Page 1 of 19
Archives of Business Research – Vol. 10, No. 10
Publication Date: October 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/abr.1010.13289. Hunt, J. B., & Hunt, T. G. (2022). The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Equity: A Study Within the Context of Professional Soccer.
Archives of Business Research, 10(10). 96-113.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Equity: A Study Within
the Context of Professional Soccer
James B. Hunt
Cameron School of Business
University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States
Tammy G. Hunt
Cameron School of Business
University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States
ABSTRACT
This study examines the effects of sport sponsorship on brand equity. More
precisely, the impact of sport sponsorship is assessed for each of Aaker’s (1991)
components of brand equity: brand personality; brand awareness; brand
associations; perceived quality; brand loyalty. Research is conducted within the
domain of a sports team sponsorship, specifically Nivea Men’s sponsorship of
Liverpool Football Club. The results demonstrate that all five components of brand
equity are positively influenced by sport sponsorship, ultimately supporting the
proposition that sport sponsorship has a positive impact on brand equity. While
sponsorship may not by itself be sufficient for brand equity building or sales
enhancement, sponsors should be able to leverage their association with the team
to promote their benefits and motivate fan engagement.
Keywords: Sport sponsorship; Brand equity; Fan loyalty; Football/soccer marketing
INTRODUCTION
The sport business has grown exponentially over the last two decades (Ljubica & Seric, 2018)
predominantly due to media presence that has propelled professional sport into the
international spotlight. Sport sponsorship is currently the most popular type of sponsorship,
attracting over $57 billion globally, and this figure is predicted to grow to $90 billion in 2027
(Gough, 2021). Justification for these vast investments is based on the belief that sport
sponsorship has the capability of building brand equity, differentiating brands from
competitors, and introducing new audiences to the brand (Cornwell et al., 2001; Donlan, 2014;
Henseler et al., 2007; Zarei et al., 2019). One facet of brand equity, brand loyalty, has attracted
particular attention as it has the potential to generate sales volume and enable premium pricing
(Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006; Sayman & Hoch, 2014; Vivek et al., 2012). From an academic
perspective, brand equity is regarded as a principal marketing concept (Keller, 2013; Tsordia
et al., 2018). Aaker’s (1991) model has been extensively used as the standard measurement
tool, with a number of researchers making their own modifications (Cornwell et al., 2001; Grohs
et al., 2004; Henseler et al., 2007; Smith, 2004; Tsordia et al., 2018).
The specific effects of sport sponsorship on brand equity are relatively unknown. A lack of
sufficient research, combined with limitations of the few relevant studies, necessitates that
Page 2 of 19
96
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 10, October-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
further research be conducted to fill this literature gap. Brand equity consists of five core
components: brand personality; brand awareness; brand associations; perceived quality; brand
loyalty. These components are assessed individually in the present study. Special attention is
paid to brand loyalty, with the hope of discovering whether a sport fan’s loyalty can be
harnessed and directed towards the sponsor’s brand itself. The assessments of the effect of
sport sponsorship on each individual component are then considered as a whole to form a
general impression of the impact sport sponsorship has on overall brand equity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
What Exactly Is Sports Sponsorship?
International Events Group (IEG) is the foremost professional authority in sponsorship
consulting and research. In 2001 they defined sponsorship as ‘cash and/or in-kind fee paid to
a property in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that
property’ (Belzer, 2013). This definition has been consistently used in the academic literature.
Nafziger (2011) has provided a definition of sport sponsorship that goes beyond the general
definition of sponsorship. Specifically, sport sponsorship is an agreement that ‘contractually
provides financing or other support to establish an association between the sponsor’s image,
brands or products and a sponsorship property in return for rights to promote this association
and/or for the granting of certain agreed direct or indirect benefits’ (p. 527). This ability to
promote the association is the most crucial aspect of sport sponsorship. There are three types
of sport sponsorship categories: individual, team, and event (Shank, 2009). The present study
examines sport sponsorship within the context of a team. However, the implications of the
results are relevant to all forms of sport sponsorship.
Objectives of Sport Sponsorship
The aims of sport sponsorship include increasing awareness (Armstrong, 1988; Dixon, 1985;
Sakarya-Tapan, 1993), enhancing brand image (Abratt et al., 1987; Armstrong, 1988; Choi & Yo,
2011; Dixon, 1985; Meenagan, 1983; Sakarya-Tapan, 1993), building relationships with
customers (Abratt et al., 1987; Abratt & Grobler, 1989; Armstrong, 1988), aiding sales
promotions (Choi & Yo, 2011; Meenaghan, 1983), and fulfilling social responsibility goals
(Sakarya-Tapan, 1993).
Arguably the most important aspect of sport sponsorship is that it creates or increases
awareness of a product/service or brand. It can be an extremely beneficial tool for enhancing
awareness over a brief period of time (Fortunato, 2013). Also relevant to the attention stage,
sport sponsorship can help penetrate target markets as it has the unique ability to reach people
who share common interests. Companies are thus able to get a natural segmentation of
customers through their sponsorship deals (Dolphin, 2003).
Another important goal of a sponsorship campaign is to maintain or build the brand’s image.
The image building process has been compared to a two-way street (Shank, 2009) given that
both the sponsor and sports unit are dependent on each other to some extent. For example, a
sponsor can profit from a winning athlete or team by associating themselves with that winning
identity. Additionally, as noted by Mullin et al. (2007), sport sponsorship plays the important
role of building long-term relations of trust between brands and customers. And of course, the
success of the sponsorship deal is ultimately dependent on this translating to increased sales
(e.g., Andreff & Szymanski, 2006; Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Dolphin, 2003; Mullin et al., 2007).
Page 3 of 19
97
Hunt, J. B., & Hunt, T. G. (2022). The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Equity: A Study Within the Context of Professional Soccer. Archives of
Business Research, 10(10). 96-113.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.1010.13289
How Sport Sponsorship Operates
Four relevant theories of sport sponsorship have been proposed in the literature. Together,
they help explain how awareness, positive brand associations, and loyalty (key components of
brand equity) may be built through a sports sponsorship arrangement. The first, Mere- Exposure Theory (Zajonc, 1968), postulates that repetitive exposure to a stimulus, without
involving attitudes, can create knowledge of the object and trigger positive feelings towards the
stimulus. In other words, the more exposure an individual has to a stimulus (e.g., a sports team),
the more probable they are to like the stimulus.
The second relevant theory is the Social Identity Theory. Proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1979),
this theory argues that individuals establish self-concepts through their connections with social
groups to which they affiliate (e.g., identification with a sport team). Thus, the fan groups with
which people associate, whether in-person or via social media, may help shape their views and
consumption of relevant brands.
The third theory is the Affective Transfer Model credited to Pracejus (2004). Pracejus
submitted that the transmission of positive affect from an event, team or individual to a sponsor
brand could occur by association. The final theory is Gwinner’s (1997) Image Transfer Model.
Like the Affective Transfer Model, the Image Transfer Model refers to the transfer of meanings
and connotations related to a sponsored entity (e.g., athlete or team) to a sponsoring brand or
company.
Brand Equity
Brand equity is a vitally important marketing concept (Keller, 2013; Tsordia et al., 2018). It can
be succinctly defined brand as ‘the added value a given brand endows a product’ (Farquhar,
1989, p. 7). Another approach, viewing brand equity as the added preference a consumer has
for a branded product over a similar product, has been adopted by Keller (1993), McQueen
(1991), Srinivasan et al. (2005), and Yoo and Donthu (2001). More comprehensively, Aaker
has provided what is now a familiar definition of brand equity, describing it as ‘the set of brand
assets and liabilities linked to the brand – its name and symbols – that add value to, or subtract
value from, a product or service’ (Aaker, 1991, p.15).
It is worth noting that Aaker’s (1991) original proposal identified five dimensions that have
been recognized as the true sources of brand equity: brand personality, brand awareness,
brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. Aaker’s (1991) model had been
extensively employed to study consumer behavior in numerous industrial sectors (Che-Ha &
Hashim, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2005; Tong & Hawley, 2009). Aptly, Aaker’s model has been applied
to sport sponsorship (Cornwell et al., 2001; Grohs et al., 2004; Henseler et al., 2007; Smith,
2004; Tsordia et al., 2018). It is thus reasonable and appropriate to use Aaker’s (1991) model
as the basis for analyzing the effect of sport sponsorship on brand equity.
Brand Personality
Brand personality encompasses the human features related to the brand (Aaker, 1997).
Understanding brand personality is crucial, as consumers use brand personality to convey their
social and ideal identities (Gill & Dawra, 2010). Sirgy (1982) has shown that the greater the
agreement between brand personality and ideal self, the more probable a brand is to be
preferred. Additionally, with the possibility of unique personality traits being associated with
Page 4 of 19
98
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 10, October-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
certain brands, it becomes clear that brand personality can be exploited to create positive brand
differentiation. As such, brand personality is a chief aspect of brand equity.
Brand Awareness
Keller (1993) links brand awareness with brand recognition and brand recall. Aaker (1997)
extended Keller’s observations by adding brand dominance, brand knowledge, and brand
opinion to create an awareness continuum. Aaker (2002) maintains that brand awareness
should be viewed as the power of a brand’s presence in the customer’s mind. The further along
a consumer lies on Aaker’s brand awareness spectrum, the more likely is he or she to purchase
that product compared with lesser known brands. Glynn and Woodside (2009) outline the
importance of brand awareness as it leads to increased brand knowledge, favorability, and sales
over time. With customers more likely to select and value those brands with which they are
familiar, brand awareness is key to a brand’s overall success (Aaker, 1991; Glynn & Woodside,
2009; Gordon et al., 1993).
Brand Associations
Brand associations denote everything linked in memory to a brand (Aaker, 1991). These
connections make up the unique collection of brand associations know as brand identity. Gill
and Dawra (2010) suggest that brand association gives meaning to a brand, defining its
strength, favorability, and uniqueness. Thus, brand associations can greatly impact the
decisions of consumers.
Perceived Quality
The greater the perceived quality of a brand, the higher the brand equity. Consumers make
inferences on quality from the limited information they are given. Moreover, the seller controls
much of this information. The brand name, the product design, the packaging, and
advertisements are among the most common types of information that communicate
unobservable or intangible quality to the consumer (Gill & Dawra, 2010).
Brand Loyalty
Lastly, brand loyalty can be thought of as an outlook toward a brand conveyed through
intention and behavior to repurchase and/or recommend the product (Hausman, 2004). Oliver
(1999) describes loyalty as a state of enduring preference. Brand loyalty is viewed as consisting
of both attitudinal and behavioral dimensions (Gill & Dawra, 2010; Tsordia et al., 2018).
Attitudinal loyalty deals with the psychological attitudes such as commitment or uniqueness
(Evanschitzky et al., 2006), while behavioral loyalty concerns the recurrence of authentic
purchase behavior (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
Brand loyalty is a key component of brand equity as its presence results in customers coming
back to enjoy the product (Mao, 2010). Indeed, loyal customers not only contribute to higher
sales volumes, but also give companies a premium pricing ability (Sayman & Hoch, 2014).
Moreover, with word of mouth (WOM) and social media fueled electronic WOM, brand loyalty
has the capacity to radically boost the number of total customers. Sport sponsorship may well
provide a platform for brands to take advantage of brand loyalty within a fan base.
Page 5 of 19
99
Hunt, J. B., & Hunt, T. G. (2022). The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Equity: A Study Within the Context of Professional Soccer. Archives of
Business Research, 10(10). 96-113.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.1010.13289
Sports Sponsorship and Brand Equity
Cornwell et al. (2001) and Henseler et al. (2007) found that sport sponsorship positively
impacted brand equity. However, their research was confined to a manager’s viewpoint and
ignored the opinions of consumers. Likewise, Zarei et al. (2019) reported results of a survey of
company managers that revealed sport sponsorship to have significant positive effects on
brand equity which subsequently had a significant positive impact on firm performance.
While incorporating the views of customers into their studies, Donlan (2014) and Jaravaza and
Guveya (2016) were able to affirm that sport sponsorship had a strong relationship with all
components of brand equity. In particular, Donlan (2014) found that sport sponsorship was
especially proficient in building brand associations and enhancing perceived quality if sponsors
selected exclusive and costly sponsorships. Unfortunately, Donlan’s (2014) study was confined
to only two specific athletic events in the UK. Research conducted by Jaravaza and Guveya
(2016) revealed that sport sponsorship directly impacted brand awareness. There was,
however, a lack of consideration of consumer purchase intention or actual buying behavior.
As previously suggested, brands may leverage their position by linking to other entities and
creating positive brand associations that result in higher brand equity. Meenaghan (2001) has
examined how sport sponsorship can prove an effective source of creating such positive brand
associations that ultimately influence brand equity. D’Alessandro (2001) labels this the ‘halo
effect,’ and along with De Pelsmacker et al. (2008), has supported Meenaghan’s (2001) views
by demonstrating there is a carry-over effect to the sponsoring firm from consumers’ attitudes
of the sponsored brand.
Tsordia et al. (2018) have highlighted how the perceived personality fit between a sponsor and
the supported entity influence brand equity. Becker-Olsen andHill (2006) have found that sport
fans who believe an event or team matches well with its sponsor are more inclined to transfer
positive associations of the event or team to the sponsor’s product. Interestingly, this
relationship works in the other direction, too. A study of teams’ marketing promotional
activities found that agreement between brand personality and promotional actions has a
positive effect on evaluation of the activities and on brand equity of the team (Giroux et al.,
2017). Thus, it is crucial that a sponsor’s personality match that of the entity being sponsored.
Additionally, Papadimitriou et al. (2016) have shown that the greater the perceived fit, the more
favorable the perception of the sponsor’s quality. Tsordia et al.(2018) found that when it comes
to perceived quality, the more sport fans value the sponsor’s brand, the more likely they are to
engage with the brand and build stronger brand loyalty. As such, perceived fit appears crucial
to ensuring positive brand associations and higher quality perceptions. Consequently, a brand
manager must understand brand personality to enhance brand equity.
Nonetheless, Jaravaza and Guveva (2016) have downplayed the impact that sport sponsorship
can have on perceived quality, finding the impact to be only moderate. Yet the findings of
Tsordia et al. (2018) hold considerable weight given that their conclusions are consistent with
Aaker’s (1991) belief that consumers’ decisions are highly affected by their evaluation of the
brand’s quality. Furthermore, Aaker (1991) has previously acknowledged the capability of
brand awareness, brand associations, and perceived quality to improve brand loyalty and
remove consumers’ incentive to try competing brands. Given the connections between brand
Page 6 of 19
100
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 10, October-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
awareness, brand associations, brand engagement, perceived fit, perceived quality, and brand
loyalty, it appears crucial that sponsoring companies carefully examine the fit between their
brand and the sponsored team, individual, or event.
Becker-Olsen and Hill (2006) and Vivek et al. (2012) found that sport sponsorship could build
brand loyalty and lead to customer recommendations for the product. Since sport sponsors are
usually viewed as crucial partners in accomplishing the goals of the team, individual, or event,
they are typically recognized by fans as group members (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003). As such,
certain supporters are motivated to purchase a sponsor’s product (Lings & Owen, 2007;
Madrigal, 2000) with some becoming loyal customers (Levin et al., 2004) who build positive
attitudes towards the sponsor and overemphasize their positive aspects (Gwinner & Bennet,
2008). More recently, Tsordia et al. (2018) emphasize how brand engagement with sponsors is
crucial to creating brand loyalty.
Biscaia et al. (2017) presented a comprehensive model of how team brand experience during
the season impacts sponsorship brand experience. Their framework is based on constructs
identified from previous research aimed at understanding sponsorship effectiveness. Though
not empirically tested, the model does provide a simplified view of how fan team brand
experience (e.g., past behaviors, brand associations, satisfaction, and psychological loyalty)
plays a crucial role in enhancing consumer experience with the sponsorship brand, and is
manifested through a range of responses that often start with sponsorship awareness and
eventually to increased purchases of the sponsor's products.
More on the Role of Brand Loyalty
The greatest display of brand loyalty happens when consumers engage with and devote
resources into a brand outside of the point of purchase or process of consumption (Keller,
2001). Hollebeek (2011) describes brand engagement as the degree of cognitive, emotional and
behavioral investment in brand connections. The similarities between this definition and those
of brand loyalty should be noted. It is thus not surprising that customer engagement has been
repeatedly linked to brand loyalty (Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006; Groeger et al., 2016; Tsordia et
al., 2018; Vivek et al., 2012).
Studies have previously addressed the impacts of sport sponsorship on a sponsor’s brand
equity, yet the variable of brand loyalty has been only partially explored or been ignored
altogether (Grohs et al., 2004; Smith, 2004). Indeed, such failings have stemmed from a lack of
consideration given to customers’ perceptions and thoughts. As Tsordia et al. (2018) have
highlighted, this is unacceptable due to the focus that Aaker’s (1991) brand equity model places
on customers’ opinions. It is disappointing that attempts to measure effects on brand equity
have misapplied Aaker’s (1991) model.
This oversight is particularly germane to sport sponsorship due to the extremely loyal and
fervent consumers that sport engages (Wakefield, 2016) and the continuous nature of these
relationships (Vallerand et al., 2008). There are masses of sport fans who devote time, energy,
and financial resources into supporting an athlete, team, or sporting event. Moreover, a large
proportion of these fans are anomalous consumers due to their extreme passion (Vallerand et
al., 2008), loyalty (Dalakas & Melancon, 2012), and engagement with one or multiple teams
(Funk & James, 2001; Yoshida et al., 2014). Such displays typically occur in the form of following
Page 8 of 19
102
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 10, October-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Associations
Studies conducted by D’Alessandro (2001), De Pelsmacker et al.(2008), and Meenaghan (2001)
have found that sport sponsorship can create positive brand associations. Gill and Dawra
(2010) recommend strength, favorability, and uniqueness as central to assessing the
effectiveness of brand associations. All authors have highlighted a carryover effect from the
associations of the sponsored entity to the sponsoring brand. This carryover, if properly
leveraged, may significantly improve brand equity. Becker-Olsen and Hill (2006) also noted
that the greater the perceptions of fit between sponsor and sponsored unit, the more likely
positive brand associations are to exist. Yet, it is Donlan (2014) who provides the greatest
indication of the relationship between sport sponsorship and brand associations as his
research highlighted sport sponsorship to be especially proficient in building brand
associations. Additionally, such a conclusion would be expected based on the Affective Transfer
Model (Pracejus, 2004) and the Image Transfer Model (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003).
Consequently, the following is postulated:
H3: Sport Sponsorship creates clearer and stronger brand associations among a team’s fan
base.
The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Perceived Quality
Perceived quality concerns a consumer’s opinion of a product irrespective of the actual
performance of that product. According to Donlan (2014), sport sponsorship enhances
perceived quality only if sponsors select exclusive and costly sponsorships. Additionally,
Papadimitriou et al. (2016) discovered that the effect on perceived quality was conditional on
the perceived fit between sponsor and sponsored entity. It is thus unsurprising that when
Jaravaza and Guveva (2016) observed the effect of sport sponsorship on perceived quality, only
a moderate impact on perceived quality was observed. Yet following the theory of Social
Identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and the Affective Transfer Model (Pracejus, 2004), one would
expect the perceived quality of the brand to benefit from simply being the sponsor of a sports
team, event or individual. Given the uncertainty that exists, along with additional variables that
may influence the effect of sponsorship on perceived quality, the following hypothesis is put
forward:
H4: Among a team’s fan base, sport sponsorship improves the perceived quality of a brand.
The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Loyalty
Becker-Olsen and Hill (2006), Vivek et al. (2012), and Wakefield (2016) have found that sport
sponsorship has the capability of building brand loyalty because sport fans are extremely loyal
and passionate consumers. However, Tsordia et al. (2018) implied that for sport sponsorship
to truly generate brand loyalty, brand engagement must be encouraged and facilitated.
Evidently, the extent to which sport sponsorship acts as a foundation for fans to engage with
the sponsor’s brand, leading to the development of loyalty towards the sponsor, has not been
sufficiently explored. Both attitudinal loyalty (psychological thoughts and feelings toward the
brand) and behavioral loyalty (repetition of actual purchase behavior) should be addressed. To
provide clarification, the following hypothesis is posited:
H5: Sport sponsorship increases brand loyalty among a team’s fan base.
Page 11 of 19
105
Hunt, J. B., & Hunt, T. G. (2022). The Effect of Sport Sponsorship on Brand Equity: A Study Within the Context of Professional Soccer. Archives of
Business Research, 10(10). 96-113.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.1010.13289
Operationalization of Brand Associations
When measuring brand associations, Gordon et al., (2016) utilized thoughts of consumers.
Specifically, they wished to identify if the associated thoughts with a brand were negative or
positive. This approach has been implemented in the present study. Additionally, consistent
with the method of Chatzipanagiotou et al., (2016), the strength and rapidity of these
associations have been assessed.
Table 3. Brand Associations Measurement
Concept Codification Source
Type of associations Whether the associations are
mostly negative or positive
Gordon, et al. (2016)
Strength of
associations
The clarity of the associations in
the consumer’s mind
Chatzipanagiotou, et al. (2016)
Speed of associations The speed at which the
associations are made in the
consumer’s mind
Chatzipanagiotou, et al. (2016)
Operationalization of Perceived Quality
To measure perceived quality, a three-indicator scale utilized by Yoo et al., (2001) was
implemented. The three-indicator scale consisted of measuring the likely quality of the product,
the likely functionality of the product, and the likely reliability of the product.
Operationalization of Brand Loyalty
To measure the attitudinal dimension of brand loyalty, three items from Yoo and Donthu (2001)
were used. To assess the behavioral dimension of brand loyalty, three items were utilized that
have been used by several other researchers (Bosnjak et al., 2011; Ferguson et al., 2007; Lee &
Xie, 2011; Papadimitriou et al., 2013).
Table 4: Brand Loyalty Measurement
Concept Codification Source
Attitudinal Loyalty (i) Perceptual loyalty
(ii) Products are first choice
(iii) Competing products are ignored
Yoo and Donthu (2001)
Behavioral Loyalty (i) Recommending certain products
to others
(ii) Encouraging others to purchase
certain products
(iii) Positive comments made
publicly or privately towards a
product
Bosnjak, et al. (2011)
Ferguson, et al. (2007)
Lee and Xie (2011)
Papadimitriou, et al. (2013)
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
There were 229 responses to the survey. However, 29 were excluded due to one of the following
three reasons: (i) the questionnaire was returned incomplete, (ii) respondents fell foul to the
attention detector items or, (iii) respondents were ineligible for the questionnaire.
The dependent variables (brand personality, brand awareness, brand associations, perceived
quality, brand loyalty and brand equity) were created by averaging the items comprising each