Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Wa0002.

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 84

“VALUATION OF INDIAN PRIMER LEAGUE "

A Project Submitted to

University of Mumbai
for partial completion of the degree of
Bachelor of Management Studies
Under the Faculty of Commerce By
RAJ ANIL GAIKWAD

Roll No. 09 Seat no.


Under the Guidance of
PROF. AIMAN PEERZADE
Studying at

Rizvi Education Society’s

Rizvi college of Arts, Science & Commerce


Rizvi Educational Complex, Bandra (West), Mumbai
Academic Year 2022 – 2023

1
DECLARATION

I, RAJ ANIL GAIKWAD student of TYBMS class , Roll no. 09 Seat no. of the
academic year 2022
– 23 studying at RIZVI COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE & COMMERCE ,
herebydeclare that the DECLARATION

I, RAJ ANIL GAIKWAD student of TYBMS class , Roll no. 09 Seat no. of the
academic year 2022- 2023 studying at RIZVI COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE &
COMMERCE , hereby declare that the work done on the project entitled
VALUATION OF INDIAN PRIMER LEAGUE is true and original to the best of
my knowledge and any
reference is duly acknowledged.

Date: Signature of Student:

2
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that RAJ ANIL GAIKWAD student of TYBMS class, Roll
no. 09 Seat no. ________ of the academic year 2022 – 23 studying at RIZVI
COLLEGE OF ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE, has successfully
completed the project entitled VALUATION OF INDIAN PRIMER
LEAGUE.

PROF. AIMAN PEERZADE Dr. SUHANA KHAN


(Project Guide) (BMS Coordinator)

External Examiner Dr. MASOOMA SAYED


Chief Coordinator

Dr.ASHFAQ AHMED
(Principal I/c)

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The satisfaction that accompanies the completion of any task would be


incomplete without mentioning the people who made it possible, whose
consistent guidance and encouragement crowded my efforts with success.
I consider as privilege to express my gratitude and respect to all those who
guided me in completion of the project.
I express my sincere gratitude to the principal for providing the facilities and
the guidance. I extend my profound thanks to my project guide PROF.AIMAN
PEERZADE for giving me opportunity to undertake this project. I convey my
regards to untiring support and encouragement. I am very thankful for all the
guidance and support during my project work.
Finally I give immeasurable thanks to my parents and to all those who
extended their support and co-operation in bringing out this project work
successfully.

RAJ ANIL GAIKWAD

4
Table of contents

Chapt Topics Page No.


er

1 Introduction 6-10

2 Research methodology 11-17

3 Review of Literature 18-39

4 Objective and Data Analysis 40-72

5 Scope of Study 73-79

6 Bibliography 80-81

7 Appendix 82-88

5
CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION

Now a day, sports sponsorship had become the vast field for the marketers, because of the

changing pattern of the consumer needs. Corporate sponsorship of sports and other events

are one of the fastest growing forms of marketing communication used to reach

organizational target audiences (Roy and Cornwell, 2004). These days’ sponsorship

events are most important for advertising companies and different sponsoring brands,

because of the popularity of the events, and its large fan followers. Otker (1998) described

the term ‘sponsorship’. According to him, sponsorship is nothing but buying the services

and making an association with the sports event or the team of the event. Cornwell (1995)

defined ‘sponsorship-linked marketing’ an association between the sponsor and an event

organizer for the purpose of communicating marketing objectives of the firm. The study

also highlights the fact that, the only association between the two parties isn't working

well, unless the event or the team positively promote their tie-ups with the organizers of

the event. According to Meenaghan (1983, 2001) sponsorship is the assistance given by

thecommercial organizations to an entity in the form of finance or in kind, to achieve their

commercial objectives. Gardner and Shuman (1988) defined sponsorship as an investment

in an event or activity to enhancing the brand and corporate image or achieving the

marketing objectives by increasing the brand awareness of the products. According to the

International event group (2000) sponsorship defined as the fee paid by the organization

6
for an event, that may be sports, arts, entertainment or any other event to avail

the commercial benefits attached to that attribute. Hardy, Mullin, and Sutton (2007)

defined the term sponsorship as “purchasing the rights by the sponsor and form the direct

association with the event for the purpose of deriving benefits related to that association”.

The sponsor then exploits that relationship for achieving its marketing and promotional

objectives. In the past years, the term sponsorship was redefined as: a marketing platform

that combines all other elements of the marketing mix provides creative solutions to tap

thetarget customers and a successful partnership between sponsor, right holders and fans

(Collett and Fenton, 2011). Legae (2005) defined sponsorship as a business agreement

between two parties in which sponsor paid fees in cash or in kind and in the exchange

sponsored party (i.e. Individual, event, or organization) provided an opportunity to utilize

the rights and associations that the sponsor used commercially. Busby and Digby (2002)

described the sponsorship as a mutual relationship between the sponsor and the sponsee

(individual, event, or organization). In this relationship, the sponsor provides funds and

resources to the space to get the rights and association with the sponsee. According to

Shank (2009, P.324) sponsorship is an investment in a sports entity (athlete, league, team

or event) to support the overall organizational objectives, marketing, and promotional

strategies.

The corporate organizations are using the sports sponsorship to affect the behavior of

thecustomers. In the sports-sponsorship programs the corporate firms assigning the

7
players

with the logo on their jerseys to increase the brand awareness of their products and also

to increase the brand image of their product. The firms have also tried to affect the

attitude ofthe customers by sponsoring the particular event, or team or player. By doing

so they triedto achieve the corporate objectives of the firm such as boosting the sales or

make their competitive position in the market. Stem (2005) defined sponsorship as

investing in particular sports by sponsoring an individual athlete, a team, or a league, to

achieve overallorganizational goals and objectives. According to Smith (2008), sports

sponsorship becomes an important tool for the corporate governing bodies to accomplish

their aims.

That is the reason, why so many non-sports organizations are investing in the particular

event, teams or individual players.

Sponsorship has become a vital part of the funding for a wide range of sporting, artistic

and social events (Speed and Thompson, 2000). The worldwide sponsorship market

has grown from an estimated $2billion in 1984 to $16.6 billion in 1996 (Meenaghan,

1998), which increased to $23.16 billion in 1999 (Sponsorship Research International,

2000). Thesponsorship spending has reached $37.9 billion in 2007, with an increase of

11.9% from 2006 and a 75% increase from 1982 (IEG, 2007). According to the

international event group, the total global sponsorship spending was increased from

$43.1billion in 2008 (IEG, 2009) to $44 billion in 2009 (IEG, 2010) to $46.3billion in

8
2010 (IEG, 2011) to

$48.6 billion in 2011 (IEG, 2012) and $51.1 billion in 2012 (IEG, 2013). In 2013,

globalsports, spending with an increase of 3.9% reached from $51.1billion in 2012 to

events. Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 19-30.

Shank, M. D. (2005). Sports marketing: A strategic perspective. Upper Saddle River:

NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.

Smith, A., Graetz, B., & Westerbeek, H. (2008). Sport sponsorship, team support

andpurchase intentions, Journal of Marketing Communications, 14 (5), 387-404.

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response.

Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2): 226-238.

Sponsorship Research International. (2000). World-wide sponsorship market

values.London: Author.

Sporting Intelligence Report (2010) Yankes on top in global pay review, premier

league inthe shade. Retrieved June 27, 2017 from

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/ 2010/03/28/yankees-on-top-in-global-pay-

review-premier-league-in-the-shade-

280301/

Statista. 2017. Global sponsorship spending from 2007-2017 (in billion U.S. dollars).

Retrieved in June 22, 2017 from


9
https://www.statista.com/statistics/196864/globalsponsorship-spending-since-2007/.

The Economic Times (2017). 9 sponsors game for IPL 2017, Sony targeting Rs 1300

Croreform 10th season. Retrieved June 22, 2017 from http://economictimes.

indiatimes.com/industry/services/advertising/9-sponsors-game-for-ipl-2017-sonytargeting-
rs- 1300-crore-from-10th- season/articleshow/57240277.cms.

Wakefield, K. L., & Bennett, G. (2010). Affective intensity and sponsor identification.

10
CHAPTER: 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A study of the literature was conducted to gain a better knowledge of the variables that

motivate people to identify with sports, as well as the aspects that influence fan

engagement and the success of sponsorship in the Indian Premier League. To demonstrate

the necessity ofthe study, the problems or gaps in the context of earlier studies were

discovered through a review of the literature, which was categorically split into distinct

parts in accordance with the objectives that were set out.

2.1 Motivating factors towards Sports

Fans‘ attendance at distinct sporting events has drastically increased over the years. It has

now become an accepted part of everyday life, and most crucially, it has emerged as a

source

of amusement for a greater segment of the population. Psychologists used to assume that could
aidin influencing the behavior of Japanese League Spectators. They discovered seven

distinct motives, which were vicarious, dramatic, aesthetic, achievement, community

pride, and most importantly player-team attachment. This research was important in

understandingthe motivations of sports-based consumers. Also included were lists of the

majority of the

components that were found to be significant in the given variance


and that were suitable for additional and future studies. In another study, Daniel et al. (2001)
emphasized the construction of a sports interest inventory as well as its utility in assessing
11
consumer interest in sporting events. This research might aid in better

understanding consumer interest in sporting events. An inventory of sports interest was created
primarily for this study to assess ten different factors such as excitement, sports interest, team
interest, vicarious achievement, supporting women's opportunities in sports, socialization,
aesthetics, and drama, national pride, and also player interest, all of which could emerge as
motivators for specific spectator interest, specifically in the FIFA Women's World Cup 1999.
Following this analysis, it was discovered that, of all the factors considered for the study,
excitement, sports, and team interest, supporting women's opportunities in sports, vicarious
achievement, and also aesthetics remained quite significant factors that were able to influence
nearly 35% of the variance in spectator interest in the above-mentioned event. Its findings are
primarily assisting sports marketers in their efforts to target women's sports through consumer-
based marketing techniques that are unique from one another. In another exploratory study,
Maurer (2017) investigated the motivating elements of sports fans who are from the United
States but who support non-American sports teams, as well as the motivations behind the
consumption of international sports products. Through this research, it has been brought to the
notice of both domestic and international marketers how they may strategically boost their
businesses
by researching and identifying various elements that could affect the big number of
nonAmericanfollowers. A more in-depth grasp of these motivational aspects would also enable

the vast majority of marketers working in this sector to implement their business

strategies more effectively, allowing them to outperform their competitors in the

various worldwide marketplaces. For fans of Spanish soccer clubs, Al Ganideh and

Good (2015) conducted research in the areas of team identification and fandom of

soccer clubs in foreign countries, The study of the past literature, related to sponsorship,

has shown that companies can achieve their corporate and marketing objectives with the

help of sports sponsorship.

12
Sponsorship objectives often include increasing the sales of the organization

(Close & Lacey, 2013), consumer brand recall (Kim, Tootelian & Mikhailitchenko,

2012), brand andsponsor awareness (Bachleda, Fakhar & Elouazzani, 2015), and

improve the brand image of the organization (Bibby, 2011; Parent, Eskerud & Hanstad,

2012). In essence, to accomplish their desired targets, organizations used sponsorship to

form the positive link between the sponsoring brand and the target customers (Lee &

Cho, 2009; Mazodier & Quester, 2014).

In the world of competition, companies are looking for different ways to tap their target

customers. They are doing so by changing the status of the event (Walker, Hall, Todd

& Kent, 2011), by improving the sponsor, sport and team identification (Lee &

Ferreira, 2013; Wakefield & Bennett, 2010), exploiting the curiosity of the customer

toward the event (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014), increasing the fan involvement in the

event (Stevens &

Rosenberger III, 2012), and also by showing the sponsor attribution towards the

event (Speed & Thompson, 2000). By using these elements, they have attempted to

determinethe behavioral intentions of the customers.

This study also concentrates on the benefits of sports sponsorship. In the sports

literature, language, it has likewise been called the outcome of the sponsorship.

Generally, the researcher’s conducts their research studies to measure the outcome of

13
the sports sponsorship. The sponsors of their studies may be the individual/multiple

sponsors or profitable/non-profitable sponsors; the focus remains to find out the

benefits, they get aftersponsoring the particular event.

In a report by Duff & Phelps (2016), estimated the brand value of IPL $4.5 billion or

INR27000 crores. Indian Premier League is one of the fastest growing leagues of the

world with 20 percent growth rate every year. IPL became the attractive platform for the

advertisers and sponsors to reach their target customers and improve their brand value.

speaking, when compared to Twitter users, the followers of a certain team have more

motives, which may further aid them in expressing their support for that particular squad.

Using hierarchical multiple regression, it was possible to demonstrate that Weibo users

had higher levels of intensity when it came to expressing team support and information

collectionand that they were also more engaging as a result of the entire analysis. If their

aims, in general, are realized or taken into consideration in terms of accessing technical

and entertaining information, Twitter users showed greater intensity in communicating

with the

sports organization in question. The findings have been listed based on the findings,

which will assist different sports-based organizations in learning from their respective

environments to better understand the users' motivations for supporting a sports team. This

will also aid in the development of effective strategies to engage its users in two major

14
markets, namely the United States and China, as well as other developing countries.

Researchers Zhang et al., (2003) used the statistical tool confirmatory factor analysis

twice toexamine the structure of different factors of the spectators' decision making an

inventory, andthey discovered four different factors that were further broken down

into 15 distinct items from five different seasons of home-based basketball games for a

National Basketball Association team to determine whether or not all of these factors have

a significant impact onattendance at Men's professional basketball games. Therefore, the

maximum number of parameters was taken into consideration, which resulted in a better

fit to the planned model and a more effective conclusion to the research. According to

Theodorakis et al. (2009), the identification of a sports team is one of the strongest

predictors of sports spectator consumption. As a result, it is critical for researchers in the

sports marketing field to identify factors that aid in team identification to better predict

sports spectator consumption. Wann and colleagues (1996) found that the most commonly

utilized or most prevalent characteristics that aid in the identification of a certain team are

as follows: (i). Parents who

2.4 Growth of Social Media

Millions of people's lives have been revolutionized by social media, which has become a

wonder of modern society all over the world. It brought people closer together by

allowing them to contact millions of other people around the world through various social

15
media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, What's App, and other similar

platforms. Theinfluence of consumer-to-consumer communications has been greatly

exaggerated in the marketplace, as a result of this (Mangold and Faulds, 2009). In

addition to relying on traditional media sources for sports information, fans of various

sports leagues are increasingly choosing to interact with their favorite teams using social

media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (Broughton, 2012). A significant

expansion in the number of social media sites has occurred over recent years, and there

are a large number of followers and audiences who are completely reliant on receiving

massive amounts of information solely through these sites in order to stay informed. A

total of more than 100 major social networking sites were available to football clubs for

use in their communication initiatives.

Among younger consumers throughout the world, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are

particularly well-known. Out of the major social networking sites, Facebook has more

than 500 million worldwide members in the 18-24-year-old age group, with a user base

that is expanding at a rate of 74 % per year (Digital Buzz, 2012). Smith and Anderson

(2018) report that 73 % of adults in the United States between the ages of 18 and 24 use

YouTube, while 68% use Facebook, either online or on their mobile phones. Other social

media sites, such asPinterest, continue to be far more popular among women than men,

with 41% of women using them compared to only 16% of males. LinkedIn, on the other

hand, has gained widespread appeal among recent graduates and households with a high

16
level of wealth. According to data, nearly half of all Americans with a college degree use

LinkedIn, with only9 % of high school diploma students using the social networking site.

What's App is considered to be one of the most popular messaging apps on social media,

and it is particularly popular among Latinos in Latin America, which has resulted in an

increase in its popularity among Latinos in the United States. While only 4 % of white

people and 21 % of black people use What's App, Hispanics account for 49 % of all

Whats App users. The socialmedia platforms Snapchat and Instagram, on the other hand,

have maintained their popularity among the country's younger adults. Individuals between

the ages of 18 and 24 who use Snapchat on a regular basis account for 82 % of all

Snapchat users in this age group. In addition, 71% of those polled said they used it more

than twice a day on average.

17
CHAPTER -3

RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 NEED OF THE STUDY

The study of the past literature, related to sponsorship, has shown that companies can

achieve their corporate and marketing objectives with the help of sports sponsorship.

Sponsorship objectives often include increasing the sales of the organization (Close &

Lacey, 2013), consumer brand recall (Kim, Tootelian & Mikhailitchenko, 2012), brand and

sponsor awareness (Bachleda, Fakhar & Elouazzani, 2015), and improve the brand image

of the organization (Bibby, 2011; Parent, Eskerud & Hanstad, 2012). In essence, to

accomplish their desired targets, organizations used sponsorship to form the positive link

between the sponsoring brand and the target customers (Lee & Cho, 2009; Mazodier &

Quester, 2014).

In the world of competition, companies are looking for different ways to tap their target

customers. They are doing so by changing the status of the event (Walker, Hall, Todd

& Kent, 2011), by improving the sponsor, sport and team identification (Lee &

Ferreira, 2013; Wakefield & Bennett, 2010), exploiting the curiosity of the customer

toward the event (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014), increasing the fan involvement in the

event (Stevens &Rosenberger III, 2012), and also by showing the sponsor attribution

towards the event (Speed & Thompson, 2000). By using these elements, they have

attempted to determine the behavioral intentions of the customers.

This study also concentrates on the benefits of sports sponsorship. In the sports

18
literature, language, it has likewise been called the outcome of the sponsorship.

Generally, the researcher’s conducts their research studies to measure the outcome of

the sports sponsorship. The sponsors of their studies may be the individual/multiple

sponsors or profitable/non-profitable sponsors; the focus remains to find out the

benefits, they get aftersponsoring the particular event.

In a report by Duff & Phelps (2016), estimated the brand value of IPL $4.5 billion or

INR27000 crores. Indian Premier League is one of the fastest growing leagues of the

worldwith 20 percent growth rate every year. IPL became the attractive platform for the

advertisers and sponsors to reach their target customers and improve their brand value.

According to a BCCI survey of the 2016 IPL, the total reach of the tournament in

terms ofviewership was 361 million in 2016. 15, 43,655 spectators have watched the

matches on the different grounds and 4, 40,000 people visited the fan parks, an

initiative taken by the

19
BCCI to increase the fan following of the tournament in the tier-2 cities. According to the

BCCI, the IPL’s fan following has also increased in the social media. The growth of IPL

has 300 percent of Twitter, which is the fastest as compared to any other league of the

world since 2014 (Duff & Phelps 2017).

But if we go through the sports literature, no one has tested empirically the benefits of

sports sponsorship in context to the Indian Premier League. This is the study, which is

analyzing the sponsors of the teams and the event from the marketing point of view. In this

study, the researchers have covered the three teams such as Kings Eleven Punjab (KXIP),

Delhi Daredevils (DD), and Royal Challenger Bangalore (RCB) of the Indian Premier

League and for each team its three sponsors also. The study has attempted to examine the

attendees’ image/commitment to their home team playing in the Indian Premier League

(IPL) and the impact of the team image/commitment on their attitudinal and behavioral

outcomes. The study also investigates the attendees’ image/commitment towards the

team/event (IPL) and the impact of the image/commitment on their attitude towards the

sponsor brands and their purchase intentions.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To examine the various factors which affect the involvement of consumers in the

sports event under study?

2. To measure the relationship between sports sponsorship of the IPL teams and

consumer brand choice behavior.

3. To measure the attitude of consumers towards event, team, and team sponsored

20
products of various IPL teams.

4. To measure the relationship between the sports event and the brand image of

products of sponsoring firms.

5. To measure the sports brand association of the consumers with various IPL teams

under study.

Hypotheses for First Objective

Hypotheses for First Objective

To examine the various factors which affect the involvement of consumers in the sports

event under study?

Hypothesis 1: Attendees’ perception of team-sponsor congruence with the team will havea

positive effect on the sponsor’s product knowledge.

Hypothesis 2: Attendees’ activeness in sports will have a positive effect on the sponsor’s

product knowledge.

Hypothesis 3: Attendees’ involvement with the team will have a positive effect on the

sponsor’s product knowledge.

Hypothesis 4: Attendees’ knowledge of the sponsor’s product will positively influence

their attitude toward the sponsor’s brand.

Hypothesis 5: Attendees’ attitude toward sponsor’s product will positively influence their

intentions to purchase the product of the sponsor.

Hypothesis 6: Attendees’ knowledge of the sponsor’s product will positively influence

their intentions to purchase the product of the sponsor.

Hypotheses for Second Objective

21
To measure the relationship between sports sponsorship of the IPL teams and consumer

brand choice behavior.

Hypothesis 1: Attendees’ psychological commitment to the team (PCT) impacts positively

their knowledge of sponsor brands.

Hypothesis 2: Attendees’ psychological commitment to the team (PCT) impacts positively

their attitude towards sponsor brands.

Hypothesis 3: Attendees’ psychological commitment to the team (PCT) impacts positively

their intention to purchase the sponsor brands.

Hypothesis 4: Attendees’ knowledge of sponsor brands impacts positively their attitude

toward sponsor brands.

Hypothesis 5: Attendees’ attitude towards sponsor brands impacts positively their purchase

intentions.

Hypothesis 6: Attendees’ knowledge of sponsor brand impacts positively their purchase

intention.

Hypotheses for the Third Objective


To measure the attitude of consumers towards event, team, and team sponsored products of

various IPL teams.

Hypothesis 1: Attendees’ perception of team/event-sponsor congruence with the team/event

will have a positive effect on their team/event image.

Hypothesis 2: Attendees’ activeness in sports will have a positive effect on their team/eventimage.

Hypothesis 3: Attendees’ involvement with the team/event will have a positive effect on

their team/event image.

Hypothesis 4: Attendees’ team/event image will positively influence their attitude toward

team/event.
22
Hypothesis 5: Attendees’ attitude toward team/event will positively influence their

intentions to purchase the product of the sponsor.

Hypothesis 6: Attendees’ team/event image will positively influence their intentions to

purchase the product of the sponsor.

Hypotheses for the Fourth Objective

To measure the relationship between the sports event and the brand image of products ofsponsoring

firms.

Hypothesis 1: Attendees’ identification with the team will have a positive effect on their

sponsor brand awareness.

Hypothesis 2: Attendees’ status of the event will have a positive effect on their sponsor

brand awareness.

Hypothesis 3: Attendees’ personal liking of the event will have a positive effect on their

sponsor brand awareness.

Hypothesis 4: Attendees’ sponsor brand awareness will positively influence their image of

the sponsor brand.

Hypothesis 5: Attendees’ sponsor image will positively influence their intentions to

purchase the product of the sponsor.

Hypothesis 6: Attendees’ sponsor brand awareness will positively influence their intentions

to purchase the product of the sponsor.

Hypotheses for the Fifth Objective

To measure the team brand association of the attendees’ with various IPL teams under

study.

Hypothesis 1: Attendees’ association with the different variables (brand mark, rivalry,

social interactions, commitment, team history, team success, and team play) will influence
23
their behaviour towards the team.

SCALES USED IN THE STUDY

According to Cornwell, Weeks & Roy (2005, p.30) behaviour or intended behaviour, has

typically been measured by semantic differential or Likert scales.

At the time of the preparation of the questionnaire and using any of the scales, we kept one

thing in our mind and that was the ‘time constraint factor’. Because in the sports ground

the respondents or attendees don’t have enough time and motive to fill our questionnaire.

So we used those scales, which was easily understandable and took less time of the

respondents to record their responses.

In the sports sponsorship research, the researchers mostly used the standardized constructs,

which was already used by the other researchers in their studies. They justified their

constructs by using the different theories in a different environment. They also conducted

the reliability and validity tests of their standardized constructs. They used these constructs

to measure the different relationship between the sport, team or event and the sponsor.

In our study, we used standardized constructs, which had been given or used by the other

researchers. The detailed explanation of these research scales and reference of other

researchers, who had given the same construct to measure the proposition, has been given

here.

For First Objective

1. To measure team-sponsor congruence Seven-point Likert scale as used by Speed &

Thompson (2000) was followed, with three-items under study.

2. To measure sports activeness, the three-items seven-point Likert scale was adapted

from Smith, Graetz, & Westerbeek (2008), considered for the current study.

24
SCOPE OF THE STUDY

With the start of the IPL in India, the era of the commercialized form of gaming has

started, where the money has rolled from everywhere for the organizers, teams and the

players. From the last one decade, the scope of sports sponsorship has widened in India. In

India, after the start of the IPL in 2008 in cricket, the number of other leagues in other

sports has also started which has gathered the attention of the national and international

organizations and ultimately increased the scope of the sports sponsorship in India. In

football, the Indian Super League (2013), in tennis, the International Premier Tennis

League (2013), in kabbadi, Pro Kabbadi League (2014), in wrestling, the pro Wrestling

League (2015), in hockey, Hockey India League (2013), in badminton, The Premium

Badminton League (2013) has started. With the increase in leagues in sports, the growth in

sports sponsorship has also increased. In 2015 in India, the overall sports sponsorship was

INR51854million, which was with an increase of 19.33% reached to INR64000million in

2016. The components included in overall sponsorship was ground sponsorship, team

sponsorship, franchise, endorsement, and on air. The growth of ground sponsorship in India

with an increase of 30% reached to INR10305million at 2015 from INR7948million in

2014 and with an increase of 13% in 2016 reached INR11652million. The ground

sponsorship includes all sports of India like Cricket, Tennis, Football, Marathon, Kabbadi

and other sports. The growth of team sponsorship to the rate of 13% in 2015 reached

INR5582million from 4936million in 2014 and in 2016 with a 25.33% increase, reached to

6996million. Similarly, the growth of franchise amount was 5480million in 2016 which

was 1.24% higher than 2015. Likewise, the growth of endorsement and media spending

also increased in that time period. In 2014, the amount of endorsement was 3278million
25
and in 2015 with an increase of 27% it was reached to 4164million and in 2016, with an

increase of 14.4%, it has reached 4764million. The overall ad spending on the media sector

(e.g. On air, print, and digital media) with an increase of 24.63% has reached to

35108million in 2016 from 28169million in 2015. On air spending with an increase of

34.74% has reached to 23672million in 2016 from 17569million in 2015. Similarly, print

media with an increase of 40% has reached to 8736million in 2016 from 8400million in

2015 and digital media with the growth of 22.73% has reached to 2700million in 2016

from 2200million in 2015. In the IPL in 2016, Sony Pictures Network India (SPNI) with

25% growth rate has accumulated 10200million from their net ad sales revenue (India sport

sponsorship, 2016, 2017).

Now a day, sponsorship has become one of the most important promotional considerations

for organizations with worldwide spending reaching US$62. 8billion (Statista, 2017).

Sponsorship is an important part of sports consumption with sponsors investing

substantially to associate with sports brands (Hughes and Shank, 2005). For instance, in

2007 the real estate developer DLF Ltd. Spent US$50 million to get a five-year

sponsorship deal as a title sponsor of Indian premier league (iplt20.com). In 2012, in the

sixth season of Indian Premier League (IPL), Pepsi replaced DLF as a title sponsor of the

league. Pepsi won the title sponsorship over Airtel with a bid of US$72million for five

years. In the 9th season of the IPL, the Chinese mobile manufacturer company VIVO got

the event sponsorship title of the IPL by paying US$100million per year. The title

sponsorship money was 27 percent more than the last sponsor Pepsi (iplt20.com). In 2017,

VIVO again retained the title sponsorship title of the Indian Premier League (IPL) for five

26
years from 2018-2022 at the cost of 2199 crores, which was 554 percent higher than the

previous contract. Such examples indicated that sponsors see value in strategic alignment

with sports events. From this perspective, sponsorship act as part of an overall marketing

strategy which helps sponsors to achieve their objectives through inter-organizational

linkages (Cousens, Babiak, & Bradish, 2006).

SELECTION OF THE EVENT, TEAMS AND THE SPONSORS

UNDER STUDY

Selection of the Event

The data of the survey were compiled during the 8th & 9th season of the Indian Premier League,

which was scheduled between April to May 2016 & 2017. According to a published report on

April 2010 by sport intelligence.com about the worldwide compensations distributed in their yearly

survey, the IPL got the second position in the world regarding group pay rates after the National

Basketball Association (NBA), which was figured on a pro-rata premise. In a time of three years of

its beginning, IPL turned intothe second highest compensated event in the world. In the fifth period

of the IPL, Brand finance (A Brand Valuation Consultancy) evaluated its image an incentive

around

$3.03billion (Brand-Finance, 2013). The leading body of control for cricket in India

(BCCI) in its yearly report in 2015-2016, had estimated the brand valuation of IPL worth

$4.5 billion or INR27000 crores, which was ascertained by valuation examination firm

Duff and Phelps (BCCI, 2015-16). The brand value of IPL had increased from $3.5 billion

to $4.5 billion, despite the depreciation of the currency nearly by 10 percent in 2016.

If we can compare the growth of the IPL and ISL and other leagues, then we will see a big

27
difference between the leagues also

Selection of the Teams

For the research purpose, out of the eight teams playing in the IPL, three teams Kings

Eleven Punjab (KXIP), Delhi Daredevils (DD) and Royal Challenger Bangalore (RCB),

representing the northern and southern region of India were selected. The reasons for

choosing these three teams were the more or less the similar attributes sharing by all these

teams which we are discussing here such as:

1. Celebrity Players– All the teams of the IPL have the combination of national and

international players; those are playing for their franchise. For example, Virat Kohli

is playing for RCB, Rohit Sharma for MI, and Glenn Maxwell for KXIP. So in

every team, the popular national and international players are playing and that is the

reason for the popularity of the teams and also their fan following (Duff & Phelps,

2016-17).

2. Transparency and Effectiveness in the Team Management– The other element

which is identical between the teams have the transparency and effectiveness in

their team management. The role of team management is important for buying and

retaining a player and giving them the facilities. So when the major players were

included in the team, it attracts the attention of the fans’ of the team (Duff &

Phelps, 2016-17).

3. Fan Following– The other commonality between all the teams have their fan

following and also their ability to manage their fan following. All the teams have

specific managers to manage the fans of their team on the ground and also on the

social media. That is the reason behind increasing of fans of the teams on social

media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (Duff & Phelps, 2016-17).
28
4. On Field Performance– All teams’ valuation has depended on their on-field

performance. The teams those were performing well in the tournament got more

fan following as compared to the other teams. That attribute is also similar between

all the teams as KXIP, RCB & DD lies more or less in the middle (Duff & Phelps,

2016-17).

5. Change in Brand Value– According to a report of Duff and Phelps (2017), the

percentage change in the brand value of all the teams in the IPL was more or less

same. If we saw the change in brand value from the year 2016 to 2017, the change

of the brand value of Kings Eleven Punjab (KXIP) team was 32%, the change in

Royal Challenger Bangalore (RCB) team was 31%, and Delhi Daredevil (DD) team

was 29%.

6. Sponsors Perception about the Team– The last determinant, which is the same

for all the teams have the perception of the sponsors about the team. The

performance of the team, popularity of its players and their management ability

plays a major role in attracting the sponsors for their team (Duff & Phelps. 2016).

The conclusion is that, when the researchers checked all these factors, they found the

similar kind of qualities in all the teams. So to select KXIP, DD, & RCB teams were

reasonable for the researchers. It is also interesting for the researchers to know the

commitment of the attendees’ of two different regions towards their home team, which have

the similar characteristics of their team and its impact on their cognitive, affective and

behavioral outcomes.

3.1.1 Selection of the Sponsors


For the method of reasoning of the exploration, three sponsors had been chosen from each

team KXIP, DD, and RCB. Just those sponsors of the teams were joined in the investigation, which

29
was the main sponsors of the teams and their items had appeared on

the pullovers of the players of the teams (Chadwick & Thwaites, 2004; Biscaia et al.,

2013).

By following this criterion, from KXIP team HTC (Official Principal Sponsor), IDEA

(Official Principal Sponsor) and Kingfisher Premium (Official Partner), three sponsors

were taken, from DD team, Daikin Air-conditioner (Title Sponsor), Jio Digital Life

(Associate sponsor) and Kingfisher Premium (Official Partner) were contained and from

RCB team Gionee (Principal Sponsor), Lloyd (Principal Partner) and Kingfisher Premium

(Official Partner) were incorporated.

1. If we can check the India Sport Sponsorship Report 2016 “Sports Nation in a

Making”, then we could see the top 5 categories wise spending of team

sponsorship. The mobile handset industry is the top contributor with 13.50% in the

team sponsorship. After that telecom industry with 11%, consumer durable with

10.60%, real estate, 9.70%, apparel 6.80% and other have 48.50% contribution in

the team sponsorship.

2. Therefore, on the basis of the share of the mobile handset industry in total team

sponsorship; we pick one sponsor (HTC) from the KXIP team, which was the

Official Principal Sponsor of the team and one sponsor (Gionee) from RCB team,

which was the principal sponsor of the team at that time. From 2015 & 2016, the

logo of the HTC and Gionee had placed on the back side of the jerseys and the

sleeves of the team.

3. The share of the telecom industry in the IPL was 11%. The IDEA was the principal

sponsor of the KXIP team from 2016 & 2017 and Jio Digital Life was the associate

30
partner of the DD team from 2016 & 2017.

4. The share of consumer durables in the IPL was 10.60% and that was the reason for

selecting the Daikin and Lloyd sponsors from the DD and RCB teams. Daikin was the

main chest sponsor of the DD team and Lloyd was the principal partner of the RCB

team from 2016 & 2017.

5. Kingfisher has taken as a common brand for all the teams. In the 8th & 9th season of

the IPL, Kingfisher had sponsored the KXIP, DD & RCB teams. According to

brand trust report, 2012, Kingfisher ranked 74th in the most trusted brands in India.

PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY

The respondents of the two teams were heterogeneous on the basis of the sociodemographic profile
(see Table 1). With both the teams, the major ratios of the respondents

were males. The other characteristics of the respondents were their age, income, and

interest in cricket. The greater part of the respondents (KXIP 75 percent, DD 69 percent, &

RR 71 percent) was male. In every team (KXIP 60 percent, DD 48 percent, & RR 56

percent) of the respondents were in the classification of 18-28 years, another (23 percent,

30 percent, & 26 percent) had a place with the 28-38 years age gathering, (nine percent, 12

percent, & 12 percent) went in the 38-48 year class and (eight percent, 10 percent, & six

percent) fell in the 48 and above years category. A distinction was seen in the family unit

salary of the respondents; (KXIP 42 percent, DD 42 percent, & RR 45 percent) of them

earned under Rs.150000 yearly, (35 percent, 33 percent, 25 percent) amongst Rs.150000

and 500000 and the rest of the (23 percent, 25 percent, & 30 percent) respondents had a pay

off more than Rs.500000. Upwards of 41 percent of the respondents effectively playedthe

session of cricket, 21% of respondents played it unpredictably, and 38% respondents just

watched the cricket/IPL.


31
SAMPLING PLAN

3.1.2 Universe of the Study

The universe of the study includes those respondents who were available on the ground of

the three different teams playing in the IPL, Kings Eleven Punjab (KXIP), Royal

Challenger Bangalore (RCB) and Delhi Daredevils (DD) at the time of the match between

the teams under study. The study has included only those respondents, which had met

these three conditions.

1. Attendees’ had watched at least two games on the ground. It demonstrated their

involvement in the team/event.

2. Attendees’ had purchased any memorabilia (T-shirt, Flag, Tattoos, etc.) of the

team/event. It showed their identification and enthusiasm in the sport and the

team/event.

3. Attendees’ had watched at least two games of their squad along the TV as well. It

supplies the better clearance about the sponsors of the squad to the attendees’.

3.1.3 Sample Size

In the research, various researchers have given the rules for the selection of sample size in

structural equation modeling such as (a) a minimum sample size of 100 or 200 (Boomsma,

1982, 1985), (b) 5 or 10 observations per estimated parameter (Bentler & Chou, 1987;

Bollen, 1989), and (c) 10 cases per variable (Nunnally, 1978).

In this study, a total of 600 questionnaires were distributed to the present audience on the

ground in every stadium. Of the aggregate disbursed questionnaires for the examination

purposes, the analysts got 215 filled reactions (35% of the aggregate) from the Feroz Shah

Kotla stadium, New Delhi, 220 reactions (36% of the aggregate) from PCA stadium,

Mohali, and 230 reactions (38% of the aggregate) from Chinnaswamy stadium, Bangaluru.
32
The investigation utilized the Stratified Random Sampling procedure for gathering the

reactions of the respondents of the teams of the IPL.

3.1.4 Sampling Technique

The investigation utilized the Stratified Random Sampling procedure for gathering the

reactions of the respondents of the teams of the IPL. This system was utilized in light of

the fact that it was unrealistic to cover every one of the respondents who was perched on

the ground. Attributable to the cost of ticket differential, all the stadiums had been split into into
parts such as stands/blocks. For example, the PCA stadium Mohali had been divided

between the 14 blocks and gates from where the respondents have entered into the stadium.

Strata according to the sitting plan

1. Strata One --- AC Lounge, Corporate Box 1, Corporate Box 2, Pavilion Terrace,

Owner Pavilion Terrace (Gate 1A & Gate 1B) -- Responses - 32

2. Strata Two --- Member Stand (Gate 1C & 4) -- Responses - 30

3. Strata Three --- Chair Block 1&2 (Gate 5,6,11,12) -- Responses - 118

4. Strata Four --- North Chair Block 1 & 2 (Gate 7 & 10) – Responses - 75

5. Strata Five --- North Pavilion Level 1, 2 & 3 (Gate 9) --Responses - 32

6. Strata Six --- VIP Block ( Gate 14 & 1D) -- Responses - 15

After the division of the respondents in the strata, we tried to cover all the respondents

those were sitting in the stadium. The rationality behind that, the respondents those were

sitting on these blocks belonged to the different income groups because of the difference

inthe price of the tickets. All the strata’s were heterogeneous and the respondents within

the strata’s were homogenous, so we pick the respondents randomly within the strata’s,

according to the sitting capacity of the blocks.

33
THE PROCEDURE OF COLLECTION OF DATA

The data of the study was collected during the 9th and 10th season of the Indian Premier

League, which was planned for 8th April 2016 to 29th May 2016 and 5th April 2017 to

21stMay 2017. Out of the eight teams playing in the IPL, three teams Kings Eleven Punjab

(KXIP), Delhi Daredevils (DD) and Royal Challenger Bangalore (RCB), representing the

northern and southern region of India were selected. The researcher had collected the data

from the attendees’, who were available on the ground at the time of the match between the

two teams. In between the match of two teams, researcher approached respondents,

outlined the purpose of the academic research project and invites them to participate in the

survey. Researcher had distributed 600 questionnaires in each stadium to the respondents

of the event, who was sitting in the stadium to watch the matches. Of the total distributed

questionnaires for the research purposes, the researcher got 220 responses from PCA

stadium, Mohali, and 230 responses from Chinnaswamy stadium, Bangaluru and 215

responses from the Feroz Shah Kotla stadium, New Delhi. To meet the sampling criteria, a

respondent who had at least eighteen years of age was considered.

PILOT STUDY

Before going for the main study, a pilot survey had been conducted by taking 100

respondents from Punjabi University, Patiala; those had knowledge of their home team and

also watched at least two matches of their home team at that season. After collecting the

data, the items were purified by using the Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). To improve

the fitness of the models, one item from Team-Sponsor Congruence (TSC) scale, one item

34
from team involvement (TINV) scale, one item from product knowledge (PK) scale, seven

items from the psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale, two items from team

identification (TID) scale and one item from the sponsor image (SI) scale were deleted

because of their low factor loadings of the items (Hair et al., 2010). The modification

indices, inter-construct correlations and theoretical justification have been examined

carefully by the researchers.

Since most measurement items used in this study were modified by the researchers, we had

to perform a four-step measurement purification process:

(1) An exploratory factor analysis to discover the items that deviate from the common

core of items and to produce additional dimensions (Churchill, 1979);

(2) A confirmatory factor analysis for the final verification of the dimensions (Gerbing

& Anderson, 1988);

(3) A reliability test of the final scales; and

(4) A calculation of construct validity (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995).

The results from the first-order confirmatory factor models showed that the item-loading

estimates on their factors were significant. Goodness-of-fit indices also demonstrated the

quality of all models. The reliability coefficient alpha for each construct was higher than

0.80. Finally, construct validity for each construct was calculated manually according to

the given criteria of Hair et al. (2009, p. 642), and all the coefficients were above the limit

of 0.50 taken from (Lee & Cho, 2009).

REFERENCES:

Anderson, J, C., & Gerbing, D, W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

35
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-

423

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental

designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 271-284.

Bibby, D. N. (2011). Sponsorship portfolio as brand image creation strategies: A

commentary eassy. Journal of Business Research, 64, 628-630.

BCCI. (2015-2016). The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai, Annual Report,

134-139.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M.A. (1995). Understanding the bond of

identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members.

Journal of Marketing, 59 (4), 46−57.

Bloch, P H., Sherrell, D. L., and Ridgway, N. M. (1989). Product knowledge scale. In

marketing scale handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures, G. Bruner II and

P. Hensel, eds. Chicago, lL: American Marketing Association.

Brand-Finance. (2013). http://brandfinance.com/news/in_the_news/controversies-

scandalsinflicting-body-blow-to-ipl-as-brand-value.

Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, A. F., Ross, S. D., & Maroco, J. (2013). Sport

sponsorship: The relationship between team loyalty, sponsorship awareness, attitude

toward the sponsor, and purchase intentions. Journal of Sport Management,27 (4),

288–302.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling.

36
Sociological Methods & Research, 16 (1).

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor

analysis models. In K.G. J¨oreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect

observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part I, pp. 149–173). Amsterdam:

Chapter -4

Team, objective and sponsor wise data analysis, results and findings

1. Results of Kings Eleven Punjab Team (KXIP)

The study has taken three teams Kings Eleven Punjab (KXIP), Royal Challenger Bangalore

(RCB) and Delhi Daredevil (DD) from a group of eight teams. From every team, its three

sponsors have been considered for the research purposes. The study has formed three

models for first four objectives of the study because the study has taken three

sponsors from every team under study. The study has conducted Exploratory Factor

Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Structural Equation Modeling

(SEM) separately for each sponsor of the team. The results of the KXIP team and its

Sponsors (HTC, IDEA, and Kingfisher) have written below.

37
4.1 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) KXIP TEAM 1st OB

Firstly, the data was analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by adopting principal

component analysis and varimax rotation method (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).

In the model, six factors were identified with the help of the principal component matrix,

which had eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960). The variation rotation

technique was used to rotate the extracted factors. Therefore, the six factors were

determined with 20 items retained. These factors were labeled Team-Sponsor Congruence,

Sports Activeness, Team involvement, Product Knowledge, Attitude Toward Sponsor and

purchase intention. Finally, the decision about the factors and items were taken on the

following basis:-

The factors had an eigenvalue equal to or larger than 1.0.

The items with factor loading greater than 0.40 were retained and no cross-loadings

were observed.

1. The factors and items were interpretable.

2. The factors had at least two items.

Figure :Confirmatory Factor Analysis (KXIP Team 1st OB - IDEA)

38
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team
Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI=
Purchase Intention.

Results
The fitness of the models was measured with the help of confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit
Index (1.587) was below the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes
such as Comparative Fit Index (0.97), Tucker Lewis Index (0.97), Incremental Fit
Index (0.97), and Normed Fit Index (0.94) were more than the prescribed value of
0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The valueof Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA = 0.040) was also below the limit of 0.080 (Bentler, 1980). All the values
have shown the fitness of the model.

Figure : Confirmatory Factor Analysis (KXIP Team, 1st OB - HTC)

39
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team Involvement,
PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
The fitness of the model was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit Index (2.312) was below
the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes such as Comparative Fit Index
(0.95), Tucker Lewis Index (0.94), Incremental Fit Index (0.95), and Normed Fit Index (0.91)
were more than the prescribed value of 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The value of Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.060) was also below the limit of 0.080
(Bentler, 1980). All the values have shown the fitness of the model.

40
Figure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (KXIP Team 1st OB - KF)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis


Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team Involvement,
PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
The fitness of the models was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit Index (1.893) was below
the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes such as Comparative Fit Index
(0.97), Tucker Lewis Index (0.97), Incremental Fit Index (0.97), and Normed Fit Index (0.95)
were more than the prescribed value of 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The value of Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.050) was also below the limit of 0.080
(Bentler, 1980). All the values have shown the fitness of the model.

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL (KXIP TEAM, 1st OB)


To examine the hypothetical relationship across the given constructs, the structural equation
modeling technique was adopted. For this, Amos 21.0 software was used. All the

41
values and indexes of the models such as Parsimonious Fit Index, Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Normed Fit Index
(NFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) investigated in the
study has shown the fitness of the models.
Figure 4.3.1: Structural Equation Model (KXIP Team, 1st OB - HTC)

Structural Equation Model


Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team
Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase
Intention.
Table 4.3.1:
Goodness of Fit Indexes and Hypotheses (KXIP Team, 1st OB - HTC)
Goodness of Fit Hypothesis Relationship SRW T-V Verified
X2/df = 2.282 H1 TSC →PK .238** 2.67 Supported
**
CFI = .95 H2 SA→PK .264 2.81 Supported
TFI = .94 H3 TINV→ PK .223** 3.16 Supported
**
IFI = .95 H4 PK→ATS .158 2.32 Supported
NFI = .91 H5 ATS→PI .163* 9.28 Supported
RMSEA = 0.06 H6 PK→PI .081 1.56 Rejected
Note: ** indicates p ≤ 0.021, * indicates p = 0.000, no star means non-significant,
SRW= Standardized Regression Weight, T-V= T- Value, TSC= Team Sponsor
Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team Involvement, PK= Product
Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Table 4.3.1.1:
Factor Loadings Structural Equation Modeling (KXIP Team, 1st OB - HTC)

Construct TSC SA TINV PK ATS PI


s
FL .75-.83 .70-.85 .79-.85 .85-.88 .70-.82 .88-.98
Note: FL- Factor Loading, TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness,
TINV= Team Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards
Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

42
Results
The study used a structural equation modeling technique to examine all six hypotheses
of the proposed model. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table 4.3.3.
The hypotheses of the study, i.e., team-sponsor congruence (Hypothesis 1) β = 0.064,
found no impact on attendees’ product knowledge, but sport activeness (Hypothesis 2)
β = 0.169 and team involvement (Hypothesis 3) β = .208 showed a positive impact on
attendees’ product knowledge. The study found a positive correlation between the
attendees’ product knowledge and their attitude toward sponsor brand (Hypothesis 4) β
= 0.256. Attendees’ attitude toward the sponsor brand impact positively on their
purchase intentions (Hypothesis 5) β = 0.442. The study also found no correlation
between the attendees’ product knowledge and their purchase intentions (Hypothesis 6)
β = 0.70. Thus, the hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 5, stand accepted, while Hypotheses 1& 6 has
rejected.

FINDINGS (KXIP TEAM, 1st OB)


The purpose of the current study is to examine the role of attendees’ association with
the team and their knowledge about the sponsored sports entity to highlight its impact
on their attitude towards a sponsor brand and behavioural outcomes. The finding of the
study is in line with the results of Becker-Olsen (2003) and Gwinner & Bennett
(2008) that consumers form a positive attitude towards the sponsor’s brand if they
found congruence between the event and the sponsor.
As far as the first hypothesis is concerned, this study found congruence between the
team and the sponsored entity in case of the sponsor, HTC and IDEA, which positively
impacted attendees’ product knowledge but the study found no congruence in case of
sponsor KF. In other words, attendees’ product knowledge increased linearly with
sponsorship-linked marketing activities when they perceived a positive connection
(marked by correlation) between the team and the sponsor brand.
The results of the second hypotheses are in line with the findings of Madrigal (2000)
for all the three sponsors of the study such as HTC, IDEA & KF that sports fans’ social
alliance with a preferred team influence their attitude and behavioural outcomes. The
second hypothesis analysis reveals that attendees’ who are psychologically attached
to a team/sport think more positively about the sponsored product than other people. It
means that attendees’ not only appreciated in the game of their cricket team, but they
43
also

that purchase intentions come into being, though the study supports this hypothesis in
caseof IDEA.

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) KXIP TEAM, 2nd OBFirstly, the


data was analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by adopting principal
component analysis and varimax rotation method (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2010). In the model, four factors were identified with the help of the principal
component matrix, which had eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960). The
variation rotationtechnique was used to rotate the extracted factors. Therefore, the
four factors were determined with 16 items retained. These factors were labeled
Psychological Commitment to Team, Product Knowledge, Attitude towards Sponsor
and purchase intention. Finally, the decision about the factors and items were taken
on the following basis:-
1. The factors had an eigenvalue equal to or larger than 1.0.
2. The items with factor loading greater than 0.40 were retained and no cross-
loadingswere observed.
3. The factors and items were interpretable.
4. The factors had at least two items.
Table :
Sampling Adequacy (KXIP Team, 2nd OB Models)
Sponsors KMO BTS Variance
HTC (KXIP) .85 .000 74.85
IDEA (KXIP) .91 .000 77.49
KF (KXIP) .87 .000 79.69
Note: KMO= Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, BTS= Bartlett's Test of Sphericity,
Sponsors of KXIP Team = HTC, IDEA & Kingfisher (KF).

For examining the adequacy of the sample size, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (BTS) and
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures were adopted. The value of KMO for all the
sponsors exceeds the cutoff value 0.60, and the value of BTS was less than 0.001
(p <0.001) indicating that the sample size of the study was appropriate for
conducting the factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The variance of the
extracted factors for the three sponsors has given in the above table.

44
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) KXIP Team, 2nd OBThe
fitness of the models was measured with the help of confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). The study has followed the five steps for the conduct of
theCFA recomended by

Results
The fitness of the model was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit Index
(1.82) was below the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes such as
Comparative Fit Index (0.96), Tucker Lewis Index (0.95), Incremental Fit Index
(0.96), and Normed Fit Index (0.93) were more than the prescribed value of 0.90 (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). The value of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA
= 0.060) was also below the limit of 0.080 (Bentler, 1980). All the values have shown
the fitness of the model.
Figure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (KXIP Team, 2nd OB -IDEA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis


Note: PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK= Product Knowledge,
ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
The fitness of the model was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit Index
(1.58) was below the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes such as

45
Comparative

With the use of structural equation modeling technique, the study analyzed the six
hypotheses of the study. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table 4.7.3.
The first hypotheses of the study, i.e., psychological commitment to team (PCT)
(Hypothesis 1) β = 0.198 showed a positive impact on attendees’ product knowledge
and their attitude towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.281, but also found no
correlation with their purchase intentions (Hypothesis 3) β = -0.011. The study
identified a positive relation between the attendees’ product knowledge and attitude
towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis 4) β = 0.309 and found no correlation with their
purchase intention (Hypothesis 5) β = -
0.018. The attendees’ positive attitude towards the sponsor brand impacted positively
their purchase intention (Hypothesis 5) β = 0.499, for the sponsor of the team. Thus,
the hypotheses 1, 2, 4, & 5 stands accepted and Hypothesis 3 & 6 has rejected.

FINDINGS (KXIP TEAM, 2nd OB)


With the help of a model, this study analyzed the psychological commitment of the
attendees’ towards their home team. It was interesting to know their level of
commitment towards their home team in the absence of the regional, national players,
who were the part of other teams. On the basis of their team commitment, the study
analyzed the attendees’ knowledge towards the sponsor brand (cognitive), their
attitude towards the sponsor product (affective) and their purchase intention
(behavioral) about the sponsor brand. The results acquired shown that most the
hypotheses were supported for all the sponsors such as HTC, IDEA, and KF for the
KXIP team.
The results of the study accepted the first hypothesis for the team and also their
sponsors. The study found the positive impact of attendees’ team commitment on their
product knowledge (cognitive) and attitude toward the sponsor (affective) outcomes
in the case of all the sponsors (HTC, IDEA, & KF), but ascertained negative relation
with their purchase intention or behavioral outcome. It means, the attendees’ were not
considering the products of the sponsors only on the basis of their team
sponsorship, but they also gave the due weight to their knowledge of the sponsor
brand, and if they feel positive about that particular brand then this can impact their
purchase decisions. Here the findings of the study has been supported by the results
46
of Wakefield and Bennett (2010) and Ko, Kim, Claussen & Kim (2008) that the
consumers could easily identify the prominent and related

The study used a structural equation modeling technique to examine all six hypotheses
of the proposed model. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table 4.11.3.
The hypotheses of the study, i.e., team-sponsor congruence (Hypothesis 1) β = -0.067
found no impact on the attendees’ team image. But team involvement (Hypothesis 3) β
= 0.123 and sport activeness (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.292, showed a positive impact on
attendees’ team image as mentioned in the hypotheses. The study found a positive
correlation between the attendees’ team image and their attitude toward team
(Hypothesis 4) β = 0.172. The study found no correlation between the attendees’ team
image (Hypothesis 6) β = -0.028 and attitude toward team (Hypothesis 5) β = -0.103
with their purchase intentions. Thus, the hypotheses 2 & 4 stands accepted, while
Hypothesis 1, 3, 5 & 6 has rejected.

FINDINGS (KXIP TEAM, 3rd OB)


According to social identity theory, the attendees’ who identify their team/sport/event,
they were very much involved with the team/sport or event, which impacted their
attitude and purchase behavior towards the sponsor’s brand (Madrigal, 2000). In this
study, the researcher used team-sponsor congruence, sports activeness, and team
involvement constructs to know the attendees’ image towards their home team and
used the team image as a mediator to find out its impact on their attitude towards the
team and their purchase intention of the sponsors of the team. The study has taken the
KXIP team and its three sponsors (HTC, IDEA & KF) for the research purposes.
The study has rejected its first hypothesis, in which no relation was found between
attendees’ team-sponsor congruence and their team image. The study is in-line with
the finding of Becker-Olsen & Simmons (2002), that if the event and the sponsor are
not fitted with each other than this can negatively affect the attitude and opinion of the
participants towards the sponsoring brand and this also affects their affective and
behavioral intentions. The study supported the (H2) hypothesis for the KXIP team. It
means the attendees’ of the KXIP team were very much enthusiastic about the game of
cricket, and it impacted favorably their team image (Close et al., 2006). The study
supported the (H3 & H4)hypotheses for all the sponsors of the team. It means the
attendees’ who were involvedwith the team have a positive image about the team.
47
The findings of the study have also been backed by the results of the Bachleda,
Fakhar, & Elouazzani (2015), where the

attendees’ involvement in the game favorably impacted their image and attitude towards the
sponsor brand (Ko, Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2010). The study supported the (H4) hypothesis and
found the positive association between the team/event image and attendees’ attitude towards
teams and sponsor brands. Here, the result of the study has matched with the findings of Speed
& Thompson, 2000; Gwinner, Larson & Swanson, 2009; Wakefield & Bennett, 2010; & Kim,
Ko & James, 2011. These researchers also measured the positive attitude of the fans’/spectators
in their studies by using the different constructs and theories. The study supported the H5 &
H6 hypotheses for the sponsor, HTC and IDEA, but rejected for the sponsor KF. It means an
attendees’ positive attitude toward the team impacted favorably on their purchase intentions for
the sponsors HTC and IDEA. Here the result of the study is tangent with the findings of Javlgi
et al., (1994) that consumer’s sponsorship knowledge can enhance the corporate image of the
company, but this would not be possible for every company. The sponsorship could give the
benefit to those companies which consumers had a prior positive image. Otherwise, the
sponsorship could damage the image of the companies if the consumers think negatively about
them.

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) KXIP TEAM, 4th OB


Firstly, the data was analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by adopting principal
component analysis and varimax rotation method (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). In
the model, six factors were identified with the help of the principal component matrix, which
had eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960). The variation rotation technique was
used to rotate the extracted factors. Therefore, the six factors were determined with 19 items
retained. These factors were labeled Team Identification, Status of Event, Personal Liking of
Event, Product Knowledge, Sponsor Image, and purchase intention. Finally, the decision
about the factors and items were taken on the followingbasis:

1. The factors had an eigenvalue equal to or larger than 1.0.

48
2. The items with factor loading greater than 0.40 were retained and no cross-loadingswere
observed.
3. The factors and items were interpretable.
4. The factors had at least two items.

Figure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (KXIP Team, 4th OB - HTC)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Note: TID= Team Identification, SOE= Status of Event, PL= Personal Liking of Event, PK=
Product Knowledge, SI= Sponsor Image, PI= Purchase Intention.

The fitness of the model was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit Index (2.165) was below
the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes such as Comparative Fit Index
(0.95), Tucker Lewis Index (0.94), Incremental Fit Index (0.95), and Normed Fit Index (0.92)

49
were more than the prescribed value of 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The value of Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.062) was also below the limitof 0.080
(Bentler, 1980). All the values have shown the fitness of the model.

Table
Factor Loadings Structural Equation Modeling (KXIP Team, 4th OB - HTC)
Constructs TID SOE PK PK SI PI
FL .69-.86 .75-.82 .77-.86 .85-.86 .70-.82 .88-.98
Note: FL= Factor Loading, TID= Team Identification, SOE= Status of Event, PL= Personal
Liking of Event, PK= Product Knowledge, SI= Sponsor Image, PI= Purchase Intention.

Figure: Structural Equation Model ((KXIP Team, 4th OB - IDEA)

Structural Equation Model

Note: TID= Team Identification, SOE= Status of Event, PL= Personal Liking of Event, PK=
Product Knowledge, SI= Sponsor Image, PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
The study used a structural equation modeling technique to examine all six hypotheses of
the proposed model. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table 4.15.3. Out of
50
the first three hypotheses of the study, two hypotheses i.e., team identification (Hypothesis
1) β = 0.188, and Personal liking of event (Hypothesis 3) β = 0.153 showed a positive
impact on attendees’ product knowledge as mentioned in the hypotheses, but the status of
the event (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.033 made no impact on attendees’ product knowledge. The
study also found a positive correlation between the attendees’ product knowledge and their
sponsor brand image (Hypothesis 4) β = 0.257. Attendees’ sponsor’s brand image
(Hypothesis 5) β = 0.442 impacted positively on their purchase intentions. But the study
found no correlation between the attendees’ product knowledge and their purchase
intentions (Hypothesis 6) β = 0.081. Thus, the hypotheses 1, 3, 4, & 5, stand accepted,
while Hypothesis 2 & 6 has rejected.

FINDINGS (KXIP TEAM, 4th OB)


The present study tried to find, how the attendee’s team identification, the status of
theevent and personal liking of the event impacts their product knowledge and the impact of
their product knowledge on their sponsor image and purchase intention. This result of the
study is in line with the findings of Lacey et al. (2010) and Herrmann, Kacha, and Derbaix
(2015) that, the attendees’ those were familiar with the team and an event; form a positive
attitude towards the sponsor brand and this could also influence their behavioural
intentions. In the first hypothesis (H1), the study found the positive relation between the
attendees’ team identification and their product knowledge. It means, those attendees’ have
the knowledge of the team (KXIP), they also very much aware about the sponsors (HTC,
IDEA & KF) of the team. Hereby the results of Gwinner, Larson, and Swanson (2009) was
matched with the study findings, that team identification and event-sponsor fit impacted
positively on consumer’s perception of image transfer from the outcome to the sponsored
brand. The survey too found that positive image of the brand in the judgment of the
consumers could also affect their purchase decisions.
In the second hypothesis (H2), the study found the positive correlation between the
attendee’s status of the event and their product knowledge for HTC and IDEA. In
other

indexes of the models were analyzed such as Parsimonious Fit Index, Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index(IFI) and
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). With the help of the indexes, the study
51
tried to find out the Goodness of Fit to the six factor model to the data.
Table
Goodness of Fit (KXIP Team, 5th OB)
Goodness of Fit KXIP
2
X /df 1.802
CFI .96
TLI .96
IFI .96
NFI .93
RMSEA .052
Note: X2/df = Parsimonious Fit index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis Index,
IFI= Incremental Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation

Figure:Confirmatory Factor Analysis (KXIP Team, 5th OB)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Note: BM=Brand Mark, RIV= Rivalry, SI= Social Interaction, COM= Commitment, TH=
Team History, TS= Team Success, TP= Team Play.

determined with 20 items retained. These factors were labeled Team-Sponsor

52
Congruence, Sports Activeness, Team involvement, Product Knowledge, Attitude
Toward Sponsor and purchase intention. Finally, the decision about the factors and
items were taken on the following basis:-

1. The factors had an eigenvalue equal to or larger than 1.0.


2. The items with factor loading greater than 0.40 were retained and no cross-loadings
were observed.
3. The factors and items were interpretable.
4. The factors had at least two items.
Table:
Sampling Adequacy (RCB Team, 1st OB Models)
Sponsors KMO BTS Variance
Gionee (RCB) .84 .000 88.68
Llyod (RCB) .83 .000 87.68
KF (RCB) .85 .000 88.66
Note: KMO= Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, BTS= Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, Sponsors of
RCB Team = Gionee, Llyod and Kingfisher.

For examining the adequacy of the sample size, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (BTS) and
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures were adopted. The value of KMO for all the
sponsors exceeds the cutoff value 0.60, and the value of BTS was less than 0.001
(p < 0.001) indicating that the sample size of the study was appropriate for
conducting the factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The variance of the
extracted factors for the three sponsors has given in the above table.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) RCB TEAM, 1st OB


The fitness of the models was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The study has followed the five steps for the conduct of the CFA
recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). The steps were; (1) model
specification; (2) model identification; (3) model estimation; (4) model fit; and (5)
model re-specification. All the indexes of the models were analyzed such as
Parsimonious Fit Index, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),
Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index(IFI) and Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA). With the help of the

53
indexes, the study tried to find out the Goodness of Fit to the six factor model to the data. The
value of all the indexes has given below in the table.
Table
Goodness of Fit (RCB Team, 1st OB Models)
Goodness of Fit Gionee Lloyd KF
2
X /df 2.479 2.681 2.568
CFI .96 .95 .96
TLI .95 .94 .95
IFI .96 .95 .96
NFI .94 .93 .94
RMSEA .080 .086 .083
Note: X2/df = Parsimonious Fit index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis
Index, IFI= Incremental Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation, Sponsors of RCB Team = Gionee, Llyod and Kingfisher.

Figure: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (RCB Team, 1st OB - Gionee)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team Involvement,
PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

54
of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.08) was also below the limit
of 0.080 (Bentler, 1980). All the values have shown the fitness of the model.

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL (RCB TEAM, 1st OB)


To examine the hypothetical relationship across the given constructs, the structural
equation modeling technique was adopted. For this, Amos 21.0 software was used. All the
values and indexes of the models such as Parsimonious Fit Index, Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI) and
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) investigated in the study has shown
the fitness of the models.
Figure:Structural Equation Modeling (RCB – 1st OB Gionee)

Structural Equation Model


Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team
Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI=
Purchase Intention.

Table
Goodness of Fit Indexes and Hypotheses (RCB Team, 1st OB - Gionee)
Goodness of Hypothesi Relationshi SRW T-V Verified
Fit s p
X2/df = 2.208 H1 TSC →PK -.004 -.060 Rejected
CFI = .97 H2 SA→PK .150** 2.17 Supported
TFI = .96 H3 TINV→ PK .342* 4.71 Supported
*
IFI = .97 H4 PK→ATS .347 5.27 Supported
*
NFI = .95 H5 ATS→PI .571 9.63 Supported
RMSEA = H6 PK→PI .089 1.53 Rejected
0.073
Note: ** indicates p ≤ 0.030, * indicates p = 0.000, no star means non-significant,
SRW= Standardized Regression Weight, T-V= T- Value, TSC= Team Sponsor
55
Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team Involvement, PK= Product
Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Table
Goodness of Fit Indexes and Hypotheses (RCB Team, 1st OB - Lloyd)
Goodness of Fit Hypothesis Relationship SRW T-V Verified
2
X /df = 2.81 H1 TSC →PK .138 ***
1.79 Rejected
**
CFI = .95 H2 SA→PK .220 3.09 Supported
**
TFI = .94 H3 TINV→ PK .245 3.14 Supported
*
IFI = .95 H4 PK→ATS .381 5.65 Supported
*
NFI = .92 H5 ATS→PI .453 7.15 Supported
*
RMSEA = 0.08 H6 PK→PI .249 4.07 Supported
Note: *** indicates p ≤ 0.075, ** indicates p ≤ 0.005, * indicates p = 0.000, no star
means non-significant, SRW= Standardized Regression Weight, T-V= T- Value,
TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team Involvement,
PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Table
Factor Loadings Structural Equation Modeling (RCB Team, 1st OB -
Lloyd)
Construct TSC SA TINV PK ATS PI
s
FL .72-.85 .87-.99 .90-.93 .94-.98 .88-.95 .93-.96

0.138 impacted partially on attendees’ product knowledge, but sport


activeness (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.220 and team involvement (Hypothesis 3) β = 0.245
showed a positive impact on attendees’ product knowledge as mentioned in the
hypotheses. The study also found a positive correlation between the attendees’ product
knowledge and their attitude toward sponsor brand (Hypothesis 4) β = 0.381. The
attendees’ attitude towards the sponsor’s brand impacted positively on their
purchase intentions (Hypothesis 5) β =
0.453. The study also found a positive correlation between the
attendees’ product knowledge and their purchase intentions (Hypothesis 6) β = 0.249.
Thus, the hypotheses 2to 6 stand accepted and Hypothesis 1 has rejected.

Figure 4.22.3: Structural Equation Model (RCB Team, 1st OB - KF)

56
Structural Equation Model
Note: TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team
Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Table
Goodness of Fit Indexes and Hypotheses (RCB Team, 1st OB - KF)
Goodness of Fit Hypothesis Relationship SRW T-V Verified
X2/df = 2.54 H1 TSC →PK -.055 -.74 Rejected
CFI = .96 H2 SA→PK .095 1.33 Rejected
TFI = .95 H3 TINV→ PK .452* 5.79 Supported
*
IFI = .96 H4 PK→ATS .486 7.78 Supported
*
NFI = .93 H5 ATS→PI .525 7.86 Supported
*
RMSEA = 0.08 H6 PK→PI .142 2.24 Supported
Note: * indicates p = 0.000, no star means non-significant, SRW= Standardized Regression
Weight, T-V= T- Value, TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness, TINV= Team
Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase
Intention.

Table
57
Factor Loadings Structural Equation Modeling (RCB Team, 1st OB - KF)
Constructs TSC SA TINV PK ATS PI
FL .76-.85 .89-.99 .90-.94 .97-.98 .89-.95 .95-.99
Note: FL- Factor Loading, TSC= Team Sponsor Congruence, SA= Sport Activeness,
TINV= Team Involvement, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor,
PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
The study used a structural equation modeling technique to examine all six hypotheses of
the proposed model. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table 4.22.3. Out of
the first three hypotheses of the study, i.e., team-sponsor congruence (Hypothesis 1) β =
-
0.055 and sport activeness (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.095 found no impact on attendees’ product
knowledge, but team involvement (Hypothesis 3) β = 0.452 showed a positive impact on
attendees’ product knowledge. The study also found a positive correlation between the
attendees’ product knowledge and their attitude toward sponsor brand (Hypothesis 4) β
=
0.486. The attendees’ attitude towards the sponsor’s brand impacted positively on their
purchase intentions H (Hypothesis 5) β = 0.525. The study also found a positive correlation
between the attendees’ product knowledge and their purchase intentions (Hypothesis 6) β
=
0.142. Thus, the hypotheses 3to 6 stands accepted while Hypothesis 1 & 2 has rejected.

FINDINGS (RCB TEAM, 1st OB)

The purpose of the current study is to examine the role of attendees’ association with the
team and their knowledge about the sponsored sports entity to highlight its impact on their
attitude towards a sponsor brand and behavioural outcomes.
As far as the first hypothesis is concerned, this study found no congruence between the
team and its sponsored entities such as Gionee, Llyod and KF. It means the attendees of
the RCB team were not found any kind of linkage with the sponsors of the team or in other
words, the sponsors were failing to make their relationship with the attendees’ of the RCB
team. Here the study supported by the similar results by Close and Lacey (2013) which
58
examined the event-sponsor fit as a moderator to find out the association of the consumer’s
towards both the sponsor and the team. The study found no evidence that event-sponsor fit
act as a moderator between the event entertainment and the sports activeness on attendee’s
attitude towards the event
The result of the second hypotheses was in line with the findings of Madrigal (2000) for
the two sponsors of the team such as Gionee, & Llyod that sports fans’ social alliance
witha preferred team/sport influences their attitude and behavioural outcomes. The second
hypothesis analysis reveals that attendees who psychologically attached to the team
thinkmore positively about the sponsored product than other people. It means that attendees
not only appreciated the game of their cricket team, but they also recognized the sponsors
of their team. Close, Finney, Lacey, & Sneath (2006) in their study found that event
attendees' knowledge of the sponsor brand and activeness in sport can positively influence
their desire that a sponsor is involved with the community that can enhance the perceptual
experience of the sponsor brand, which can move their purchase intention. The rejection of
the third sponsor of the team KF shows that attendees’ were not finding the
congruencewith the sponsor and also as a sports person not associate with the sponsor. The
reason behind this was that the sponsor was associated with the liquor brand, and because
of the social sanction respondents were not given the desirable responses. The results of the
third hypothesis also established the positive involvement of the attendees’ with the team
and their sponsors Gionee, Llyod & KF. It means the attendees’ engaged with the team
alsohad knowledge about the team sponsor

brands which created a positive attitude and imageof the brand in their minds. The study
results have been backed by the findings of the Bachleda, Fakhar, & Elouazzani (2015),
where the attendees’ involvement in the game favorably impacted their image and behavior
towards the sponsor brand (Ko, Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2010).
By showing attendees’ association with the team and linking sales-oriented leveraging
activities, the study also found a positive effect of attendees’ product knowledge on their
attitude toward the sponsor brands in the case of all the sponsors of the team Gionee, Llyod
and KF. The study also found that, when the customer formed the positive link between the
event and the sponsor, then this could affect their attitude towards the sponsor,

59
whichcould positively influence their purchase intentions. In other words, the outcome of
the sponsorship would be affected by the consumer’s attitude towards the sponsor and their
perception of event-sponsor fit.
The study result has been supported by the similar finding of Close & Lacey (2013) that
consumers’ product knowledge played an important role in determining the sponsor’s
identification and image. The consumers’ positive feelings towards their team activate or
enhance their cognitive processing of the sponsor’s brand, which could also improve their
sponsor image. It has also been observed that when the consumers’ form a positive
link

For examining the adequacy of the sample size, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (BTS) and
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures were adopted. The value of KMO for all the
sponsors exceeds the cutoff value 0.60, and the value of BTS was less than 0.001 (p
<0.001) indicating that the sample size of the study was appropriate for conducting the
factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The variance of the extracted factors for the
three sponsors has given in the above table.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) RCB TEAM 2nd OB The


fitness of the models was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The study has followed the five steps for the conduct of the CFA recommended
byTabachnick and Fidell (2001). The steps were; (1) model specification; (2) model
identification; (3) model estimation; (4) model fit; and (5) model re-specification. All
theindexes of the models were analyzed such as Parsimonious Fit Index,
Comparative FitIndex (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Normed Fit Index (NFI),
Incremental Fit Index(IFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA). With the help of the indexes, the study tried to find out the Goodness of Fit
to the four factor model to the data.The value of all the indexes has given below in the
table.

60
Table:
Goodness of Fit (RCB Team, 2nd OB Models)
Goodness of Fit Gionee Lloyd KF
2
X /df 1.43 1.85 1.659
CFI .98 .97 .98
TLI .98 .96 .98
IFI .99 .97 .98
NFI .96 .94 .95
RMSEA .043 .061 .054
2
Note: X /df = Parsimonious Fit index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis
Index, IFI=

Incremental Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation, Sponsors of RCB Team = Gionee, Llyod and Kingfisher

Figure:Confirmatory Factor Analysis (RCB Team, 2nd OB -Gionee)

61
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Note: PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS=


Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention

Results
The fitness of the model was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). After the analysis of the data, the study found that Parsimonious Fit Index
(1.43) was below the given guidelines of 3 (Kline, 2011) and other indexes such as
Comparative Fit Index (0.98), Tucker Lewis Index (0.98), Incremental Fit Index (0.99),
and Normed Fit Index (0.96) were more than the prescribed value of 0.90 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). The valueof Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA =
0.043) was also below the limitof 0.080 (Bentler, 1980). All the values have shown
the fitness of the model.

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL (RCB TEAM, 2nd OB)


To examine the hypothetical relationship across the given constructs, the structural equation
modeling technique was adopted. For this, Amos 21.0 software was used. All the values and
indexes of the models such as Parsimonious Fit Index, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-
Lewis Index (TLI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Root Mean
62
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) investigated in the study has shown the fitness of
the models.
Figure: Structural Equation Model (RCB Team, 2nd OB - Gionee)

Structural Equation Model


Note: PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS=
Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.
Table
Goodness of Fit Indexes and Hypotheses (RCB Team, 2nd OB - Gionee)
Goodness of Fit Hypothesi Relationshi SRW T-V Verified
s p
X2/df = 1.28 H1 PCT →PK .308* 4.47 Supported
*
CFI = .99 H2 PCT→ATS .258 3.89 Supported
TFI = .99 H3 PCT→ PI -.181** -2.74 Rejected
*
IFI = .99 H4 PK→ATS .312 4.57 Supported
NFI = .97 H5 ATS→PI .359* 5.38 Supported
*
RMSEA = 0.035 H6 PK→PI .306 4.64 Supported
Note: ** indicates p ≤ 0.006, * indicates p = 0.000, SRW= Standardized Regression Weight,
T-V= T- Value, PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS=
Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Table
Factor Loadings Structural Equation Modeling (RCB Team, 2nd OB -
Gionee)
63
Construct PCT PK ATS PI
s
FL .71-.76 .93-.97 .95-.98 .94-.99
Note: FL- Factor Loading, PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK=
Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
With the use of a structural equation modeling technique, the study analyzed the six
hypotheses of the study. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table
4.26.1.The first hypotheses of the study, i.e., attendees’ psychological commitment to
team (PCT) (Hypothesis 1) β = 0.308 and attitude towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis
2) β = 0.258, showed a positive impact on their product knowledge, but found a
negative correlation with their purchase intentions (Hypothesis 3) β = -0.181. The
study identified a positive relation between the attendees’ product knowledge and
attitude towards sponsor brand(Hypothesis 4) β = 0.312, and also their purchase
intention H (Hypothesis 5) β = 0.359. The attendees’ positive attitude towards the
sponsor brand impacted positively their purchase intention (Hypothesis 6) β = 0.306,
for the sponsor of the team. Thus, the hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 stands accepted while
Hypothesis 3 has rejected.

Structural Equation Model

Note: PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK= Product Knowledge,


ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.
64
Table
Goodness of Fit Indexes and Hypotheses (RCB Team, 2nd OB -
Llyod)
Goodness of Fit Hypothesi Relationshi SRW T-V Verified
s p
X2/df = 1.83 H1 PCT →PK .228** 2.38 Supported
**
CFI = .97 H2 PCT→ATS .225 7.73 Supported
TFI = .96 H3 PCT→ PI .020 -.77 Rejected
*
IFI = .97 H4 PK→ATS .269 4.76 Supported
*
NFI = .94 H5 ATS→PI .479 4.95 Supported
*
RMSEA = 0.060 H6 PK→PI .235 3.76 Supported
Note: ** indicates p ≤ 0.005, * indicates p = 0.000, no star means non-significant, SRW=
Standardized Regression Weight, T-V= T- Value, PCT= Psychological Commitment to
Team, PK= Product Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.
Table
Factor Loadings Structural Equation Modeling (RCB Team, 2nd OB -
Llyod)
Construct PCT PK ATS PI
s
FL .77-.84 .85-.89 .83-.96 .91-.95
Note: FL- Factor Loading, PCT= Psychological Commitment to Team, PK= Product
Knowledge, ATS= Attitude towards Sponsor, PI= Purchase Intention.

Results
With the use of structural equation modeling technique, the study analyzed the six hypotheses
of the study. The results of the study have been highlighted in Table 4.26.2.The first
hypotheses of the study, i.e., attendees’ psychological commitment to team (PCT) Hypothesis1
(β = 0.228) and attitude towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.225, showed a positive
impact on their product knowledge, but found no correlation with their purchase intentions
(Hypothesis 3) β = 0.020. The study identified a positive relation between the attendees’
product knowledge and attitude towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis 4) β = 0.269, and also their
purchase intention (hypothesis 5) β = 0.479. The attendees’ positive attitude towards the
sponsor brand impacted positively their purchase intention (Hypothesis 6) β = 0.235, for the
sponsor of the team. Thus, the hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 stands accepted while Hypothesis 3
has rejected.
The hypotheses of the study, i.e., attendees’ psychological commitment to team (PCT)
Hypothesis1 (β = 0.228) showed a positive impact on attendees’ product knowledge, but
65
impacted partially on their attitude towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis 2) β = 0.117 and
found no correlation with their purchase intentions (Hypothesis 3) β = -0.039. The study
identified a positive relation between the attendees’ product knowledge and attitude
towards sponsor brand (Hypothesis 4) β = 0.456, and also their purchase intention
(Hypothesis 5) β = 0.442. The attendees’ positive attitude towards the sponsor brand
impacted positively their purchase intention (Hypothesis 6) β = 0.228, for the sponsor of
the team. Thus, the hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 stand accepted while Hypothesis 3
has rejected.

FINDINGS (RCB TEAM, 2nd OB)


With the help of a model, this study analyzed the psychological commitment of the
attendees’ toward their home teams. It was interesting to know their level of commitment
towards their home team in the absence of

The results of the study accepted the first hypothesis for the team and also their sponsors.
The study found the positive impact of attendees’ team commitment on their product
knowledge and attitude toward sponsor (affective) outcomes in the case of all the sponsors
(Gionee, Llyod, & KF), but ascertained no relation with their purchase intention or
behavioral outcome. It means, the attendees’ were not considering the product of the
sponsors only on the bathe regional, national players, who were the part
of other teams. On the basis of their team commitment, the study analyzed the attendees’
knowledge towards the sponsor brand (cognitive), their attitude regarding the sponsor
product (affective) and their purchase intention (behavioral) about the sponsor brand. The
results acquired shown that most of the hypotheses have supported the sponsors of the
RCB team such as Gionee, Llyod and KF.sis of their team sponsorship, but they also gave
the due weight to their own knowledge about the sponsor brand and if the attendees’ feel
positive about the sponsor brands then this could impact their purchase decisions. Here the
result of the study has been supported by the findings of Wakefield and Bennett (2010) and
Ko, Kim, Claussen and Kim (2008) that the consumers could easily identify the prominent
and related sponsors of the property, because of the performance of the property and the
consumers’ involvement in the property, which could generate the affective intensity of the
individual towards the sponsor brand and that could help them to correctly identify the
sponsor of the property. In support of Hypotheses 1& 2, the results of the study have also
been supported by the findings of Kim, Ko & James (2011) that consumers’ who were
highly attached to the sports event/team in terms of their relationship quality (trust,
66
commitment, self-connection, and reciprocity) have formed the positive attitude towards
the sponsor brand. In hypothesis3, no correlation has been found between the attendees’
team commitment and their intention to purchase the sponsor brands (Gionee, Llyod &
KF). Mahony et al., (2000) segmented these kinds of fans as latently loyal fans, which
were highly committed towards the team, but at the same time found low behavioral
loyalty for the team sponsors.

For the RCB team, the results of the study have supported the H4, H5 & H6 hypotheses. It
defines that attendees’ of the team established a positive link with the product
knowledgeof sponsor brand (cognitive), and attitude toward the sponsor brand (affective).
The study also noted the positive correlation between the attendees’ attitude toward
sponsor brand and their purchase outcomes. The study results are in line with the
finding of Lacey, Close & Finney (2010), where they found that attendees’ knowledge of
the sponsor brand increased their commitment towards the sponsor brand, which could
also positively impact their purchase intention. The results of the study have also been
supported by Biscaia et al. (2013), which confirmed that attendees’ awareness of the
sponsor brand impacted positively their brand attitude and purchase intention, when they
identified the attitudinal loyalty with the team. Finally, for hypothesis (H6) the study
established a positive relationship between the attendees’ product knowledge of the
sponsor’s brand and their purchase intentions, in case of all the sponsors of the team
Gionee, Llyod and KF. It means the attendee's involvement and attachment to the team
increases their knowledge about the sponsors of the team, which impacted their purchase
intention.
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) RCB TEAM, 3rd OB
Firstly, the data was analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by adopting principal
component analysis and varimax rotation method (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2010).In the model, six factors were identified with the help of the principal
component matrix,
which had eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960). The variation rotation

technique was used to rotate the extracted factor.s


Therefore, the six factors were

determined with 21 items retained. These factors were labeled Team-Sponsor Congruence,

Sports Activeness, Team involvement, Team image, Attitude toward Team and purchase
67
intention. Finally, the decision about the factors and items were taken on the
followingbasis:
1. The factors had an eigenvalue equal to or larger than 1.0.
2. The items with factor loading greater than 0.40 were retained and no cross-loadings
were observed.
3. The factors and items were interpretable.
4. The factors had at least two items.

Table
Sampling Adequacy (RCB Team, 3rd OB Models)
Sponsors KMO BTS Variance
Gionee (RCB) .81 .000 81.66
Lloyd (RCB) .79 .000 81.52
KF (RCB) .79 .000 81.97
Note: KMO= Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, BTS= Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, Sponsors of RCB
Team = Gionee, Llyod and Kingfisher

For examining the adequacy of the sample size, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (BTS) and
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures were adopted. The value of KMO for all the
sponsors exceeds the cutoff value 0.60, and the value of BTS was less than 0.001 (p
<0.001) indicating that the sample size of the study was appropriate for conducting the
factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The variance of the extracted factors for the
three sponsors has given in the above table.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) RCB Team, 3rd OB The


fitness of the models was measured with the help of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The study has followed the five steps for the conduct of the CFA

recommended byTabachnick and Fidell (2001). The steps were; (1) model specification;
(2) modelidentification; (3) model estimation; (4) model fit; and (5) model re-
specification. All the indexes of the models were analyzed such as Parsimonious Fit
Index, Comparative FitIndex (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Normed Fit Index
(NFI), Incremental Fit Index(IFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA). With the help of thebehavior towards the sponsor’s brand (Madrigal, 2000).
In this study, the researcher used event-sponsor congruence, sports activeness, and event
involvement constructs to know the attendees’ image towards the event and used the
event image as a mediator to find outits impact on their attitude towards the event, and
their purchase intention of the sponsor of the event. The study has taken the event Indian
68
Premier League (IPL), and the main sponsor of the event VIVO as a sponsor for the
research purposes.
The study has rejected its first hypothesis, in which no relation was found between
attendees’ event-sponsor congruence and their event image. The result of the study is in
line with the finding of Becker-Olsen and Simmons (2002), that if the event and the
sponsor are not fitted with each other than this could affect the attitude and opinion of the
participants towards the sponsoring brand and this also affects their affective and
behavioral intentions. The study supported the second Hypothesis. It means the attendees’
of the event were very much enthusiastic about the game of cricket, and it impacted
favorably their event image (Close et al. 2006). The study also supported the Hypothesis
3rd, 4th & 5th. It means the attendees’ who were involved with the event have a positive
image about the event. The study here backed with the similar findings by Bachleda,
Fakhar, & Elouazzani (2015), where the attendees’ involvement in the game favorably
impacted their image and attitude towards the sponsor brand (Ko, Kim, Kim, & Lee,
2010). The study supported the (H4) hypothesis and found the positive association between
the event image and attendees’ attitude towards event and the sponsor brand. The similar
results have been found in the studies conducted by Speed & Thompson, 2000; Gwinner,
Larson & Swanson, 2009; Wakefield & Bennett, 2010; & Kim, Ko & James, 2011. These
researchers also measured the positive attitude of the fans’/spectators toward the event by
using the different constructs and theories. The study supported the (H5) hypothesis for the
sponsor VIVO. It means an attendees’ positive attitude toward the event make a favorable
impact on their purchase intention of the sponsor brand. The study also supported the last
hypothesis (H6) of the study.

Here the study results have been matched with the findings of Javlgi et al., (1994) that
consumer’s sponsorship knowledge can enhance the corporate image of the company, but
the sponsorship could give the benefit to those companies which consumers had a prior
positive image. Otherwise, the sponsorship could damage the image of the companies if the
consumers think negatively about them.

69
CHAPTER – 5
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS ANDFUTURE SCOPE OF
THE STUDY

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

Nowadays, companies are using sponsorship as a marketing tool to reach their target
customers and to improve the brand image of their products. This study is the first of its
kind, which has taken simultaneously more than one team of the tournament and also
considered three sponsors of each team for its research purposes. By collecting the actual
data from the respondents of the home teams, who were available on the ground, the study
provided the useful thoughts about attendees’ commitment towards their home team, for the
sponsoring firms, those are investing a huge amount of money on these IPL teams. The
current study provides useful thoughts to the managers and vendors of the companies to
improve the marketing strategies of their firms.
The results of the study have provided the actual picture of the Indian fans’ team
commitment to the sponsoring brands. The people of India are big fans of the game of
cricket and the success of the IPL for the last ten years has also verified that thing. After
analyzing the collected information from two different regions of India and getting the
positive relationship between attendees’ team commitment and their sponsorship outcomes
(cognitive, affective & behavioral), the study forms, some implications for the sports
managers that if they should emphasize certain factors before drafting their marketing
strategies, they would get better results than the earlier sponsorships.
The research findings have confirmed that if the event managers establish a liaison
between the sponsors and the team, it sends a positive signal to the attendees’ which would
also be helpful to transfer the image of the outcome of the sponsor brand. The attendees’
team association has a positive impact on their attitude and behavioural intentions towards
the sponsor’s brand. From the managerial point of sight, it has been important to know the
perception of the target market about the team, so that the firm could use a positive image
of the team to achieve their brand positioning goals. The results of the study describe that,
when firms make a decision to invest in any event, they should first analyze the identified
level of the fans with their sponsoring brand. The managers of the firms must have the

70
knowledge about the predictors (i.e. Compatibility between the sponsored property and
firms, brand, fans’ perception regarding the team and its sponsors, and fans’ knowledge
and awareness about the team and its sponsors), which can influence the sponsor brand and
also impact their sponsorship effectiveness. This thought has also supported by the
results of the related study on IPL by Gupta, Naik, & Arora in 2013. In their study, they
checked the prominence and the relatedness level of 119 sponsors of the IPL from
different industries and advised the brand managers that before investing in sport
sponsorship, firstly, they had to check the fit between the industry and the sport in account
of their target customers rather than competing with the competitor’s sponsorship
investment.
In case of multiple sponsorships, the role of event managers becomes more difficult than
how they should design their firms polices, so they should be able to tap the larger
number of target customers and influence their attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. For
achieving this thing, the managers should know the thinking or perception of the attendees
about the team and their sponsored brand. As per our findings, if the attendees’ feel
knowledgeable about the team sponsored brands, they could generate the positive feeling
about the sponsored brand and this will help them to make the purchase decisions. So the
marketers should choose to sponsor only those teams with which they share either a
functional or an image fit. Because the fit between the sponsor and the team also impacted
those fans/attendees who are less involved with the team. In this study, the attendees’
association with the team affected positively their thinking towards the sponsor’s brand
and also their buying decisions.
The managers should also draw their approach in this way, that attendees feel attached to
the team and the brand (i.e. Maybe make team-brand fraternity club, provide team
merchandise on discounted rates by mail orders, communicate with the fans on social
media, etc.) and see the brand as a sincere partner for its team. The managers should
develop the positive belief of their product by using the leveraging and activation strategies
also. The hypotheses of the study substantiate that thing and highlight the distinct character
of the Indian fans that, forgetting the positive behavioral outcomes, the attendees’ of the
teams must have the knowledge of the specific sponsoring brands and they must feel
favorable about that certain class of products. To maximize the value of sponsorship, both
the sponsor and the event managers must have the full understanding of the variables that
affected attendees’ team association and their product knowledge. In this regard,
managers need to understand how much attendee’s involvement and identification with the
71
team, and sponsor’s marketing communication helped to establish a link between the team
and the sponsor. This knowledge can help companies to plan their sponsorship decisions
according to the target group’s involvement level.
This study has established a positive association of different constructs of team association
(team-sponsor congruence, team identification, and team involvement) with attendees’
product knowledge which again impacted sponsored entity’s brand image and behavioural
outcomes. So, it is essential for the managers and companies to link their brand with an
event or team that constitutes a part of attendees’ extended self. It is unlikely that attendees
of an event feel passionate towards a product and generate strong feelings about the team
with which they are affiliated. This would help the companies to determine their target
market in terms of brand awareness and image transfer. They should weigh the factors
affecting sponsorship success and incorporate those elements into their preparation
process. For the success of sponsorship, advertising has emerged as an essential tool. The
event directors have seen sponsorship as a part of the corporate communication mix. Thus,
the event managers should communicate and convince the customers; especially those who
are being extremely involved with the team about the team-sponsor fit.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Although this study has provided the useful insights to understand the concept of sports
sponsorship in terms of Indian fans’ commitment and their sponsorship outcomes, still
certain limitations has existed, which can be improved in the future researches.
First, the study has considered only three teams for the research purposes out of the eight
teams playing in the IPL. It means the results of the survey have only been applicable to
the attendees’ of these three teams. In this way, the report lacks the generalizability of the
results, which can be refined further by taking more teams into consideration and also
applied this model to other sponsored events.
Second, due to the time constraint and the broadness of the questionnaire, this study has
taken only three sponsors of each team for the study. But in the IPL event, each team has
multiple sponsors. In this study, we have not checked the impact of one sponsor on another
sponsor. So in future studies, we can check how the strategies of the one sponsor could
influence the buying decision of attendees’ for the other sponsoring brand.Third, in this
study, the researchers have measured the impact of certain variables on attendees’
sponsorship outcomes. But in the sports sponsorship, literature, there are other factors (team
success, team personality, sports scandals, sport team brand equity, fan engagement, event
72
management, event commercialization etc.) existed, which may influence the attendees’
cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes. So in the future researches, the researchers
should try to find out the other elements, which can influence the attendees’ sponsorship
outcomes in a better way.
The last limitation of the study is that this had taken only the views of the attendees’ which
were present on the ground. But, the views of the managers of the sponsoring brands were
also important, which had not been considered in the study. So if the researchers
include the remarks of both the attendees’ and the managers than the research provides
better results, which will be used by the managers in their future sponsorship deals.
In the end, this study has made an earnest effort to provide a clear picture of the Indian
fans’ sponsorship outcomes. Now, it should be easy for the sponsoring firms to design
their marketing strategy in the Indian environment. They should decide about those
predictors, which would help them to improve their sponsorship effectiveness. This study
also contributes toward strengthening the relationship across the team/event (IPL) and it
sponsors. It also aims to provide useful thoughts to the managers for their future
sponsorship deals. The analyses of the actual sponsors of the actual teams provide
vital cues for the future research and improve our understanding of sponsorship in
organized and professional sports.

73
REFERENCES:
Bachleda. C, Fakhar. A, & Elouazzani. Z. (2016). Quantifying the effect of sponsor
awareness and image on the sports involvement-purchase intention relationship. Sport
Management Review, 19, 293-305.
Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2003). And now, a word from our sponsor: A look at the effects of
sponsored content and banner advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32 (2), 17-32.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Simmons, C. J. (2002). When Do Social Sponsorships Enhance Or
Dilute Equity? Fit, Message Source, and the Persistence of Effects. Advances in
Consumer Research, 29, 287-289.
Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, A. F., Ross, S. D., & Maroco, J. (2013). Sport
sponsorship: The relationship between team loyalty, sponsorship awareness, attitude
toward the sponsor, and purchase intentions. Journal of Sport Management, 27 (4),
288–302.
Close, A. G., Finney, R. Z., Lacey, R. Z., & Sneath, J. Z. (2006). Engaging the consumer
through event marketing: Linking attendees with the sponsor, community, and
brand. Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (4), 420-433.
Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The Psychological Continuum Model: A Conceptual
Framework for Understanding an Individual's Psychological Connection to Sport.
Sport Management Review, 4 (2), 119-150.
Garland, R., Charbonneau, J., & Macpherson, T. (2008). Measuring sport sponsorship
effectiveness: links to existing behavior. Innovative Marketing, 4 (1), 46-51.
Gupta, A., Naik, A. Y., & Arora, N. (2013). Mapping Sponsorship-linked Marketing in
Indian Premier League. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 2 (1), 61-72.
Gwinner, K. P., Larson, B. V., & Swanson, S. R. (2009). Image transfer in corporate event
sponsorship: Assessing the impact of team identification and event-sponsor fit.
International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 2 (1), 1-16.
Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The impact of brand cohesiveness and sport
identification on brand fit in a sponsorship context. Journal of Sport Management,
22, 410-426.
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. (2003). A Model of Fan Identification: Antecedents and
Sponsorship Outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 275-294.

Herrmann, J-L., Kacha, M., & Derbaix, C. (2015). I support your team, support me in turn!
Journal of Business Research, http://dxdoi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.016.

74
Hoek, R. (1999). From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 4 (3), 129-135.
Javlagi, R., Traylor, M., Cross, A., & Lampman, E. (1994). Awareness of sponsorship and
corporate image: An empirical investigation. Journal of Advertising, 34, 47-58.
Karanfil, F. (2017). An empirical analysis of European football rivalries based on on-field
performances. Sport Management Review, 20(5), 468–482.
Kim, K. Y., Ko, J. Y., & James, J. (2011). The impact of relationship quality on attitude
toward a sponsor. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26 (8), 566–576.
Kim, Y. K., & Trail, G. (2010). Constraints and motivators: A new model to explain sport
consumer behaviour. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 190–210.
Ko. Y. J., Kim, Y. K., Kim, K. M., & Lee, H. J. (2010). The role of involvement and
identification on event quality perceptions and satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, 22 (1), 25–39.
Lacey, R., Close, A. G., & Finney, R. Z. (2010). The Pivotal roles of product knowledge
and corporate social responsibility in event sponsorship effectiveness, Journal of
Business Research, 63, 1222-1228.
Madrigal, R. (2000). The influence of social alliances with sports team on intention to
purchase corporate sponsor's products. Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 13-24.
Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. A. (2000). Using the psychological
commitment to team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty.
Sport Marketing Quarterly 9(1), 15-25.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238.
Wakefield, K.L., Bennett, G. (2010). Affective intensity and sponsor
identification. Journal of Advertising, 39 (3): 99-111.

75
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaker, D. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13 (4).

Anderson, J, C., & Gerbing, D, W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-
423

Atkearney Foundation, The sport market: Major trends and challenges in an industry
full of passion (URL://http://www.atkearney.com) assessed April, 2015.

Bachleda, C., Fakhar, A., & Elouazzani, Z. (2016). Quantifying the effect of sponsor
awareness and image on the sports involvement-purchase intention relationship.
Sport Management Review, 19, 293-305.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental
designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 271-284.

Bal, C., Quester, P., & Plewa, C. (2010). Emotions and sponsorship: A key to global

effectiveness? A comparative study of Australia and France. Asia Pacific


Journalof Marketing and Logistics, 22 (1), 40-54.

Barez, A., Manion, M. T., Schoepfer, K. L., & Cherian, J. (2007). Global cases of
effective sports sponsorship: An exploration of a new communications model.
Innovative Marketing, 3 (3), 69-77.

Bashiri, M., Seyed-Ameri, M., Moharramzadeh, M., & Hadi, H. (2010). Evaluation of
sport sponsorship: An element of sport marketing mix. International Review of
Business Research, 6 (1), 57-74.

BCCI. (2012-2013). Annual report, The board of control for cricket in India, Mumbai, 83-
88.

BCCI. (2015-2016). Annual Report, The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai,
134-139.

Beaton, A. A., Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L., & Jordan, J. (2011). Sport involvement: A

conceptual and empirical analysis. Sport Management Review, 14 (2), 126-140.

Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2003). And now, a word from our sponsor: A look at the effects of
sponsored content and banner advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32 (2), 17-32.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Simmons, C. J. (2002). When Do Social Sponsorships Enhance Or


Dilute Equity? Fit, Message Source, and the Persistence of Effects. Advances in

76
Consumer Research, 29, 287-289.

Bennett, R. (1999). Sports sponsorship, spectator recall and false Consensus. European
Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 291-313.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation models. Psychological


Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 16 (1).

Bhat, V. (2012). Brand IPL comes under a cloud. Business Standard. Retrieved from
http://www.businessstandard.com/article/management/brand-ipl-comes-under- acloud-
112060102003_1.html, August, 2016.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M.A. (1995). Understanding the bond of
identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of
Marketing, 59 (4), 46−57.

Bibby, D. N. (2011). Sponsorship portfolio as brand image creation strategies: A


commentary eassy. Journal of Business Research, 64, 628-630.

Bigger gains set for 2011,” (January 4), available at www.sponsorship.com/extra/iegsr/

Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, A. F., Ross, S. D., & Maroco, J. (2013). Sport
sponsorship: The relationship between team loyalty, sponsorship awareness, attitude
toward the sponsor, and purchase intentions. Journal of Sport Management, 27 (4), 288–
302.

Bloch, P H., Sherrell, D. L., and Ridgway, N. M. (1989). Product knowledge scale. In
marketing scale handbook : A compilation of multi-item measures, G. Bruner II and
P. Hensel, eds. Chicago, lL: American Marketing Association.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor
analysis models. In K.G. J¨oreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect
observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part I, pp. 149–173). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.

77
Appendix

Questionnaire

Dear Respondent,

I would be grateful if you could spare some of your time to respond to thefollowing

Questions. Your response will be treated as confidential and would only be usedfor the

Purpose of study
Part-1

1. Name of the respondent

2. Email Id

3. Contact No.

4. Age:-------

5. Gender

a. Male

b. Female

78
6. What is your annual income?

a. Less than 1.5 lac

b. 1.51 lac to 5 lac

c. More than 5 lac

7. Do you play cricket?

a. Actively

b. Use to play/ irregular

c. Just watch

PART-2

Constructs Questionnaire items

Team-Sponsor Congruence (7 Point Scale)

TSC 1. The image of the team and the image of the sponsor are similar.TSC 2. The

sponsor and the team fit well together.

79
TSC 3. It makes sense to me that this brand sponsors this team.Sports Activeness (7

Point Scale)

SA 1. I passionately support the IPL cricket teams SA 2. I love the IPL

cricket teams

SA 3. I passionately follow cricket teams playing in the IPLTeam Involvement

(7 Point Scale)

TINV 1. When someone criticizes the () team, it feels like a personal insult to me.TINV 2. I am very

interested in what others think about the () team

TINV 3. When I talk about the team (), I prefer saying ‘WE’ rater than “THEY’TINV 4. The ()

team successes are my successes

TINV 5. When someone praises the () team, it feels like a personal compliment tome

Team Identification (7 Point Scale) TID 1. The () team is

important to me

TID 2. I like to engage with () team in IPL TID 3. Team ()

means a lot to me

80
Psychological Commitment to Team (7 Point Scale)

PCT 1. I would watch a game featuring my favorite team regardless of whichteam they

Are playing

PCT 2. The team successes are my successes

PCT 3. Being a fan of my favorite team is important to me PCT 4. Nothing could

change my loyalty to my favorite team PCT 5. I am a committed fan of my

favorite team

PCT 6. It would not affect my loyalty to my favorite team if management hired ahead

Coach that I dislike most

PCT 7. I have been a fan of my favorite team once I began watching IPL PCT 8. It would be

difficult to change my beliefs about my favorite teamTeam Image (7 Point Scale)

TI 1. The () team reminds me of who I am

TI 2. The () team image and my self-image are similar in a lot of waysTI 3. The () team

and I have a lot in common

81
Attitude towards Team (7 Point Scale)ATT 1. Bad

----------------------------------- Good

ATT 2. Dislike --------------------Like

ATT 3. Unpleasant -------------------- Pleasant

ATT 4. Unfavorable ------------------- Favorable

Event Image (7 Point Scale)

EI 1. The () event reminds me of who I am

EI 2. The () event image and my self-image are similar in a lot of waysEI 3. The () event

and I have a lot in common


Rivalry

RI 1. The () team has a tough rivals

RI 2. The () team often beats their biggest opponents RI 3. The () team

does well against their major rivalsSocial Interaction

SI 1. The () team offers me a place to spend time with friends

SI 2. Being a fan of the () team is a good way to meet other people

82
SI 3. I am able to see friends because of the () team SI 4. The ()

team provides a good place to see friendsCommitment

COM 1. I am a loyal fan of () team COM 2. I

regularly follow the () teamTeam History

TH 1. The () team has a history of winning TH 2.

The () team has a rich history

TH 3. The () team has been successful in the past TH 4. The

() team has no history behind them (RO)Team Success

TS 1. The () team is not very successful (RO)TS 2. The

() team is a great team

TS 3. The () team is not very high quality (RO)TS 4. The

() team has high quality players

83
TS 5. The performance of the () team is first class Team

Play

TP 1. The () team has a clear personality (dedicated, hardworking)TP 2. The

() team has a distinct quality (intensity, commitment)

TP 3. The () team has unique characteristics (trusted, responsiveness)Purchase

Intension (7 Point Scale)

PI 1. Unlikely --------------------- Likely

PI 2. Impossible -------------------Possible

PI 3. Improbable ------------------ Probable

84

You might also like