The Impact of Consumer Perceptions of

Amateurism in Collegiate Athletics

By: Annie Christie

Spring 2016
Advisor: Dr. Andrew Perkins, Associate Professor of Marketing,
Department of Marketing and International Business

Prcis
Since its formation in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has
held a significant place in governing intercollegiate athletic competitions and the athletes who
participate in them. Now with over 1200 schools, multiple conferences, and countless affiliates
collectively involved in intercollegiate athletics and more than $1 billion in yearly revenues, it is
an organization that must balance its founding principle the amateurism of student athletes
with continued growth and media exposure. In recent years, however, a significant controversy
has arisen which questions the continued treatment of these student athletes as amateurs while
university athletic department and NCAA revenues continue to rise. In studying this topic, we
hoped to determine if consumers views of amateurism have an effect on their support for NCAA
teams.
The current thesis first examines the evolution of amateurism in the NCAA during its
150-year history, focusing specifically on major reform efforts to improve the organization and
its standards for amateurism. Next, the thesis looks to empirically assess the effect that the
evolving definition of amateurism has on consumer perceptions of student athletes as well as the
impact of these perceptions on NCAA athletic team brands.
Data from our study demonstrates that consumer perceptions of amateurism have a
significant effect on brand evaluations and connections. In addition, the perception of NCAA
athletes as students first was shown to improve consumers overall attitudes and satisfaction
following the attendance of an NCAA athletic event. Overall, the study concludes that as the
marketing of collegiate athletics continues to evolve in this technological era, NCAA teams
should consider the impact of the portrayal of their athletes as they develop marketing and
promotional plans for their brands. As such, it is advised that future research in this area should

focus specifically on the most effective methods to achieve this portrayal of student athletes as
amateurs first and foremost.

Tables of Contents
Prcis

Introduction

Historical Analysis of Amateurism in NCAA Athletics

Understanding the Downstream Effects of Consumer Perceptions of Amateurism 15

Methodology

18

Results

19

Discussion

23

References

25

Appendix A

27

Appendix B

28

Introduction.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the most significant governing body
in collegiate athletics, believes that amateurism is the core value that underlies the relationship
between college sports and student athletic participation. However, a significant controversy
exists in college athletics, with many observers arguing that student athletes should not be treated
as amateurs due to the fact that many top university athletic programs are significant revenue
generators. These observers point to the growth of such athletic programs as brands, with
merchandising, ticket sales, and revenues tied directly to the athletic endeavors of the
universitys student athletes. A significant source of this revenue is the multi-million dollar
television contracts signed by athletic conferences across the country. Fans of these collegiate
teams are especially committed, travelling with the team to road games and advertising their
loyalty by wearing branded clothes and buying branded products. Fans consume media related to
their favorite teams as well: for example, the University of Alabama, the 2015 College Football
Playoff Champions, has more Twitter followers (430,00 and counting) than the professional
football team LA Rams (Twitter.com, 2016).
Many consider this kind of intense support for a university athletic team as the beauty of
college athletics. The ever-changing landscape of athletic conferences and constant turnover of
athletes creates an evolving relationship with fans. In many ways, university athletic departments
benefit from this support because it allows them to provide consumers with on-brand information
about their teams and athletes. But, such constant exposure to adoring fans and often harsh critics
for athletes that are generally no more than twenty-two years old also raises questions for these
athletic departments about the most effective, yet ethical methods to market their teams. Despite

college athletic brands trending towards marketing habits similar to professional teams, there is
little research to suggest that these practices are beneficial for their programs.
The current thesis uses a multi-method approach to examine the impact of fans
perceptions of amateurism in NCAA athletics. First, a historical analysis was conducted to
explore the evolution of amateurism and the NCAA throughout the 150 years of the
organizations history. This historical analysis focuses specifically on the efforts to reform and
improve the NCAA and its standards for the required amateurism of student athletes. Second,
primary research was conducted to empirically assess the effect that the evolving definition of
amateurism has on consumer perceptions of student athletes as well as the impact of these
perceptions on NCAA athletic team brands.

Historical Analysis of Amateurism in NCAA Athletics

Traditionally, college athletics are meant to strike a balance between the importance of
success in competition and success in the classroom. Scholarship athletes involved in college
sports are recognized by the NCAA as students first, and thus as amateurs. In its most basic form,
an amateur is defined as one who lacks experience or competence and engages in the pursuit of a
pastime rather than as a profession (Merriam-Webster, 2015). However, the NCAA defines an
amateur in much greater detail and requires that an amateur student athlete meet several
stipulations. As part of the recruiting process, prospective student athletes are required to
complete an amateurism certification process in order to guarantee their eligibility as an amateur
student athlete. (NCAA, 2015). The NCAAs amateurism requirements do not allow for contracts
with professional teams, salary for participating in athletics, prize money above actual and
necessary expenses, play with professionals, tryouts, practice or competition with a professional

team, benefits from an agent or prospective agent, or delayed initial full-time college enrollment
to participate in an organized sports competition.
Intercollegiate athletics have faced questions pertaining to amateurism and its definition
dating back to the second official athletic competition, a rematch of the now famous Harvard
versus Yale crew race that took place in 1859 (Kennedy, 2001). Both of the competing teams
questioned the eligibility of the others athletes. At the time, it was unclear the time period in
which the athletes had attended or graduated from their respective universities (Smith, 2011).
However, in the early years of intercollegiate athletics, reform efforts were left to the students to
work through as these competitions had been organized by the students themselves. By 1900,
there were intercollegiate athletic contests in rifle, lacrosse, basketball, golf, trapshooting,
bicycling, tennis, boxing, polo, cross-country, fencing, ice hockey, water polo, swimming, and
gymnastics. Despite the large growing number of athletic competitions, students created and
enforced the rules that attempted to establish a fair playing field for all participants. However,
academic integrity, and the issues that it might bring, was rarely taken into consideration (Smith
2011).
Many of the questions surrounding fairness and intercollegiate athletics were raised because
of competitions between Yale and Harvard, arguably the two most established and successful
universities in the United States at the time. Reform efforts soon began to establish who exactly
could compete in contests between the two universities as students tried to answer specific
questions about participation. For example, should students from Yale Scientific school be
allowed to compete? Should Harvard be allowed to use graduate students in Harvard law,
medical, and divinity schools? Should graduates of one institution be allowed to compete for
another university? Should professional coaches be allowed? Despite the establishment of

answers to these questions that, today, seem rather trivial because of the strict rules enforced by
the NCAA, more difficult questions arose due to disputes within new sporting events between
new universities.
By 1905 intercollegiate athletics were wrought with scandal and collusion. The media thrived
around the questionable ethics surrounding college athletics, now considered to be popular and
public sports. Stories of win-at-all-cost behavior, athletes hired to play sports, cheating in the
classroom, the building of costly stadiums, the commercialization of college sports, and the
overwhelming brutality of college football covered the newsstands on a daily basis. Football had
become so gloriously brutal that the death of players because of illegal big hits wasnt an
uncommon occurrence (Smith, 2011). It was because of these tragic stories that President
Theodore Roosevelt invited the Big Three universities- Harvard, Yale, and Princeton- to the
White House to discuss the ethics of football and this brutal play. Roosevelt, known by many as
a progressive reformer was eager to enter the arena of college athletics which was considered by
most as one ready and in need of change (New York Times, 1909). In this meeting, Roosevelt
and the University representatives drafted a memorandum obligating schools to compete under
the letter and spirit of the rules of the game of football. The group believed that if the Big Three
universities agreed to this that it would create a trickle-down effect of sorts among the rest of the
universities in the United States. They were wrong in believing this as no such effect was
realized. All parties were more than discouraged because President Roosevelt, who had won a
Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a peace treaty between Russia and Japan in 1905, could not
bring a solution to the necessary reforms for collegiate football (Smith, 2011).
It wasnt until the brutality and dangers of participating became too widespread to ignore that
major universities held a conference to discuss what they could do to combat these problems.

Thus, the Intercollegiate Athletic Association, which would go on to be renamed what we now
know as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, was formed in 1905 (Miranda, 2012).
Despite this major win for reform in collegiate athletics, most parties involved agreed that the
NCAA was founded in an effort to deal with issues in college football. It had no particular focus
on how college athletics fit into the greater picture of higher education- something that many
might argue is still the case to this day. And, reform in the early years of the organization was
slowed significantly by the reluctance in participation of larger, more prestigious universities
who had been so key in its formation. Most feared giving up the power that they had come to
know since the creation of college athletics. This reluctance stalled the answering of important
questions such as who was eligible to compete and how these rules would be enforced. For the
first half century of the NCAAs existence, there were no national eligibility rules enacted by the
organization (Smith, 2011).
Despite its inability to provide clear legislation, the NCAA served as an important debate
forum for the problems of intercollegiate athletics. At the very least, the NCAA moved to create
a uniform set of guidelines that conferences could adhere to, a small step forward for the time.
The original objective of the NCAA was the regulation and supervision of collegiate athletics in
the United States so that they could be maintained on an ethical plane in keeping with the
dignity and high purpose of education. (Smith, 2011) Despite their lack of legislative power, the
inclusion of education as a part of their duties was a clear step forward in the discussion of the
relationship between athletics and higher education.
Following the conclusion of World War I, collegiate athletics saw a period of intense
growth that led to the creation of what many consider the most significant reform document in
intercollegiate athletics history, the 1929 Carnegie Report on American College Athletics. The

10

major topic of this report centered around one question that is still heavily debated in the media
today: how can amateur sports be achieved if one must pay highly for a professional coach who
can bring spectators into the stands to pay for the costs of the team? (Smith, 2011) Universities
struggled with the idea of funding the fielding teams of supposed amateur athletes using their
own budgets without the help of commercial dollars. The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Technology studied hundreds of American universities from around the country
to assemble its report, American College Athletics. When released on October 24, 1929, the
report dug so deeply into the controversial spending on collegiate athletics that the stock market
crashed that day- a sign of the significant power held by the financing of college sports. The
report questioned recruiting practices, part-time employment of athletes, the degree of faculty
control over athletics, and the salaries of coaches in comparison to those of university professors.
It is hard to ignore the parallels between issues faced almost a century ago regarding
amateurism and reform efforts and those that the NCAA still faces in the present day. A simple
internet search of issues in the NCAA yields a myriad of articles and reports discussing the
latest recruiting scandals and academic ineligibility issues. In 2016, the University of Louisville
Mens Basketball program imposed a self-ban for any post-season play to serve as punishment
for allegations of violations involving the hiring of escorts for potential recruits (ESPN, 2016).
The highly-publicized scandal has brought up yet another issue centered around the punishing of
student-athletes for infractions theoretically committed by the university and the programs
coaches. Dick Vitale, a well known basketball commentator, spoke out on his disagreement with
the self-imposed penalty stating My thoughts on Louisville situation is that innocent kids ala
Damian Lee/Trey Lewis get penalized 4 things they had zero to do with #UNFAIR (Vitale,
2016). Vitale raised the important point because Louisville coach Rick Pitino was a part of

11

creating the self-imposed ban but it is likely he will return to the university next year to continue
to coach the team. If amateurism and ethical practices in college athletics are really a founding
cornerstone of the NCAA, how do situations like this continue to play out in favor the coaches
and universities rather than the student athletes themselves?
One former college president, James Duderstadt of the University of Michigan, explained
that, for most college sports, academic priorities dominate athletic ambitions. Those who
participate in sports such as swimming, gymnastics, softball, and crew are no doubt remarkably
talented athletes but they are recognized, first and foremost, as students first and athletes second.
It is in football and basketball that things have become commercialized and professionalized
which had lead to changing in priorities for student-athletes (Duderstadt, 2000). He raises the
point that the University of Michigan, despite being widely regarded as one of the finest
academic institutions in the world, is thought of as football school first. The intense media
coverage of the hiring of former Michigan golden boy Jim Harbaugh as the Wolverines new
head coach only serves to reinforce this point. Duderstadt explains that college sports permeate
these university communities as their culture revolves around these events, season by season.
Alumni are bound to their institution by the common experience of returning each year for a
football weekend or attending a bowl game and that, as an academic, he constantly faced the
question of whether the quasi-professional nature of college sports was consistent with the
universitys academic purpose (Duderstadt, 2000).
While Duderstadt is a proponent of radical reform of the NCAA and college athletics, he
is not alone in his opinions that the actions of the NCAA are often misguided. Former NCAA
Executive Director Dick Schultz was quoted in saying that If you ask the average person what
his perception of college athletics is, hell tell you four things: Colleges make millions of dollars

12

at the expense of the college athletes; all coaches cheat; athletes never graduate; and all athletes
are drug addicts (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 7). While these views are seemingly exaggerated it is
important to not that even as a former leader of the governing body of collegiate athletics,
Schultz believed the public perceived that university athletic departments profit at the expense of
their athletes. This perception is a cornerstone in the arguments dealing with the true nature of
amateurism and the NCAA.
Much of the expanded media coverage and exposure of NCAA athletics is due to a 1984
Supreme Court ruling which stated that the NCAAs limitation on the broadcasting of football
games amounted to restraint of trade and thus violated antitrust statutes. Following this ruling,
conferences began to negotiate their own television rights contracts. This ruling also led to a deal
in which CBS agreed to pay $1 billion for the exclusive rights to televise the NCAA basketball
tournament, a major milestone in the rise of the commercial value of sports. In 1999 this deal
rose in value as CBS agreed to pay $6 billion over an eleven-year period ($550 million per year)
for exclusive coverage of the event (Duderstadt, 2000). In 2014, revenue from this event was up
to $700 million per year (Berkowitz, 2015).
In addition to the ability to negotiate their own television contracts, major conferencesand even individual universities such as the University of Texas with its Longhorn Networkbegan to develop and launch their own television networks. The Big 10 Network televised more
sporting events than any professional league, including professional basketball, football, and
baseball. (Duderstadt, 2000). However, it can be argued that these networks cover more than one
school or team and more than one sport, which essentially evens the playing fields. Often, they
televise less popular athletic events that might not otherwise be picked up by a major sports
network. Critics argue that these intense television contracts have caused universities to

13

completely restructure their schedules to accommodate networks, with events sometimes

beginning after midnight. College football and basketball schedules are often so sporadic that
athletes cannot take a full load of courses during their season and instead have to make up these
credits during the summertime when they are not required to be in school. Student athletes are
often pushed towards softer majors that require less intense courses and devotion of their time
towards studying. Duderstadt argues that this furthers the isolation of student athletes from their
peers because it bolsters the stereotype of dumb jocks. (Duderstadt, 2000) Perhaps this is a sign
that the movement away from amateurism and student first athletes could actually be
detrimental for university athletic department brands. To fight this, he calls for reform of the
complex eligibility rules and a move towards need-based scholarships rather than performancebased, a system already adopted by the Ivy League to de-emphasize sports.
In the early years of college athletics, sports were organized, funded and ran by the
students who participated in them. Because of this most NCAA Division I universities consider
their athletic departments as auxiliary activities that are responsible for generating most of the
revenue to cover their costs through ticket sales, licensing, and broadcasting contracts
(Duderstadt, 2000). This has led the commercialization of NCAA athletics, specifically football
and basketball, to take a step further. University athletic departments now often turn to corporate
sponsorship deals established between universities and companies, either national or local, to
provide key funding dollars. Athletic departments have official providers of beer, athletic
apparel, pizza, sandwiches, etc. If there is a product or opening available for sponsorship, it is
likely that the department will pursue it. While much of this sponsorship money goes towards the
funding necessary to put on athletic events, many argue that it is unfair that athletic departments

14

garner sponsorships but the athletes competing cannot pursue any kind of sponsorship deals
themselves.

Understanding the Downstream Effects of Consumer Perceptions of Amateurism

If the NCAA and its member institutions plan to continue to hinge their organization on
the foundation of amateurism, it is key that student athletes a term coined by NCAA director
Walter Byers in a creative public relations move in the 1950s in order to thwart universities from
awarding workmens compensation to athletes remain students first and athletes second (Smith,
2011). However, lack of research on the subject of amateurism has left little data to determine if
this is the most profitable stance for the NCAA to take, despite the fact that its yearly revenue
continues to ascend past $1 billion (Berkowitz, 2015). More importantly, there is little research
examining whether or not this is the best position for the collegiate teams themselves. Do
consumers views of amateurism have an effect on their support for NCAA teams? Can
perceptions of amateurism have a significant effect on their satisfaction with attending NCAA
athletic events? If so, is it likely that this effect is beneficial or detrimental? It is these questions
that the current thesis addresses.
From the standpoint of collegiate athletic departments, understanding their consumers is
an imperative facet of success. Such an understanding allows for the development of positive
brand associations and the effective use of resources in fostering the growth of the brand (Keller,
1993). In the building of a brand, especially in spectator sports such as collegiate athletics, it is
important to understand not only how satisfied consumers are, but why they are satisfied. Athletic
departments are in a better position to reap the benefits of having a loyal, satisfied fan base if
they have an understanding of those factors that have contributed to their customers satisfaction

15

(Funk, 2001). One model used to study consumer satisfaction, the Disconfirmation of
Expectations Model (DEM), operates under the premise that consumers form certain
expectations of product (in this case player or team) performance, observe or experience the
performance, and then form perceptions about the performance. These perceptions are then
compared to their original expectations, which results in one of three outcomes: 1) positive
confirmation results when performance exceeds expectations, 2) negative confirmation results
when performance does not meet expectations, and 3) zero confirmation occurs when
performance equals expectation. Satisfaction is mediated by these three types of disconfirmation
and is positive when performance either meets or exceeds expectations (Van Leeuwen, 2002).
In considering the role of amateurism in regards to the DEM, consumer perceptions of the level
of amateurism of NCAA athletes likely have an effect on the expectations that consumers hold
when evaluating their experience at an NCAA event. Expectations for their overall attitudes and
satisfaction following an event vary depending on how they view NCAA athletes. The more
consumers perceive NCAA athletes as professionals (vs. amateurs) the higher their performance
expectations will be for an NCAA athletic event. Thus, negative disconfirmation of expectations
will occur when their level of expectation is not met. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

H1: Stronger perceptions of NCAA athletes as professional athletes (opposed to amateur

athletes) will be associated with a) lower overall attitudes following NCAA event attendance and
b) lower overall satisfaction with the events attended.

To understand the impact of consumers perceptions of amateurism on consumers brand

attitudes and behavioral intentions the current research looks to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel &

16

Turner, 2010) . Extant research examining the role of social identity theory in sports marketing
demonstrates that consumers not only identify with the products they consume but also with the
organizations or teams with which they associate themselves (Van Leeuwen, 2002). Further, the
work of Murrell and Dietz (1992) measures spectators identification with a university and how
this serves as a contributing factor in fans support of sports teams. One possible factor
contributing towards these higher levels of university identification is the level of in-group/outgroup association between student-athletes and collegiate athletic fans, an association that could
be affected by the fans views on amateurism.
In evaluating consumer perceptions of amateurism, the current research posits that those
who view NCAA athletes as amateurs (vs. professionals) will therefore be more likely to regard
student athletes as being similar to themselves. This stronger in-group association will create a
stronger connection with the athlete and therefore a stronger emotional attachment with the
NCAA team brand. In turn, this emotional brand attachment felt by the consumer leads to
increased brand evaluations. As such, it is hypothesized that:

H2: Stronger perceptions of NCAA athletes as amateur athletes (opposed to professional

athletes) will be associated with a) higher brand attitudes towards NCAA team brands, b) higher
word of mouth intentions towards NCAA team brands, c) increased purchase intentions, and d)
greater brand satisfaction.
H3: The positive effect of consumers perceptions of amateurism on brand evaluations
will be mediated by increased levels of emotional brand attachment.

17

Methodology.
The primary study was designed to examine consumers perceptions of the amateurism of
NCAA athletes and its effect on NCAA brands. Primarily, the survey assessed participants
opinions and beliefs about amateurism, perceptions of their NCAA team, satisfaction with their
NCAA team, and their NCAA athletic event experience and satisfaction with that experience.
Participants were recruited from Amazons Mechanical Turk. The study was open to any mTurk
member in the United States that self-identified as being a fan of at least one NCAA athletics
team.
Participants were first asked a complete series of measures to assess their perception of
NCAA athletes as being amateur (vs. professional) athletes (i.e. to what extent do YOU view
NCAA athletes as being amateur versus professional athletes?) In addition, participants were
asked to assess their perception of NCAA athletes priorities during their time at
college/university (i.e. should athletes be required to complete all educational requirements and
athletic requirements) and their perception of NCAA athletes as students first. Next,
participants were informed that we were interested in their perceptions of an NCAA team that
they follow. They were asked to list any NCAA team that they are a fan of, the university with
which this team is affiliated, the approximate number of wins this team had in the last year (if
they were aware, otherwise this was left blank), and their perception of the teams performance
over the the last year, which was included to control for perceptions of team performance.
The survey then asked participants to complete measures to assess their emotional brand
attachment ( = .92; Thomson et. al, 2005), self-brand connection ( = .91; Escalas & Bettman,
2003; 2005), brand attitudes ( = .93; Batra & Stayman, 1990), satisfaction ( = .95 Fletcher,
Simpson, & Thomas, 2000), word of mouth ( = .90; Fedhorikhin et al., 2008), brand

18

engagement in self-concept ( = .95 Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009), and purchase
intentions ( = .93) of team apparel in relation to the NCAA team they had previously listed.
Next, participants were asked to complete control measures pertaining to other NCAA teams
they support, NCAA teams within fifty miles of their geographic location as well as how much
attention they devote to NCAA athletics and if win/loss records affect their support for NCAA
teams.
The next portion of the study focused on participants experience at NCAA athletic
events. Participants that indicated they have attended an NCAA event in the past completed
dependent variables pertaining to this experience. The first variable utilized a series of measures
to assess participants overall experience at an NCAA sporting event. The second assessed
participants satisfaction with their NCAA athletic event experience. Lastly, participants were
asked to complete a series of questions to gather general demographic information including
gender and age.
Results
301 participants were recruited using Amazons Mechanical Turk to provide a nationallevel demographic and a large range of NCAA teams. The average age of the study participants
was 34.30 years old with 66.4% (200) of the participants identifying as male and 33.6% (101)
identifying as female.
Event Perceptions. Two regression analyses were conducted to examine the effect of
amateurism on consumers perceptions of NCAA events attended. A regression of event
experience on amateurism was significant when controlling for team performance F (2, 244) =
5.721, p < .004. Amateurism was a significant predictor of event experience such that a one-unit
increase in perceptions of amateurism resulted in a .09 unit increase in participants overall
19

attitudes towards their experience at NCAA events, B = .09, t(243) = 2.90, p < .01. Thus, the
results provide evidence to support hypothesis 1A. The more one perceives NCAA athletes as
being students, focused on their education, the more positive their experience was at the NCAA
athletic event.
A regression of event satisfaction on amateurism was significant when controlling for
team performance F (2, 248) = 6.603, p < .01. Amateurism was a significant predictor of event
satisfaction such that a one-unit increase in perceptions of amateurism resulted in a .09 unit
increase in participants event satisfaction, B = .09, t(247) = 2.83, p < .01. In support of
hypothesis 1B, the more one perceives NCAA athletes as being amateur, student first athletes,
the higher their satisfaction with the NCAA athletic event that they attended.
Taken together, examining the effects of amateurism perceptions on event evaluations
suggests that the more one views NCAA athletes as amateur athletes who are, first and foremost,
focused on their duties as a student the more likely they are to be satisfied with an NCAA athletic
event. These findings provide preliminary evidence to support our disconfirmation of
expectations account of consumer experience at NCAA sporting events. Examining these
findings suggests the more one views NCAA athletes as professional (opposed to amateur), the
lower the level of satisfaction with and attitudes towards NCAA events attended. In viewing
student athletes as professionals, consumers create unrealistic expectations for performance, and
thus experience a negative disconfirmation of expectations. Consistent with our theorizing, it is
suggested that the more NCAA athletes are perceived as amateurs, the closer matched their
expectations are to their actual experience at the event. Thus, the detrimental effect of negative
disconfirmation of expectations is mitigated as evidenced by more positive attitudes towards the
event, and higher overall event satisfaction.

20

Next, a series of linear regressions were conducted to examine the effect of amateurism
on each of the brand-specific dependent variables: attitudes towards the brand, likelihood of
spreading positive word of mouth, purchase intentions, and satisfaction with the team.
Attitudes. Regressing attitude towards the brand on amateurism controlling for team
performance resulted in a significant regression equation F (2, 298) = 19.31, p < .001.
Amateurism was a significant predictor of attitude towards the brand such that a one-unit
increase in perceptions of amateurism resulted in a .07 unit increase in positive attitudes towards
the team as a brand, B = .07, t(299) = 2.31, p = .02. As expected, the more one perceives NCAA
athletes as being amateur, student first athletes, the more positive their attitudes towards the
NCAA team brand.
Word of Mouth. Regressing word of mouth on amateurism controlling for team
performance resulted in a significant regression equation, F (2, 298) = 16.64, p < .001.
Amateurism was a marginally significant predictor of word of mouth such that a one-unit
increase in perceptions of amateurism resulted in a .07 unit increase in participants word of
mouth intentions, B = .07, t(299) = 1.87, p = .06. As expected, the more one perceives NCAA
athletes as being amateur, student first athletes, the more likely they are to spread positive
word of mouth messages about the NCAA team brand.
Purchase Intentions. Regressing purchase intentions on amateurism controlling for team
performance did not result in a significant regression equation F (2, 298) = 1.830, p < .162. A
one-unit increase in perceptions of amateurism resulted in a .04 unit increase in participants
purchase intentions however this increase is not significantly different from zero, B = .04, t(299)
= .995, p = .32. The more one perceives NCAA athletes as being amateur, student first athletes,

21

the more positive their purchase intentions towards the NCAA team brand was not a significant
finding.
Regressing satisfaction on amateurism controlling for team performance resulted in a
significant regression equation F (2, 298) = 80.90, p < .001. However, amateurism was not a
significant predictor of satisfaction, B = .00, t(299) = -.081, p = .935. Participants perceptions of
NCAA athletes as being amateur, student first athletes, had no significant effect on their
overall satisfaction with the team when controlling for perceptions of team performance.
Overall, these regression analyses provide partial support for hypothesis 2 that
consumer perceptions of the amateurism of NCAA athletes have a significant effect on attitudes
as well as word of mouth intentions towards NCAA athletic team brands. As expected, the more
consumers view NCAA athletes as being amateur, the more positive their attitudes and the more
likely they are to spread positive word of mouth messages about their NCAA team. However,
results did not provide evidence to suggest that perceptions of amateurism had a significant
direct effect on satisfaction with the team or purchase intentions. Participants view of NCAA
athletes as student first athletes did not significantly effect whether they felt satisfied with their
team or predict whether they would be more likely to purchase team merchandise. Importantly
all effects were consistent when participants perceptions of the teams performance are
controlled for.
Mediator: Emotional Brand Attachment. Next, we conducted a series of mediation
analyses to test whether our effect of amateurism on consumers brand perceptions occurs
indirectly through increased emotional attachment to the NCAA team brand as predicted. Four
separate mediation analyses were conducted using Hayes (2013) PROCESS Model 4 macro
one for each of the four dependent variables. Team performance was once again included as a

22

control variable. As expected, amateurism lead to higher levels of emotional brand attachment, B
= .10, t(299) = 2.57, p < .05, which, in turn, was positively related to 1) attitudes, B = .41, t(299)
= 10.44, p < .001, 2) satisfaction, B = .36, t(299) = 7.43, p < .001, 3) word of mouth, B = .53,
t(299) = 10.60, p < .001, and 4) purchase intentions, B = .51, t(299) = 9.44, p < .001.
Importantly, in each of the four analyses the indirect effect of amateurism on the outcome
variable through emotional brand attachment was significant as the confidence interval around
each effect did not contain zero (see Figure 1). Thus, for all four variables amateurism resulted in
increased brand evaluations indirectly through increased emotional brand attachment.
Furthermore, that this indirect effect was significant for both purchase intentions and satisfaction,
suggests that although neither is affected by amateurism directly, to the extent that amateurism
increases emotional brand attachment it indirectly influences both purchase intentions and
satisfaction. This finding provides additional indirect support for hypothesis 2.
In summary, the data support our assertion that the more consumers view NCAA athletes
as being amateur athletes, the greater their emotional brand attachment to the NCAA team as a
brand. This increased emotional attachment to the brand leads to more favorable attitudes
towards the NCAA team, greater team satisfaction, greater intentions to spread positive word of
mouth, and higher purchase intentions of the NCAA team merchandise. Consumers who view
NCAA athletes as students first create a stronger emotional bond with the NCAA team brand
and therefore view the brand more positively.
Discussion.
Results from this study point to several considerations for application for those in the
field of sports marketing in collegiate athletics. Data from our study demonstrates that consumer
perceptions of amateurism have a significant effect on brand evaluations and connections. As

23

NCAA teams develop marketing materials it is important to keep this data in mind. By ensuring
that consumers understand that NCAA athletes are, more importantly, students first they can
increase the connection that they feel with the athletes in seeing them as peers, or individuals
who are more similar to them. Marketers for NCAA athletic teams benefit from this increased ingroup connection in the creation of higher levels of emotional brand attachment which has been
shown in this study to indirectly increase consumer views of NCAA team brands.
In addition, the perception of NCAA athletes as students first was shown to improve
consumers overall attitudes and satisfaction following the attendance of an NCAA athletic
event. Because ticket sale dollars are a key contributor to the revenues of athletic departments,
NCAA teams have an opportunity to capitalize on these sales through increased promotion of
amateurism. This promotion prevents the development of unrealistic expectations for NCAA
events and allows for the increased satisfaction of consumers, the overall goal for marketers in
these events.
It is clearly morally and ethically right under current regulations that NCAA athletic
departments continue to promote the amateurism of their student athletes. However, our study
also serves to explain that consumer perceptions of amateurism have a significant positive
impact on NCAA team brand evaluations and satisfaction with NCAA sporting events. As the
marketing of collegiate athletics continues to evolve in this technological era, NCAA teams
should consider the impact of the portrayal of their athletes as they develop marketing and
promotional plans for their brands.

24

References
(1909, January 3). Notable Educators Meet to Discuss the Uplifting of College Athletics. The
New York Times. Retrieved from: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive
free/pdf?res=9402E2DD1539E733A25750C0A9679C946897D6CF
(2016, February 5). Louisville self-imposes ban for mens hoops in 2016. ESPN. Retrieved from:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14721089/louisville-cardinals
basketball-self-imposes-postseason-ban-2015-16-season
Amateurism. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/
Batra, Rajeev, and Douglas M. Stayman (1990), The Role of Mood in Advertising
Effectiveness, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2), 203-14.
Berkowitz,S.(2015,March11).NCAAnearlytopped$1billioninrevenuein2014.USA
TodaySports.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/11/ncaafinancialstatement
20141billionrevenue/70161386/
Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity." the Journal of
Marketing (1993): 1-22.
Duderstadt, James J. (2000). Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University: A university
presidents perspective. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson, and James R. Bettman (2003), You Are What They Eat: The Influence
of Reference Groups on Consumers Connections to Brands, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (3), 339-48.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson, and James R. Bettman (2005), Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and
Brand Meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378-389.
Fedorikhin, Alexander, C. Whan Park, and Matthew Thomson (2008), "Beyond Fit and Attitude:
The Effect of Emotional Attachment on Consumer Responses to Brand
Extensions," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (4), 281-91.
Fletcher, Garth J. O., Jeffry A. Simpson, and Geoff Thomas (2000), The Measurement of
Perceived Relationship Quality Components: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (3), 340-354.
Funk,D.C.,&James,J.(2001).ThePsychologicalContinuumModel:AConceptual
FrameworkforUnderstandinganIndividualsPsychologicalConnectiontoSport.Sport
ManagementReview,4.119150

25

Kennedy,RobertC.(2001).OnThisDay:July27,1878.TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfrom:
https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/0727.html
Miranda,MichaelA.(2012).HistoryofFacultyInvolvementinCollegiateAthletics.National
CollegiateAthleticAssociation.Retrievedfrom:
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/History%2Bof%2BFaculty%2BInvolvement_fin
l.pdf
NationalCollegiateAthleticAssociation.NationalCollegiateAthleticAssociation.
NCAA,2013.Web.28Jan.2013.
Rosenberg,M.(2013,September27).DebateoverantiquatedNCAAgoeswaybeyondpay
forplay.SportsIllustrated.Retrievedfrom:http://www.si.com/college
football/2013/09/27/jimdelanycommentsncaaaccountabilityact#
Smith, Ronald A. (2011). Pay for Play: A history of big-time college athletic reform.Chicago
University of Illinois Press
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar, and Eric Spangenberg (2009), The Importance of a General
Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a
Scale, Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 92-104.
Tajfel, Henri. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), The Ties that Bind:
Measuring the Strength of Consumers Emotional Attachments to Brands, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.
VanLeeuwen,L.,Quick,S.,&Daniel,K.(2002).TheSportSpectatorSatisfactionModel:
ConceptualFrameworkforUnderstandingtheSatisfactionofSpectators.Sport
ManagementReview,4.99128

26

Appendix A
FIGURE 1: MEDIATION ANALYSES
M1 Emotional Brand Attachment
B (SE)
t (p<)
95% C.I.
X (Amateurism)
M1 (EBA)
Cov (Performance)
Indirect Effect
(XMiDV)

.10 (.04)
-.11 (.05)
.04 (.02)

2.57 (.05)
-2.16 (.05)
-

.02, .17
-.21, -.001
.01, .08

M1 Emotional Brand Attachment

B (SE)
t (p<)
95% C.I
X (Amateurism)
M1 (EBA)
Cov (Performance)
Indirect Effect
(XMiDV)

.10 (.04)
-.11 (.05)
.05 (.02)

2.57 (.05)
-2.16 (.05)
-

.02, .17
-.21, -.001
.01, .10

M1 Emotional Brand Attachment

B (SE)
t (p<)
95% C.I
X (Amateurism)
M1 (EBA)
Cov (Performance)
Indirect Effect
(XMiDV)

.10 (.04)
-.11 (.05)
.05 (.02)

2.57 (.05)
-2.16 (.05)
-

.02, .17
-.21, -.001
.01, .10

M1 Emotional Brand Attachment

B (SE)
t (p<)
95% C.I.
X (Amateurism)
M1 (EBA)
Cov (Performance)
Indirect Effect
(XMiDV)

.10 (.04)
-.11 (.05)
.03 (.02)

2.57 (.05)
-2.16 (.05)
-

.02, .17
-.21, -.001
.01, .07

(SE)

DV Attitudes
t (p<)

95% C.I

.03 (.03)
.41 (.04)
-.19 (.04)
-

1.13 (.258)
10.44 (.001)
-5.39 (.001)
-

-.02, .08
.33, .49
-.26, -.12
-

B (SE)
.02 (.03)
.53 (.05)
-.22 (.05)
-

DV Word of Mouth
t (p<)
95% C.I
.608 (.544)
10.60 (.001)
-5.03 (.001)
-

-.04, .08
.43, .63
-.32, -.14
-

DV Purchase Intentions
B (SE)
t (p<)
95% C.I
.00 (.04)
.52 (.05)
-.03 (.05)
-

-.27 (.789)
9.44 (.001)
-.68 (.500)
-

-.08, .06
.41, .63
-.13, .06
-

(SE)

DV Satisfaction
t (p<)

95% C.I

-.04 (.03)
.36 (.05)
-.55 (.04)
-

-1.18 (.239)
7.43 (.001)
-12.79 (.001)
-

-.10, .02
.26, .45
-.64, -.46
-

NOTE: Bias corrected boostrapping using 5000 draws. All B values presented are unstandardized.

27

Appendix B
Qualtrics Survey Software

2016- 03- 10, 15:08

Default Question Block

RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM

Title of Research: NCAA Athletics Study
Researchers:
Primary Investigator: Dr. Andrew Perkins, Associate Professor,
Department of Marketing and International Business, (509) 335-0940
Co-Investigator: Scott Connors, PhD Candidate, Department of
Marketing and International Business, (509) 335-4833
You are being asked to take part in a research study conducted by Dr. Andrew
Perkins and Scott Connors. This form explains the research study and your part in it
should you decide to join the study. Please read the form carefully, taking as much
time as you need. Ask the researcher to explain anything that you do not
understand. You can decide not to join the study. If you join the study, you can
change your mind or quit at any time. There will be no penelty or loss of services or
benets if you decide not to take part in the study. This study has been deemed
acceptable for human subject participation by the Washington State University
Institutional Review Board.
Purpose of the Study
https://wsu.co1.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview

Page 1 of 16

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43