that brand awareness needs to be measured in contexts where most
fans are casual fans or where the club or sport is not well known.

Conceptualization of the Image of a Team Brand

Brand image is the cumulative product of brand associations in the consumer’s
mind. With regard to content, there are three different types of brand associations:
attributes, benefits, and attitudes. Customer-based brand equity develops when a
consumer holds favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory.
Product- and Non-Product-Related Attributes. Attributes relate to the intrin-
sic properties of the brand that characterize a product or service. Product-related
attributes refer to a product’s physical composition or a service’s fundamental
210 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

requirement. External aspects of the product or service related to its purchase and
consumption are defined as non-product-related attributes (Keller, 1993).
Two studies that conceptualized and operationalized brand image in the team-
sport industry are important here. Ross, James, and Vargas (2006) introduced a brand
association model, which they dubbed the Team Brand Association Scale (TBAS).
They used both qualitative and quantitative work to identify eight dimensions
of relevant associations, which they measure using 41 items. From a theoretical
standpoint, however, one of the drawbacks of the TBAS is that it does not differen-
tiate product-related and non-product-related attributes, brand benefits, and brand
attitudes; nor does the scale obtain ratings of the favorability or uniqueness of the
items or the dimensions. From practical and theoretical standpoints, this could be
a problem because we do not learn if the association is positive or negative. For
example, if participants only rate the strength of their association with the “head
coach” (an item from the nonplayer personnel dimension of the TBAS), we do not
learn if the association is favorable or unfavorable, which is important to know.
Furthermore, the TBAS treats commitment as an indicator of brand image, although
it is more appropriately treated as a part of brand loyalty.
The second model to conceptualize brand equity is Gladden and Funk’s (2001,
2002) team association model (TAM). That model specifies 13 dimensions of brand
associations that constitute sport teams’ brand equity. The model is particularly
complex, which compromises its utility as a research tool. Furthermore, although
the TAM is intended to operationalize Keller’s (1993) model for team sports, it does
not measure the uniqueness, favorability, or strength of brand associations, which
Keller’s model requires. Rather, consistent with the customer-based brand equity
model, the items are classified into attributes, benefits, and attitudes. Consequently,
in the work that follows, we refine and modify Gladden and Funk’s (2001, 2002)
model in an effort to overcome the aforementioned limitations. Modifications and
additions to the model are based on theoretical and empirical considerations, includ-
ing the results of a pretest, which was carried out in the form of free-association
tasks with six soccer fans.
With respect to product-related attributes, Gladden and Funk (2001, 2002)
propose four dimensions: success, star player, head coach, and management. We
treat product-related attributes as characteristics of or contributors to actual team
performance. They therefore represent the core product. More precisely, all the
people and outcomes that are directly related to the actual games are labeled as
product-related attributes. We further modify Gladden and Funk’s classification
scheme by defining success, star player, head coach, team (members), and team
performance (team play) as product-related attributes. We exclude “management”
from product-related attributes because, from the consumer’s perspective, manage-
ment does not contribute to the team performance in the way that coaches, stars, and
other players do. We add the attributes “team members” and “team performance/
team play” to the brand-image framework because the team itself is an important
success factor and because a team can be unsuccessful despite good performances.
Table 1 provides a summary of the brand image components employed in this study
and compares them to the TAM.
Non-product-related attributes do not directly affect performance. They are
external aspects of the core product that are relevant to its consumption and, con-
sequently, influence perceptions of the club brand. These are management, logo
 Brand Image 211

Table 1 Conceptualization of Study Constructs in Comparison With

Existing Scales
Brand Image Concept
Factor/Item By Gladden and Funk (2001) In This Manuscript
Product-related Success (3 items) Successa
brand attributes Star player (3 items) Star player(s)a
Head coach (3 items) Head coacha
Management (3 items) —
— Teama
— Team performancea
Non-product-related — Managementa
brand attributes Logo design (3 items) Logo and club colorsa
Stadium (3 items) Stadiuma
Product delivery (3 items) —
Tradition (3 items) Club history and traditiona
— Club culture and valuesa
— Fansa
— Sponsor or ownera
— Regional provenancea

Brand benefits Pride in place (3 items) Pride in placeb [sb]

(sb = symbolic Fan identification (4 items) Fan identificationb [sb]
benefits; eb = Peer-group acceptance (3 items) Peer-group acceptanceb [sb]
experiential benefits) Nostalgia (3 items) Nostalgiab [eb]
Escape (3 items) Escapeb [eb]
— Socializing/companionshipb [eb]
— Emotionsb [eb]
— Entertainmentb [eb]
Brand attitudes Importance (3 items) —
Knowledge (3 items) —
Affect (4 items) Affect (4 items)
a
Each of these items was measured by its strength, favorability, and uniqueness; bEach of these items was measured
by its strength and uniqueness.

and club colors, stadium, club history and tradition, club culture and values, fans,
sponsor or owner, and regional provenance. The last four components of the non-
product-related attributes are not included in the TAM (see Table 1).
Our model derives from four considerations. First, because there is no physi-
cal core product that can transport the underlying values, the perception of service
brands is strongly influenced by the organizational culture and the behavior of
the organization’s members (De Chernatony & Segal-Horn, 2001). Successful
team-sport brands such as Manchester United, for example, have clear values that
consumers and employees understand and live. In Germany, major-league soccer
clubs have distinct club cultures. Bayern Munich, for instance, represents an elitist
“celebrity club” that can be clearly distinguished from “working class clubs,” such
as FC Schalke 04. Second, the fans of a club can clearly influence the club’s brand
212 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

image because they play a crucial role in creating the team-sport product. “In other
words, football needs supporters not just as customers but because they form part
of a unique joint product” (Morrow, 1999, p. 13). Third, the image of the spon-
sor or owner (e.g., in the case of Bayer 04 Leverkusen or the Volkswagen-owned
Wolfsburg) can also have spillover effects on the club’s brand image. Recently,
companies have attempted to attract attention by sponsoring stadiums such as the
Allianz Arena in Munich or the AOL Arena in Hamburg. Fourth, the association of
regional provenance corresponds to country-of-origin effects on a local, regional,
or national level. For example, the images of the London-based clubs Arsenal and
Chelsea are influenced by their respective neighborhoods.
Benefits. Marketing research has shown that consumers do not buy product fea-
tures and attributes but rather bundles of benefits (e.g., Lancaster, 1966). Benefits
are the personal value and meaning that consumers attach to the brand’s attributes,
which satisfy underlying needs and motivations (Keller, 1993). The brand’s benefits
depend on the individual consumer’s needs and personal values as represented
by attributes of the product or service (Keller, 1993). Three types of benefits are
suggested by the literature: functional, symbolic, and experiential benefits (e.g.,
Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis 1986). Functional benefits are benefits motivating the
search for products that solve consumption-related problems. They correspond to
a brand’s capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance. Symbolic
benefits derive from products that fulfill internally generated needs for self-enhance-
ment, role position, group membership, or ego identification. Experiential benefits
are obtained from products that provide sensory and emotional pleasure, variety,
or cognitive stimulation. Spectators at sport events typically seek to meet their
experiential and symbolic needs rather than their functional needs, because sport
spectatorship is not related to solving consumption-related problems. For this
reason, functional benefits are not included in our model.
We identified the following symbolic benefits: pride in place, fan identifica-
tion, and peer-group acceptance. In addition, the following experiential benefits
appear to be relevant in the team-sport setting: nostalgia (evoked fond memories),
escape (get away from it all), socializing and companionship, emotions, and enter-
tainment. Therefore, on the basis of the pretest and theoretical considerations, we
added socializing and companionship, emotions, and entertainment to the TAM
(see Table 1). Socializing and companionship refers to developing and maintaining
relations with other fans. Many fans particularly enjoy watching games in com-
pany with people who share their interest in the respective activity (McDonald,
Milne, & Hong, 2002). Second, sport elicits strong emotions. Sport fans regularly
experience joy, pride, or ecstasy, as well as anger, frustration, worry, or shame.
Moreover, fans act out these emotions with less restraint than would be imposed
in other social settings. Third, the entertainment factor is an important benefit for
spectators in the stadium and supporters viewing games on television (Mullin,
Hardy, & Sutton, 2007). These benefits also serve as motivation for spectator and
fan behavior. Because the literature recognizes an even larger number of motives
(e.g., Trail & James, 2001), one could ask why motives such as the acquisition
of knowledge or drama or eustress have not been included in our framework. The
reason is that the benefits included here are those that individuals primarily asso-
ciate with a team brand, whereas others (e.g., acquisition of knowledge) are not
 Brand Image 213

necessarily top-of-mind associations (which our pretests confirmed). To develop a

parsimonious model, we focused on the most important associations.
Brand Attitudes. Brand attitudes are the final type of brand associations. Attitudes
are “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable
manner with respect to a given object” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 6). Hence, brand
attitudes represent summary judgments and the consumer’s overall evaluation of
a brand, which typically depend on the beliefs about the attributes and benefits.
Researchers often examine attitudes in terms of three dimensions: affective, cogni-
tive, and behavioral (e.g., Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). In contrast, attitudes can
also be defined as solely affective constructs that reflect predispositions toward an
object, which might lead to overt behavior (Lutz, 1991). We follow this unidimen-
sional approach for two reasons: (1) The fan’s behavior is modeled in our behav-
ioral loyalty concept; and (2) the belief system that underlies fans’ brand attitudes
is related to nonfunctional benefits, so the attitudes are predominantly affective.
Because brand attitudes are overall evaluations of a brand, they are abstract and
are above the other more specific types of brand associations.

Model Structure
The positive relationship between brand image and brand loyalty is frequently
mentioned in the brand literature, although there have been few empirical studies
regarding that relationship. In particular, the relationships between the different
dimensions of brand image or equity and loyalty have, with a few exceptions (e.g.,
Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001), rarely been examined. Keller (1993) points out that
the different categories of brand associations are not independent from each other.
In line with this view, we examine the links among the different types of brand
associations that constitute brand image.
The linkages among the different types of brand associations can be explained
on the basis of means-end theory (Gutman, 1982). In the means-end approach,
brand or product knowledge is hierarchically organized into three key categories:
attributes, consequences, and values. The underlying idea is that product attributes
are the means for consumers to obtain desired ends (i.e., value) through the con-
sequences of those attributes. Attributes (means) are on the lowest hierarchical
level of the means-end chain. They are ideally linked to desirable consequences
(benefits) for the consumer (Gutman, 1982).
This study examined the linkages among the different types of brand associa-
tions on an aggregate level. Thus, we do not analyze the links among the single
specific associations, such as the relationship between star player and entertain-
ment. We averaged the strength, favorability, and uniqueness of the brand attributes
to develop the variables. We expect both product-related and non-product-related
attributes to affect symbolic and experiential benefits. On these bases, the following
hypotheses were formulated.
H1: The stronger, more favorable, and more unique a fan’s brand associations
are with product-related attributes, the greater the perceived benefits.
H2: The stronger, more favorable, and more unique a fan’s brand associations
are with non-product-related attributes, the greater the perceived benefits.
214 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

The degree to which a brand fulfills the individual’s values and delivers benefits
is expressed in the brand attitude. Especially for brands providing nonfunctional
benefits, attitudes serve as a value expressive function by allowing consumers to
express their self-concept (Lutz, 1991). Therefore, there should be a positive link
between the fan’s experienced emotional and symbolic benefits and his or her
attitude, which leads to the following hypothesis.
H3: The greater a fan’s perceived benefits, the more positive his or her atti-
tude.
The hypothesized causal chain is complemented by psychological commitment (i.e.,
attitudinal loyalty). The relationship between attitudes and commitment represents
the interface between the higher level concepts of brand image and fan loyalty.
Therefore, we expect the following relationship.
H4: The more positive a fan’s attitude, the higher his or her psychological
commitment.
Furthermore, we expect that attitudinal loyalty is an antecedent of behavioral
loyalty. Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, p. 256), for example, suggest that “individuals
go through sequential psychological processes to become loyal participants includ-
ing . . . the development of psychological commitment to a brand.” Moreover,
the connection between these constructs can be justified by the attitude−behavior
relationship, demonstrated in a multitude of studies (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977;
Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Kuo, Chang, and Cheng (2004), conclude that
loyalty studies should be multidimensional. Consequently, we predict that loyal
behavior is based on loyal attitudes.
H5: The higher the psychological commitment of a fan, the higher his or her
behavioral loyalty.

Method
Participants
Data were collected from fans of German soccer teams using an online survey. A
total of 1,298 usable questionnaires were collected. As was expected, the sample
was dominated by male respondents, comprising 85% of the total sample. This was
expected because soccer is a sport predominantly favored by males. The average
age of the respondents was 26.6 years. Thirty-two percent of the respondents were
employed by a third party, 31% were students, 12% were in vocational training,
and 6% were self-employed. Forty-two percent of the respondents have a 13-year
degree, 19% have a 10-year high-school degree, 17% are graduates with a master’s
degree, and 13% own a degree in a practical training. Thus, the sample is somewhat
above average in educational attainment. The sample is also unrepresentative of
the target population in terms of gender and age because estimates by Sportfive
(2002) show that 27.2% of stadium visitors are female and 15.7% are over 50 years
of age. Overall, however, the sample has reasonable representation of people from
relevant age, professional, and social-class groups. Given that the respondents were
recruited via online discussion forums, then asked to name their favorite team and
to respond to the items concerning that team, our sample is biased toward more
 Brand Image 215

committed fans. Because that segment is the most relevant target group for sport
marketers, we consider this to be advantageous.

Measures
We adapted items from existing scales and developed additional items based on
our review of the literature. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The exact item wordings
are given in the Appendix.
Fan Loyalty. The fan loyalty construct consists of two dimensions: psychological
commitment and behavioral loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty was measured by items
adapted from the Psychological Commitment to a Team (PCT) scale (Mahony,
Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Kwon & Trail, 2003) and from the TAM (Gladden &
Funk, 2001). In addition, we added two items embracing the notion that commit-
ted fans deeply care about the future welfare of the club. These items were drawn
from Garbarino and Johnson’s (1999) commitment scale. These scales have not
previously been tested on German soccer fans. For that reason, we included a wide
range of possible items that describe the construct.
We used both general measures of brand loyalty (Homburg & Giering, 1999)
and sport-specific measures (e.g., Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2003) to formulate the
behavioral items. The behavioral-loyalty construct considers both past (e.g., “I
have purchased a lot of club-related merchandise”) and future behaviors (e.g., “I
will purchase a lot of club-related merchandise”). To reduce the complexity for the
construct and structural-equation analyses, we aggregated the item scores for the
past and future behavior items by calculating an average score.
Brand Image. We built on the TAM (Gladden & Funk, 2001, 2002) to develop a
convenient brand-image measure. We therefore had 13 dimensions of brand asso-
ciations that constitute brand equity in the team-sport setting, with each dimension
measured by three or four items. The measure consisted of 40 items.
To measure the fans’ perceptions concerning brand attributes, we formulated
our measures in keeping with Keller’s (1993) suggestions. Consequently, we used
three indicators to measure the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of each brand
attribute. (This measurement departs from Gladden and Funk [2001, 2002], who
did not consider favorability, strength, and uniqueness.). Regarding the associated
benefits, respondents were merely asked for the strength and uniqueness because
benefits are favorable by definition. For the exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses, the mean value of these two or three items for each benefit or attribute
is used, that is, items were aggregated for the analyses. The operationalization of
the constructs is shown in the Appendix. When appropriate, items were aggregated
for analysis. Respondents were merely asked for the strength and uniqueness of
the associated benefits because benefits are favorable by definition. When brand
attributes were measured, the average score of both items was used in analyses.
To operationalize brand attitude, respondents were asked to rate four affective
statements using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(totally agree). Brand attitudes are overall evaluations of a brand, and thus are closely
related to psychological commitment. Because both concepts represent attitudes,
216 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

the distinction between brand attitudes and psychological commitment might not
be clear, so there are potential challenges for measurement discrimination.

Procedure
To test the hypothesized brand-image model and its relationships with commit-
ment and behavioral loyalty, the 18 professional soccer teams of the major German
league Bundesliga were used as study objects. From an economic point of view,
the clubs qualify as medium-scale enterprises today. Three of the clubs (Bayern
Munich, Borussia Dortmund, and Schalke 04) are among Europe’s top 20 clubs
in revenue. League matches have the highest attendance of European top division
leagues, exceeding 35,000 on average. All respondents are fans of one of the 18
German Bundesliga teams.
The questionnaire was distributed by posting brief notes in the online discus-
sion forums of each club. As an incentive, respondents could win subscriptions to
a German soccer magazine or vouchers for the online store, www.amazon.de. To
ensure high-quality responses, each returned questionnaire was screened for formal
and content consistency. Formal consistency required that the entire questionnaire
was completed and that the time to complete it was not less than 5 minutes. (On
average, it took respondents retained in our sample slightly more than 10 minutes
to complete the survey.) Content consistency required that there was some varia-
tion in responses (i.e., all items were not rated using precisely the same value).
Questionnaires that failed to meet formal or content consistency requirements were
dropped from further study.

Analysis
Complex constructs, like brand image in the team-sport industry, are typically
evaluated using a number of reliability and validity criteria. These include classic
techniques, such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item-to-total correlation
(ITTC), and Cronbach’s alpha (α), as well as more contemporary techniques such
as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM).
Each of these techniques was employed in this study. Because our data are non-
normally distributed, we applied the Satorra–Bentler adjustment for nonnormality
(Satorra & Bentler, 1994).

Results
Measurement Models of Study Constructs
The analysis (EFA, ITTC, α, and CFA) of the two fan-loyalty constructs showed
that some indicators did not meet the required goodness-of-fit criteria. In the case
of psychological commitment, both items relating to the “concern for the future
welfare of the club” had to be eliminated. The indicator “watching of the games
on TV” did not meet the required fit criteria. The omitted items are marked with
parentheses in Table A1 of the Appendix. After eliminating these indicators, the
measurement models are satisfactory.
 Brand Image 217

Reasonable explanations can be given for elimination of these indicators.

Concern for the team’s future welfare was rated highly by all fans, so it did not
discriminate between less and more loyal fans. Elimination of the item referencing
game consumption through media is a consequence of the fact that watching games
on television is a substitute for attendance at the stadium. The fan does one or the
other at any one time, but not both. So the correlation between the items is low,
even though they logically represent the same underlying construct.
Analyses of the brand-image constructs resulted in the elimination of several
items. Because of their failure to meet the ITTC or CFA fit criteria, we dropped the
following indicators of non-product-related attributes: management, club culture
and values, sponsor or owner, and regional provenance. These associations do
not unequivocally contribute to the team’s brand image. With regard to regional
provenance, it is plausible that the hometown of a team is valued more favorably
by local fans. Accordingly, nonlocal fans do not necessarily appreciate the team’s
regional provenance for its own sake. Regarding sponsorship, research has revealed
that spectators do not necessarily associate the sponsor with the respective club.
Moreover, sponsors change regularly.
One benefit indicator, “pride in place,” also failed to meet the goodness-
of-fit criteria. This was theoretically acceptable because not every fan is a local
fan—especially for very popular clubs such as Bayern Munich or FC Schalke 04.
All indicators of brand attitudes showed satisfactory fit, however.
As Table 2 shows, the final measurement models of the corporate brand-image
construct now meet all required goodness-of-fit criteria. Factor loadings of the EFA
and CFA provide a ranking of item importance. The team and its performance repre-
sent the key indicators of product-related attributes. These items are therefore pivotal
when trying to increase a fan’s (positive) associations with the core product. The
“fans” dimension is the most crucial when trying to strengthen a fan’s association
with non-product-related attributes. This result confirms the relevance of a stable
and committed following for a team’s brand image because it also represents a very
important association with the team brand from the perspective of other supporters.
The indicators that are most central for the management of benefits associated with
a team are identification, escape, and emotions.

Structural Equation Model

Before testing the proposed relationships, we examined the discriminant validity
of the constructs by comparing the squared correlation between two constructs
with their respective average variance extracted. Discriminant validity is obtained
if the average variance extracted (AVE) of both constructs is greater than their
squared correlation (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Because the squared correlation
between brand attitude and psychological commitment (.78) exceeded AVE for
both constructs, we were compelled to eliminate one construct. In addition, because
our objective is to develop a complete brand-image model, we chose to exclude
psychological commitment from our path analysis. Consequently, hypothesis H4
had to be adapted, and H5 could not be tested. We instead base our hypothesis on
the generally acknowledged attitude–behavior relationship.
218

Table 2 Reliability of the Study Constructs

EFA CFA

Cronbach’s
ITTC alpha FL AVE CR FL t Value FL AVE
Factor/Item (≥.40) (≥.70) (≥.50) (≥.50) (≥.60) (≥.60) (≥1.645) (≥.50)
Brand Image
Product-related attributes .85 .63 .86 .56
team .74 .82 .83 30.10
head coach .54 .68 .63 22.06
success .79 .83 .89 31.11
star player .57 .77 .62 24.39
team performance .70 .87 .74 40.31
Non-product-related attributes .81 .64 .81 .53
logo and club colors .63 .78 .69 25.17
club history and tradition .63 .79 .69 24.90
stadium .58 .79 .65 24.77
fans .69 .85 .85 37.04
Brand benefits .93 .70 .93 .65
identification .80 .85 .86 —
peer-group acceptance .74 .82 .75 33.84
escape from it all .81 .87 .83 39.40
socializing .78 .85 .78 30.92
emotions .81 .86 .87 43.08
nostalgia .76 .82 .81 33.18
entertainment .72 .79 .75 29.96
 Brand attitude .83 .67 .88 .65
unique .54 .74 .86 —
trustworthy .64 .86 .75 19.35
positive .79 .86 .83 20.39
likeable .71 .82 .78 17.96
Brand Loyalty
Behavioral loyalty .83 .84 .58
stadium visits .60 .77 .65 —
follow reports in media .50 .58 .54 16.42
purchase club-related
merchandise .81 .89 .85 27.09
wear club colors .74 .94 .93 24.61
Note. AVE = average variance explained/extracted; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; CR = construct
reliability; df = degrees of freedom, EFA = exploratory factor analysis; ITTC = item-to-total-correlation; NFI = normed fit index;
RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker Lewis index;
Global fit: NFI = .946; TLI = .944; CFI = .950; SRMR = .097; RMSEA = .096; SB-χ2/df = 3,213.52/247
219
 220 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

H4B: The more positive a fan’s attitude, the higher his or her behavioral loy-
alty.
As Table 3 shows, discriminant validity among the remaining study constructs
was thus obtained.
To test the relationships specified in hypotheses H1 to H4B, we used the struc-
tural equation model (i.e., LISREL) with the Satorra–Bentler adjustment (by using
the asymptotic covariance matrix). As Table 4 shows, with the exception of the
RMSEA and χ2-values, global fit criteria are satisfactory. In addition, all relation-
ships are highly significant. The model is retained. Its parameters indicate that all
hypotheses can be accepted.

Discussion
This study demonstrates the significant role that a club’s brand image (i.e., fans’
perceptions of a club’s attributes and benefits) plays in fostering loyal fan behavior.
Most important, a club’s brand image consists of product- and non-product-
related brand attributes, as well as brand benefits and brand attitudes. The explicit

Table 3 Discriminant Validity (Fornell/Larcker Criterion)

Product-related Non-product- Brand Brand Behavioral
attributes related attributes benefits attitude loyalty
AVE .56 .53 .65 .65 .58
Product-related
.56 1
attributes
Non-product-
.53 .00 1
related attributes
Brand benefits .65 .09 .53 1
Brand attitude .65 .17 .34 .58 1
Behavioral loyalty .58 .02 .34 .55 .30 1

Table 4 SEM Fit Indicators

Causal Relationships γ/β t value SMC Global Fit Criteria

Product-related attributes → benefits .26 11.24 SB-χ2 df RMSEA

.605
Non-product-related attributes → benefits .71 23.13 3,213.52 247 .096

Benefits → brand attitudes .83 19.66 .692 SRMR NFI TLI

Brand attitudes → behavioral loyalty .64 17.19 .409 .096 .946 .944

Note. γ/β = path coefficients; SMC = squared multiple correlation (comparable to R2 in regression analysis);
RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; NFI =
normed fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index.
 Brand Image 221

classification of items within these categories advances the modeling of brand

associations. Product-related brand attributes constitute the core product of a team
brand and consist of the team, head coach, star player, success, and team play. The
non-product-related brand attributes are defined by club history and tradition, logo
and club colors, fans, and stadium. The perceived benefits are multifaceted and
include identification with the team, peer-group acceptance, escape, socializing
and companionship, emotions, nostalgia, and entertainment.
The effect of the non-product-related attributes on benefits is almost triple that
of product-related benefits. This might come as a surprise because one could logi-
cally expect product-related attributes (e.g., the team, star player, head coach, play,
success) to be of greater importance to fans. This result is consistent, however, with
previous research on brand associations in team sport (Bauer, Sauer, & Schmitt,
2004). Because most of the fans have a long fan history, they have all experienced
ups and downs of their team such as player and coach changes, for example. Perhaps
for that reason contextual factors (i.e., the stadium atmosphere, other fans, club
history and tradition) have greater relevance to them. This result suggests neither
competitive success nor the team itself is a central driver of fans’ utility perception.
Nevertheless, product and nonproduct attributes together account for only 60.5%
of variance in perceived benefits. Although this is a good prediction, it also shows
that other (not yet measured) factors also provide value to fans.
The fact that the benefits fans obtain through the team brand are strongly
affected by the brand’s product- and non-product-related attributes is consistent with
research deriving from means-end theory. It shows, however, that Keller’s (1993)
brand associations model should be extended to causalities among the constructs.
For instance, there should be not only an assumed link between attributes and
benefits, but also a positive effect emanating from attributes to benefits.
The relationship between beliefs and brand attitude is also significant. Benefits
explain 69.2% of the variance in brand attitudes. Because “benefits” is a construct
with broad content, this result is reasonable. The entertainment aspect accounts
for the smallest amount of variance explained, whereas identification and emotion
deliver the highest amount. In contradiction to Gladden and Funk’s (2002) results,
peer-group acceptance also represents a central driver of benefit perception. Fur-
thermore, brand attitude has a large and significant influence on behavioral loyalty,
predicting 40.9% of the variance.
It is difficult to discriminate between brand attitudes and psychological com-
mitment, the attitudinal component of fan loyalty. This study focused on behavioral
loyalty, which becomes apparent in the fan’s stadium visits, the consumption of
club-related media, the wearing of club colors, and the purchase of club merchan-
dise. Further research is needed, particularly longitudinal research, to explore the
dynamics of loyalty.
From a practical standpoint, the findings of this study allow us to derive a
number of implications for successful brand-based fan retention management. There
should be a strong focus on building a strong brand identity using non-product-
related attributes. Their major relevance can be explained by their relative consis-
tency over time. Although the core product is subject to variations in composition
and quality, the brand context factors allow for stability and continuity. Thus, club
management aiming to increase the loyalty of their fan base should foster contact
with other fans and cultivate the team’s tradition. This could be achieved, for
222 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

example, by providing branded sports bars and a club museum or by organizing

fan tournaments in the stadium or arena.
The strong effect of brand benefits on brand attitude highlights the potential
value of a benefit-based positioning of a team brand. The attachment of fans and
their pronounced loyalty propensity is the most important asset of a team-sport
organization. Sports clubs should emphasize the creation and conservation of fan
loyalty through well-planned interactions designed to deliver extraordinary experi-
ences. Cross-selling activities are promising strategies in this direction, provided
that the new products are based on the brand’s key benefits (with a high fit), and
this link is communicated by marketing. Future research should test the effective-
ness of varied marketing tactics in constructing brand-marketing tools, particularly
with reference to brand image and fan loyalty.
Examining possible moderators of the proposed relationships (e.g., involve-
ment, commitment, identification, gender, social class) also represents an important
direction for future research. Learning more about the drivers of brand loyalty in
different segments and a deeper understanding of the benefit structure of different
fan types would provide sport marketers with the necessary insight to segment their
marketing strategies. The nature and importance of attributes and benefits related
to a team brand might also differ across sports and cultures.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: Free Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service
Research, 1, 5–17.
Apostolopoulou, A. (2002). Brand extensions by U.S. professional sport teams: Motivations
and keys to success. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 205–214.
Backman, S.J., & Crompton, J.L. (1991, Fall). Using loyalty matrix to differentiate between
high, spurious, latent, and loyal participants in two leisure services. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 9, 1–17.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E., & Schmitt, P. (2004). Die Erfolgsrelevanz der Markenstärke in der
1. Fußball-Bundesliga. [Customer-based brand equity and its impact on the economic
success in the German “Bundesliga”]. (Working Paper, Institute of Market-Oriented
Management). Mannheim, Germany: University of Mannheim Press.
Beatty, S.E., & Kahle, L.R. (1988). Alternative hierarchies of the attitude behavior relation-
ship: The impact of brand commitment and habit. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16, 1–10.
Chadwick, S., & Clowes, J. (1998). The use of extension strategies by clubs in the English
Football Premier League. Managing Leisure, 3, 194–203.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand effect
to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
De Chernatony, L., & Segal-Horn, S. (2001). Building on services’ characteristics to develop
successful services brands. Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 645–669.
DeSchriver, T.D., & Jensen, P.D. (2002). Determinants of spectator attendance at NCAA
Division II football contests. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 311–330.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E.A., End, C., & Jaquemotte, L. (2000). Sex differences in sport fan
behavior and reasons for being a sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 219–232.
 Brand Image 223

Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T., & Anderson, D.F. (2003). Environmental factors associated with
spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: Gender and team differences.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 8–19.
Fornell, C.D., & Larcker, F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement errors. JMR (Journal of Marketing Research), 18, 39–50.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F., & Ridinger, L.L. (2002). Characterizing consumer motivation as
individual difference factors: Augmenting the sport interest inventory (SII) to explain
level of spectator support. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 33–43.
Funk, D.C., & Pastore, D.L. (2000). Equating attitudes to allegiance: The usefulness of
selected attitudinal information in segmenting loyalty to professional sports teams.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 175–184.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commit-
ment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Gladden, J.M., & 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, 3, 67–91.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations
in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of
Sport Management, 16, 54–81.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes.
Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72.
Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sports events.
Journal of Sport Management, 3, 15–32.
Hill, B., & Green, B.C. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty,
and the sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review, 3,
145–162.
Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (1999). Messung von Markenzufriedenheit und Markenloy-
alität [The measurement of brand satisfaction and brand loyalty]. In F-R. Esch (Ed.),
Moderne Markenführung: Grundlagen—innovative Ansätze —praktische Umsetzungen
[Modern brand management: Fundamentals, new approaches, implementations] (pp.
1089–1100). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M.E. (1998). A path analytic model of the relationships between
involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research,
30, 256–280.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R.W. (1978). Brand loyalty measurement and management. New
York: Wiley.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kuo, T-S., Chang, C-M., & Cheng, K-M. (2004). Exploration of consumer loyalty. in
recreational sport/fitness programs. The Sport Journal, 7(1). Retrieved February 20,
2006, from http://www.thesportjournal.org/2004Journal/Vol7-No1/Tian-ShiangChia-
MingKuei-Mei.asp
Kwon, H.H., & Trail, G.T. (2003). A reexamination of the construct and concurrent validity of
the psychological commitment to team scale. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 88–93.
Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political
Economy, 74, 132–157.
Lutz, R.J. (1991). The role of attitude theory in marketing. In H.H. Kassarjian & T.S. Rob-
ertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior (pp. 317–339). Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the psychological commitment
to a team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumer based on loyalty. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 9, 15–25.
224 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.
McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Hong, J. (2002). Motivational factors evaluating sport
spectator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 100–113.
Morrow, S. (1999). The new business of football. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (2007). Sport marketing (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Mussler, D. (1999). Relationship Marketing im Sport. In H. D. Horch (Ed.), Profession-
alisierung im Sportmanagement: Beiträge des 1. Kölner Sportökonomie-Kongresses
[The professionalization of sport management: Proceedings of the 1. sports economics
congress in Cologne] (pp. 278–286). Aachen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer.
Ngobo, P.V. (2004). Drivers of customers’ cross-buying intentions. European Journal of
Marketing, 38, 1129–1157.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J., & MacInnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image manage-
ment. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.
Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E., & Howard, D.R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment-loyalty
link in service contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 333–348.
Rifkin, G. (1999). How the Red Sox touch all the branding bases. Strategy & Business,
5(4), 75–83.
Robinson, M.J., & Miller, J.J. (2003). Assessing the impact of Bobby Knight on the brand
equity of the Texas Tech basketball program. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 56–59.
Rosenberg, M.J., & Hovland, C.I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioral components
of attitudes. In M.J. Rosenberg (Ed.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of
consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Ross, S.D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity.
Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22–38.
Ross, S.D., James, J.D., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand
associations in professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 260–279.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covari-
ance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C.C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis:
Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shank, M.D., & Beasley, F.M. (1998). Fan or fanatic: Refining a measure of sports involve-
ment. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 435–443.
Trail, G., & James, J.D. (2001). The Motivation Scale of Sport Consumption: Assessment
of the scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108–127.
 Brand Image 225

Appendix
Table A1 Operationalization of Brand Image
Product-related Non-product-related
Benefits
attributes attributes
Team* Logo and club colorsa Identificationb
Head coach* Club history and traditiona (Pride in placeb)
Success* (Managementa) Peer-group acceptanceb
Star player* Stadiuma Escape/Get away from it allb
Team performance* (Club culture and valuesa) Socializing/Companionshipb
Fansa Emotionsb
(Sponsor or ownera) Nostalgia/Evoke fond memoriesb
(Regional provenancea) Entertainmentb
Attitudes:
My favorite club is unique.
My favorite club is trustworthy.
I have positive feelings toward my favorite club.
I like my favorite club.
a
Each of these items was measured by its strength (i.e., “If you hear or read about your favorite club, how strongly do
you associate the following attributes/aspects with the club?” [1 = do not associate at all; 7 = strongly associate]),
favorability (i.e., “How do you feel about the following attributes of your favorite club?” [1 = extremely negative,
7 = extremely positive]), and uniqueness (i.e., “In comparison with other clubs, how unique are the following
attributes/aspects with respect to your favorite club?” [1 = not unique at all, 7 = extremely unique]).
b
Each of these items was measured by its strength and uniqueness. All other items are measured on 7-point scales
with the end points 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Items in parentheses were eliminated.

Operationalization of Fan Loyalty

Psychological Commitment
I am a real fan of my favorite club. (1)
I am very committed to my favorite club. (1)
There is nothing that could change my commitment to my favorite club. (2)
I will not change my affiliation from my favorite club to another club in the future just
because it is not successful anymore. (2)
I would defend my favorite team in public even if this caused problems. (3)
I will not change my affiliation from my favorite club to another club just because my friends
try to convince me to. (3)
It is really important to me that my favorite club continues playing in the major
league. (4)
The long-term success of my favorite team is important to me. (4)
226 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler

Behavioral Loyalty
I have often attended games of my favorite team live in the stadium. / I will often
attend games of my favorite team live in the stadium.
I have watched games of my favorite team on TV. / I will watch games of my
favorite team on TV.
I have often followed reports about my favorite team’s players, coaches, managers
etc. in the media. / I will often follow reports about my favorite team’s players,
coaches, managers etc. in the media.
I have purchased a lot of club-related merchandise. / I will purchase a lot of club-
related merchandise.
I often wore the colors and/or the logo of my favorite team. / I will often wear the
colors and/or the logo of my favorite team.
I have often participated in discussions about my favorite team. / I will often par-
ticipate in discussions about my favorite team.

(Note. All items are measured on 7-point scales with the end points ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Items in parentheses were eliminated.)