WinRAR is a software tool for all your data compression requirements that supports RAR and ZIP archives.

A

T g p c m c b i t © P

K

R

O c u f p e p d

–

2 b

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

RAUSP Management Journal

http://rausp.usp.br/RAUSP Management Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

Original Article

Perceived competitive advantage of soccer clubs: a study based on the resource-based view

Percepção da vantagem competitiva dos clubes de futebol: um estudo por meio da resource based view (RBV)

Marconi Freitas da Costa a,∗, Carlos Everaldo Costa b, Claudio Felisoni de Angelo c, Walter Fernando Araújo de Moraes a

a Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil b Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Sergipe, AL, Brazil

c Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Received 11 March 2016; accepted 16 August 2016 Available online 16 January 2018

Scientific Editor: Paula Sarita Bigio Schnaider

bstract

his research analyzes how professional soccer clubs perceive the competitive advantages they possess in the light of the resource-based view, iven their internal resources and external aspects. In addition, the research develops a model with variables (equity, brand, communication, roduct, sponsors, and competitors) in order to understand soccer clubs’ perception of their competitive advantage in the soccer market, without omparison to actual competitive advantage. The survey was conducted between the second half of 2013 and the first half of 2014. Quantitative ethods were employed, which included the use of structured questionnaires and multivariate analysis through multiple regression. Data were

ollected from soccer clubs participating in major championships. The results show that, among the variables in the model, only the variables of rand management strategy, communication, and competition significantly influence the soccer clubs’ perception of competitive advantage in the ndustry. The differential of this research is in the approach to data collection, as sources of information came from professional soccer clubs linked o major world football leagues.

2017 Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo – FEA/USP. ublished by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

eywords: Strategy; Resource-based view; Football clubs; Competitive advantage; Perception

esumo

objetivo nesta pesquisa foi analisar a percepção dos clubes de futebol profissionais em relação às vantagens competitivas que estes possuem

onsiderando os seus recursos internos e aspectos externos, à luz da RBV (visão baseada nos recursos). Além disso, a pesquisa visou desenvolver m modelo com variáveis (patrimônio, marca, comunicação, produto, patrocinadores e concorrentes) para entender a percepção que o clube de utebol tem sobre sua vantagem competitiva, no mercado futebolístico, sem a pretensão de comparar com a vantagem competitiva efetiva. A esquisa foi realizada entre o segundo semestre de 2013 ao primeiro semestre de 2014. Foi empregado o método quantitativo, com questionários struturados e com análise multivariada, por meio de regressão múltipla. Os dados foram coletados com clubes de futebol que participam dos

rincipais campeonatos mundiais. Os resultados mostram que das variáveis envolvidas no modelo, apenas as variáveis da gestão estratégia da marca, a comunicação e da concorrência tiveram influência significativa para explicar a percepção dos clubes de futebol sobre a vantagem competitiva

∗ Corresponding author at: Avenida Professor Moraes Rego, 1235, CEP 50670-901 Recife, PE, Brazil. E-mail: marconi [email protected] (M.F. Costa). Peer Review under the responsibility of Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo

FEA/USP.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rauspm.2016.08.001 531-0488/© 2017 Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo – FEA/USP. Published y Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

24 M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Management Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

que estas organizações possuem. O diferencial desta pesquisa está na abordagem dos dados que foram coletados, pois a fonte de informações dos fatores das vantagens competitivas são provenientes dos próprios clubes de futebol profissionais, vinculados às principais ligas mundiais de futebol.

© 2017 Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo – FEA/USP. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. Este é um artigo Open Access sob uma licença CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Palavras-chave: Estratégia; Resource-based view; Clubes de futebol; Vantagem competitiva; Percepção

I

i i s t ( c t o o s a n Y i r c

c T t t W t

t 2 c o

o t i 2 s c c s n s o p &

a

c r e a T o c o s a r

f p a s a c p n b a a c

c c t T o t e t

c a f r r p

e c s

ntroduction

Soccer, ranging from a recreational games to intense sport- ng competition, has been modified through transformations in ts internal structures: physical (stadia – now called arenas), tructural (expert professionals, remunerated management func- ions, and operational and internal support levels), and symbolic incorporation of market language – the supporter becomes the lient). In addition, according to Ogbonna and Harris (2014), here is the external aspect, which strengthens the idea that ther clubs are no longer opponents, but competitors. Thus, ther areas are disputed, such as more profitable contracts with ponsors and media, and aiming to make the club brand and its ctions hard to imitate, unique, and capable of attracting exter- al resources, besides the achievement of profitability (Atalay, ucel, & Boztepe, 2013). In this sense, the following problem

s raised: According to managers, what are the main internal esources and external aspects capable of influencing soccer lubs’ competitive advantage?

The strategy can be considered as the ability that clubs, with orporate behavior, should possess to survive and prosper (Rossi, hrassou, & Vronis, 2013). Strategies related to the sponsor,

raining centers, and education centers are factors present in he so-called soccer industry (Abosag, Roper, & Hind, 2012).

hen put in practice, these instrumental actions drive the club o achieve its market goals.

Investors and sponsors are looking for a well-structured club hat is well-placed and financially profitable (Solberg & Mehus, 014). Thus, the club seeks competitive advantage, with the reation of economic value through opportunities and the devel- pment of strength (Hill & Vicent, 2006).

Issues related to market practices, such as the management f products, prices, communication, and access channels to the arget public, are strategic factors involved in the external and nternal environment of soccer as a business (Hoeber & Hoeber, 012). The professional management of these aspects is new in ome country and mature in others, in view of the existence of lubs – for example, with education centers in more than five ountries, as a way to select future athletes and soccer profes- ionals for their club. On the other hand, there are clubs that have either a stadium nor headquarters. The corporate approach of a occer club is exactly intended to acknowledge the importance f the value of organizational attributes, which can develop a cor- orate culture for the soccer club (Kim & Trail, 2010; Ogbonna

Harris, 2014). As the soccer industry can be considered in terms of strengths

nd weaknesses, although the (resource-based view) (RBV)

i t a

overs aspects related to the company’s internal resources, this esearch intended to analyze clubs’ internal resources, such as: quity (physical structure), product, communication, and brand, s well as external resources, such as equity and competitors. hese resources are considered and valued differently for vari- us soccer clubs. Therefore, this study seeks to understand the ompetitive role of each of these resources from the perspective f the club, according to the research question presented at the tart of this introduction. Quantitative method was also used to nswer this question and included the application of the multiple egression.

From a strategic viewpoint, this research is justified by the act that it enriches studies on soccer in terms of several clubs’ ositioning at a global level. In addition, the research developed

model with variables (equity, brand, communication, product, ponsors, and competitors) – which have not been discussed as

whole yet in other studies – in order to understand perceived ompetitive advantage according to each investigated club. In ractice, the text can support academic research by providing a ew insight into soccer clubs’ activities and the soccer industry, esides serving as a guide for anyone interested in strategy, such s soccer managers. Hence, the objective of the research was to nalyze perceived competitive advantage in professional soccer lubs through the RBV.

What distinguishes this research is the approach to the ollected data, because information sources on resources for ompetitive advantage come from the professional soccer clubs hemselves, which are linked to the major world soccer leagues. his approach – not yet explored in other studies – focused n soccer clubs’ perceived competitive advantage with regards o its competitive resources, mainly considering the variables quity, brand, communication, product, sponsors, and competi- ors, which are assessed as a whole.

Knowledge about internal resources and external aspects that reate competitive advantages for professional soccer the clubs re needed, in order to understand how well these clubs per- orm off the field. Among the various variables analyzed in this esearch, only club brand management and sponsorship were elevant and statistically significant in explaining how the clubs erceive their competitive advantage.

These research results contribute to the academic area of strat- gy and marketing by identifying market factors that strengthen ompetitive advantage the most in this segment. In addition, it upports professionals from the soccer clubs in decision mak-

ng about the most important market resources. The structure of his article includes this short introduction, a literature review bout strategy and the RBV, followed by a section on the soccer

nagem

i A s

S

d b t m t i a p f

c p c u o r i t c

s t a g t g s o

n r o b u w n h p

a f s a t c p R

s m

t p p t o a a o

d a t e o a a s

m a t a h w o w o a r t t r

e l t i e I f t a o

c p g t r g d f

M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Ma

ndustry, and a section on the methodological procedures. nother presents and analyzes the results and, finally, conclu-

ions are made.

trategy and the RBV

In this section, concepts related to strategy and the RBV are iscussed. First, concepts on strategy will be addressed, followed y those on the RBV. The strategy seeks to balance and maintain he company in its increasingly multifaceted market environ-

ent (Ocasio & Radoynovska, 2016). Barney (1986) explains hat, from a regulatory viewpoint, the existence of the strategy s a market factor that indicates the importance of developing

conceptual system, which the companies can use to antici- ate and explore competitive imperfections in strategic market actors.

Porter (1996) explains that company environments are always hanging, including the emergence of new rules for the com- etitive game. Companies take aggressive actions because of ompetitors, who rapidly copy efficient actions and try to better se them (Olson, Duray, Cooper, & Olson, 2016). The essence f strategy is to achieve better performance when compared to ivals (Porter, 1996). De Witt and Meyer (2004) argue that there s no single definition of strategy due to the range of interpreta- ions; however, they tend to relate strategy with competitiveness, ompetition, clients, products, and/or services.

De Witt and Meyer (2004) discuss strategy based on the trategist’s mind, including skills, maps, and cognitive activi- ies, which influence tactics and strategic implementations. The uthor also explains that, in a corporate context, these strate- ies tend to be increasingly more emerging than deliberate due o market dynamics. Harrison (2005) affirms that the strate- ist needs to take into account some aspects when deciding on trategy, such as management, the mission, values, and business bjectives of the company.

As businesses are becoming increasingly global, companies eed to develop a different orientation in terms of corporate esources (Panda & Reddy, 2016). The main source for the RBV f the firm is Penrose (1995), who suggested that a company can e considered as a collection of resources at an administrative nit’s disposal. The resources can be allocated in accordance ith management decisions. Penrose (1995) argues that the eco- omic function of the firm is to purchase and organize both uman and physical resources in a profitable manner in order to rovide products and services to the market.

In regards to the RBV, Barney and Hesterly (2011, p. 58, uthors’ translation) affirm that it is “a performance model ocused on the resources and capabilities a company controls as a ource of competitive advantage.” In the RBV model, resources re defined as tangible and intangible assets the company intends o control in order to create and implement its strategies, while apabilities correspond to a set of resources, which are financial, hysical, human, and organizational (Barney, 2011; Lioukas,

euer, & Zollo, 2016).

Dutta (2015) states that RBV research has been emphasized ince the 1980s and that RBV figures as a substantial strategic anagement theory. In addition, researchers’ increasing atten-

S

a

ent Journal 53 (2018) 23–34 25

ion to company resources has helped to clarify these resources’ otential contributions due to competitive advantage. The basic remises of the RBV are: heterogeneity of resources – in a cer- ain activity area, some companies will be more competent than thers; and the immobility of resources – when the differences mong companies can be long lasting, as it can be very costly for

company without certain resources and capabilities to develop r purchase them (Barney & Hesterly, 2011; Barney, 2011).

According to the RBV model, initially, company resources etermine performance and contribute to sustain competitive dvantage (Dutta, 2015). Barney (2011) explains that, based on he RBV, a company can develop tools to analyze the differ- nt resources and capabilities it possesses, besides the potential f each tool. Priem and Butler (2006) adopt a more critical pproach to RBV, acknowledging that the concept was rapidly dopted in strategy literature, but without a critical view on the uitability of the theme’s conceptual system.

Barney (2011) presents a discussion on an internal analysis odel called VRIO (Value, Rarity, Imitability, Organization)

nd can be explained as follows: Value – explores opportuni- ies in the environment that can neutralize threats, figuring as

strength for the company; Rarity – if this resource is some- ow controlled by a small number of competing companies, it ill hardly serve as a source of competitive advantage for any f these companies; Imitability – considers whether companies ithout resources face a cost disadvantage in obtaining or devel- ping them, that is, companies with rare and valuable resources re strategic innovators and act so that competitors without these esources are unable to imitate them; and Organization – related o procedures and policies the company develops and whether hey are organized to support the exploitation of its valuable, are, and expensive resources for the purpose of imitation.

Dutta (2015) considers the RBV as a source of corporate het- rogeneity. Some authors broaden the discussion on the RBV, ike in the case of Nemati (2010), who relates the RBV with he resource dependency theory (RDT) in order to prove how mportant it is to know about the allocation of internal and xternal resources as a way of gaining competitive advantage. to and Gimenez (2011, p. 29, authors’ translation) develop “a ramework of transaction value to explain competitive advan- age resulting from a multidisciplinary relation between Porter nd the RBV.” This relation has a multidisciplinary focus, based n economics, marketing, and strategy.

RBV-based strategic actions focus on impacts in decision pro- esses (Nemati, 2010), as resources are valuable for company erformance. Businesses tend to specify the scope of strate- ies and define on what base they will develop and maintain heir competitive advantages in a certain industry. Nemati (2010) ecovers the idea of De Witt and Meyer (2004) about the strate- ist’s mind and states that strategic decision making depends on ecision makers and how they use internal and external resources or company success.

occer industry

In this section, the context of the soccer industry is presented long with environments where the clubs consider corporate

2 nagem

a i t c a c

c fi v c t t r p

i r a c t t b &

t 2 o m fi o i T &

a i h t i c e t e

c i H o e t a I o a a 2

a c a o a

r a t w l c t t (

a s r c c s m m o

r fi t t e w H e s t a

H p m

b c M p g t e a o

6 M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Ma

ction in order to remain competitive in the market. This section s relevant to identify the relation between market strategies and he management of soccer clubs, providing an overview of some oncepts and practices of these clubs in the soccer market, with

view of listing internal resources and external aspects that may ontribute to the clubs’ competitive advantage.

According to Pitts and Stotlar (2002), the sports industry onsists of sports-oriented products and buyers. These include tness, recreation, leisure products, and related goods and ser- ices. The buyers are companies and consumers from different ities and countries. A more detailed definition, according to he authors, is that the sports industry “is [a] market in which he products offered to the buyers are related to sports, fitness, ecreation, or leisure and can include activities, goods, services, eople, places, or ideas” (p. 5).

Pitts and Stotlar (2002) state that, among the fifty largest ndustries in the world, sports ranks among the first 20, and oyalties, purchase of sports-related books, building of stadia nd gymnasia, and TV and radio broadcasting contracts are the ategories in the sports industry that have grown the most since he 1980s. When considering sports environments, it is important o indicate that, for each, there is a strategic model rationalized in roader environments on an increasingly global scale (Ogbonna

Harris, 2014; Thornton, 1995). In global soccer, based on a strategic perspective, the his-

ory of soccer is noteworthy (Proni, 2000; Solberg & Mehus, 014). The historical context allows us to observe the evolution f football as a business, with the inclusion of actors (business- an, organizations, media, and clients) in a constant search for nancial performance. In addition, soccer is approached based n its internal resources and external aspects, such as market- ng (Kase, De Hoyos, Sanchis, & Breton, 2007; Kriemadisa, erzoudisa, & Kartakoullisb, 2010), as well as on strategy (Hill

Vicent, 2006; Madichie, 2009). Sports has been one of the most important social phenomena

round the world since the 20th century, with soccer mov- ng from substantive to instrumental engagement, from the omo sportivus to the economicus (Tubino, 2011). According o Battaglia (2010), in the management process of sports clubs, ncluding soccer, the concern is with treating the sponsor as a lient. The foundations are now focused on service provision, xternal interfaces, strategic planning, and information systems o help the clubs to achieve satisfactory performance (Abosag t al., 2012).

This is what Proni (2000) calls the “metamorphosis of soc- er,” where the State’s role as a promoter has diminished and nvestors and remunerated professionals have become central. istorically, one of the interpretations of soccer presents it as riginating from a bourgeoisie that sought differentiation beyond conomic aspects. And according to Solberg and Mehus (2014), his was achieved through practicing sports. Over time, however, s a result of its popularization the poorer started to participate. n recent years, the return to its elitist origins is noticeable as, in

rder to truly accompany their club, supporters end up spending

considerable amount of money purchasing tickets, TV pack- ges, official club shirts, and trips to watch games, etc. (Gurgel, 006).

r t l a

ent Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

Morgan and Summers (2008) discuss soccer as an industry nd strategy approach. They recognize soccer as a business and onsider consumer and sports marketing actions in order to gain nd retain consumers beyond the strategic approach, which rests n the resources the clubs intend to develop to perform well on nd off the field.

This perspective of soccer as a business comes with pressure elated to the high salaries paid to players with distinguishes ttributes in their ability to play, and clubs needing to maintain hese players in an environment of considerable competition ith other clubs (Sener & Karapolatgil, 2015). In addition, the

ogic of the clubs’ internal structure needs to be aligned with the orporate view of the training center, with paid instead of volun- ary employees (Hoeber & Hoeber, 2012; Olson et al., 2016). In his sense, strategic actions are implemented in the light of the RBV), whether these are internal resources or external aspects.

Based on the literature review on strategy and RBV, as well s this section – which lays out the context for strategies in the occer industry – hypotheses were elaborated for: (a) internal esources – equity (physical structure/staff), brand, communi- ation, and product; and (b) external aspects – sponsors and ompetitors. These internal resources and external aspects were elected for this research because they constantly figure in the edia or the club managers’ discourse about the clubs’ perfor- ance in the contemporary soccer industry, whether in sporting

r economic terms. Facilities and staff are highlighted for soccer clubs’ equity

esources. The size of a club can be assessed by the value of its xed assets. According to Leone (1991), this parameter serves

o better show the organization’s physical dimensions. Beyond he physical structure, however, staff are also part of company quity, due to investments in staff training and qualification, ith a view to achieving better market performance (Vomberg, omburg, & Bornemann, 2015). Therefore, equity management

fforts need to consider aspects of the facilities and the company taff (Lu, Chen, Huang, & Chien, 2015). To assess the impor- ance of soccer club equity from the perspective of competitive dvantage, the following hypothesis was raised.

ypothesis H1. The strategic management of equity (i.e., hysical structure/staff) positively influences the market perfor- ance perceived by soccer club.

According to Almeida (2011) and Abosag et al., 2012, the rand is the name or symbol that identifies the company, in this ase the soccer club. Many soccer clubs, including Barcelona, anchester United, Milan, Bayern Munich, and Real Madrid

ossess a strong brand in the soccer market. A strong brand has reater bargaining power in the market and realizes better con- racts with sponsors. The strategy of associating different brands xists, which is a mechanism that relates a club’s brands with

sponsor’s brand. This can be done in a cognitive, associative, r affective manner. Pitts and Stotlar (2002) affirm that club

elations with strong brands in the market has been established hrough licensing, which has grown since the 1970s in countries ike the United States, through brands like Pierre Cardin, Polo, nd Esprit, for example.

nagem

w t b W o a 2 w o h

H t c

n r s c a c a m c b l

H w m

& s a h s o T o g d

H c m

t a p i b t i s i w

b e t t n p l e s t

o ( b t n r t

H s p

F f c l 2

i a a v r b r c

H c o

M

& p s i A m

M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Ma

Morgan and Summers (2008) identify that companies that ant to work with brands in the sports industry need to assess

he category, nature, benefits, differences, and credibility of the rand in relation to the soccer club from a strategic viewpoint. hen a club possesses a strong brand, all products or services

ffered in the market will be better accepted by the target public nd the public audience (Seyedghorban, Matanda, & LaPlaca, 015), that is, people who are not supporters but sympathize ith the club brand. To assess the perceived competitive strength f a brand according to soccer club managers, the following ypothesis was elaborated.

ypothesis H2. The strategic management of the brand posi- ively influences the market performance perceived by the soccer lub.

Communication, according to Morgan and Summers (2008), eeds to be aggregated and interrelated with publicity, public elations, sponsoring, sales promotion, direct marketing, per- onal sales, and interactive channels like the Internet. This ommunication also involves the sharing of ideas or thoughts mong club members, who develop these policies with related ommunity (supports, media, and consumers). These strategies re intended to convince the consumers about the club and trans- it a reliable image (Abosag et al., 2012). The role of the club’s

ommunication with supports and potential audiences to achieve etter performance in the market was assessed through the fol- owing hypothesis.

ypothesis H3. The strategic management of communication ith the target public positively influences the market perfor- ance perceived by the soccer club.

The product can be a tangible commodity or service (Haverila Fehr, 2016). The core product a soccer club offers to its

upporters is soccer game entertainment (Ederson, 2015). In ddition, other goods and services can be aggregated to obtain igher revenues, such as the sale of club shirts, the supply of ervices to the supporters who are club associates and the sale f image rights for television (Sener & Karapolatgil, 2015). o assess the importance of product management with a view f obtaining better market performance and, consequently, a reater competitive advantage, the following hypothesis was eveloped.

ypothesis H4. Strategic management of the product (soc- er game) positively influences the soccer club’s perception of arket performance.

For sponsorship, Stotlar (2005) argues that when a company akes interest in sponsoring a club, it expects that the latter will dd value to its image, maximize brand exposure, and leverage artner benefits through new business opportunities. Sponsoring s a widely accepted concept, but a strategic alliance needs to e developed between the sport and corporate investors in order o achieve both parties’ objectives and reduce risks. Accord-

ng to Zauner, Koller, and Fink (2012), sponsorship acts like ocial media, being capable of analyzing whether the perceived mage of the brand and credibility have been achieved, along ith influence and perceived valuation.

n a o b

ent Journal 53 (2018) 23–34 27

Other advantages in line with these issues are also related to rand globalization, media exposure, and increased partner rev- nues, as the brand calls attention to the use of a product with his association (Rossi et al., 2013). Stotlar (2005) states that he sponsoring of sports can be contractually focused and orga- ized into characteristics for different occasions, angles, and urposes, such as: the uniform chest, the uniform upper and ower back, uniform sleeve, training uniform, back-drops (pan- ls placed behind the club members during interviews), field igns, and front-lights (panels turned toward the external part of he club, visible in places where cars circulate).

In addition, the sponsorship contract should be clear in terms f termination in case of a lack of return in terms of visibility Solberg & Mehus, 2014). Stadia, snack bars, boxes, score- oards and other panels are tradable spaces that offer return in erms of visibility. What has been done with regard to the stadia, ow called arenas, are the sponsoring contracts called naming ights, that is, when a company purchases the right to rename he stadium, which is named after the company (Stotlar, 2005).

ypothesis H5. The way the relationship with sponsors is trategically managed positively influences the soccer club’s erception of performance.

Concerning competitors in the soccer market, Garcia and arina (2013) affirm that competition is related to the search or market participation. Clubs aim for success through titles in hampionships, and those that do not achieve this objective are ess attractive to companies with a market perspective (Gurgel, 006; Janin, 2017).

Resource volumes sports clubs collect – for example in Amer- can basketball, baseball, and American football leagues – are bout thirty times higher than that of soccer clubs in Brazil and, mong the ten clubs with the highest brand-related resource olumes around the world, Brazilian clubs have ten times less esources than European teams (Gurgel, 2006). Thus, some club rands serve as a positive parameter in terms of investment, esulting in competition, while in other contexts competition an reach the level of begging (Rossi et al., 2013).

ypothesis H6. Strategic management when dealing with ompetition positively influences the soccer club’s perception f market performance.

ethodological procedure

A quantitative, descriptive, and explanatory study (Churchill Iacobucci, 2005) was undertaken using a cross-sectional sam-

le (Malhotra, 2006). The international research population tudied considered all professional soccer clubs that engaged n first-, second-, and third-division national championships. s the exact determination of this population would demand uch time and the number would be somewhat imprecise, a

on-probabilistic judgment-based sample was chosen, in which, ccording to Malhotra (2006), one cannot state that all members f the population have a known chance different from zero of eing selected.

2 nagem

w o a w A F – n S

d t t c t

q m c m p o s o F v w

a t c b f r i n d t

t r 0 c t i t 0 C 0 b D t

t c m

t t v d o a a

t ( t t t w

v i S e p w

C i A i a h

R

e a t s I c t s a w l t ( p

q r t w p c

8 M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Ma

For the research sample, soccer clubs from different countries ere contacted by email. They were selected because they rganize the main soccer championships around the world nd because the researchers had access to some clubs. Clubs ere contacted in the following countries: Angola, Argentina, ustralia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Scotland, Spain, rance, England, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, and Ukraine

16 countries in total. It should be highlighted, however, that o reply was obtained from soccer clubs in Argentina, Chile, pain, Mexico, and Ukraine (five countries in total).

The final research sample consisted of 33 soccer clubs from ifferent countries. During email contact, or in the link to ques- ions available on the clubs’ websites, it was emphasized that he questionnaire should be answered by the professional(s) in harge of the club’s market actions, as well as those able to assess he club’s performance in the soccer market.

A closed questionnaire was used for the data collection. The uestionnaire was built using the constructs from the strategic anagement literature: equity (physical structure/staff), brand,

ommunication, product, sponsoring, competition, and perfor- ance. Other questions served to outline the responding clubs’

rofile, addressing: country, number of national titles, number f international titles, ownership of stadium, and division (first, econd, or third) in which the club was disputing the champi- nship at the time. The questionnaire consists of 48 items (see ig. 1) and measured the constructs involved in the study. The ariables were developed using a seven-point Likert scale, in hich 1 indicates strong disagreement and 7 strong agreement. The items in each construct were analyzed using Cronbach’s

lpha. After the analysis, some items were removed to improve he consistency index of each construct (Table 1). For the equity onstruct, the alpha coefficient corresponded to 0.788. For the rand construct, although the alpha coefficient had been satis- actory (0.822), the variables MARCA06 and MARCA07 were emoved. As a result, the alpha coefficient increased to 0.902, mproving the reliability of the construct. Concerning commu- ication, the items COMUN01 and COMUN02 were removed ue to a low alpha coefficient (0.395). Then, after a new analysis, he alpha coefficient corresponded to 0.755.

The alpha coefficient of the product construct corresponded o 0.390. Therefore, the variables PROD01 and PROD04 were emoved, after which the analysis was repeated, resulting in .610. In view of the alpha coefficient (0.355) for the sponsoring onstruct, the variable PATROC04 was removed. Repetition of he analysis showed a coefficient of 0.502. As the coefficient was nferior to 0.6, the construct was removed from the model. For he competition construct, the alpha coefficient corresponded to .499, leading to the removal of the variables CONCOR05 and ONCOR06. Repeated analysis showed an alpha coefficient of .763. Finally, as the performance construct obtained low Cron- ach’s alpha results, the variables DESEMP02, DESEMP05, ESEMP06, and DESEMP09 were removed. Analysis repeti-

ion resulted in a coefficient of 0.890.

To develop the dependent variable, various items were used

o measure different aspects of each club’s perception of its ompetitive advantages in the soccer industry. To establish a ore direct relationship between the dependent variable and

m n s

ent Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

he constructs assessed in the research, items were elaborated hat were directly related to each construct of the independent ariables. Finally, although consisting of different items, the ependent variable was transformed into an index by means f a summated scale (Costa & Farias, 2016) for use in model nalysis. The independent variables were also transformed into n index.

The data were collected in the second semester of 2013 and he first semester of 2014. The return rate was relatively low 13.58%), considering that emails were sent to practically all he main soccer clubs in the countries, that is, 243 clubs. Thirty- hree replies were obtained to the questionnaires forwarded to he clubs. The countries from which completed questionnaires ere obtained will be presented in the results section. After developing the questionnaire, it was subject to content

alidation, involving a careful assessment by four researchers n the field of strategy and three experts in the soccer market. ome items were altered and others were included based on these valuators’ suggestions. The questionnaire also went through a retest involving six respondents, representing soccer clubs that ere not included in the final sample. After collecting the data, the data treatment phase started.

ronbach’s alpha was used to analyze the reliability of the items n each construct, with acceptable levels being from 0.6 (Hair, nderson, Tatham, & Black, 2005). To assess the dimensional-

ty of the items in each construct, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) nd Bartlett’s sphericity test (Hair et al., 2005) were used. The ypotheses were tested by means of multiple regression.

esults

Initially, the questionnaires were checked for completion rrors. As all items were compulsory and the questionnaire was vailable online, the respondents could not forward the ques- ionnaire without completing all items, and as the items were tructured on a Likert scale, completing them was not difficult. t should be mentioned, however, that the questionnaire initially ontained other questions that would have helped to characterize he respondents, such as: the age of the club; number of member upports; FIFA ranking; national ranking; whether the club has

training center; places (in the country and in other countries) here the club has a school for the preparation/selection of ath-

etes; if the club has headquarters; if the club has a foundation o develop activities/social projects; and if the professionals directors, managers, physicians etc.) working at the club are aid.

Although some clubs in Brazil and Portugal answered these uestions at the start of the data collection process, the return ate from the other countries was low and some clubs stated hat they could not answer all questions. Therefore, the decision as made to remove the variables mentioned in the previous aragraph, in order to avoid any club feeling that its identity ould be revealed by cross-referencing answers. Therefore, only

ore generic questions were left, such as country, number of

ational and international titles, whether the club has its own tadium, and what division it was in at that time.

M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Management Journal 53 (2018) 23–34 29

Dimension Items (variables) Code

Equity (physical/staff structure)

The club uses the physical structure (stadium) for other commercial ends other than the game s The club prioritizes the preparation of baseline athletes The club offers courses for the professional qualification of its employee s The club offers courses for professional qualification (training, short-term courses, specialization etc.) of the external public

ESTRU01

ESTRU02

ESTRU03

ESTRU04

Brand The club br and is highly valued in the market The club br and has been associated with multinational sponsors

MARCA01

MARCA02

The club br and presents unique characteristic s When comparing the club brand with others, I notice that it is stronger The brand offers important advantages to the club I would not hesitate to make investmentsto strengthen the brand of the club I consider the brand to be a major assetof the club We make the meaning of our brand very clear to our supporters The brand presents allthestrong marketaspectsother brands posses s The club works to construct aspects that differentiate the brand from others

MARCA03

MARCA04

MARCA05

MARCA06

MARCA07

MARCA08

MARCA09

MARCA10

Communication The club’s communication is easy to understand for the supporte r The communication aims to teach the values of the club to the supporters The communication dire ctly targets the club’s s upporters Communication with the sponsors takes place constantly The club uses its own channel (TV, internet, etc.) to communicate with the supporter

COMUN01

COMUN02

COMUN03

COMUN04

COMUN05

Product Our pr oduct and/or service development is based on good information about the market and the clients Our pr oducts/services are the best in this business The club targets diversity in the supply of products/service s We know exactly what the core benefit is we offer to the supporte r The club develo ps other professionalsports modalities other than soccer

PROD01

PROD02

PROD03

PROD04

PROD05

Equity The club tries to close long-term contracts with the sponsors The most renowned sponsors in the market are prioritize d Sponsorshipcontract standards areprominentlydefined by the club Contracts with the media (TV channels) are the most important source of revenue for the club

PATROC01

PATROC02

PATROC03

PATROC04

Competitio n We know our competitors well We know the strengthens and weaknessesof our competitor s We know the market opportunities and threats to our competitor s Competition is important for the performance of the club The club seeks partnerships with rivals when seeking attractive contracts for both stakeholders The club tries to have the “right to host its home games” in stadia other than their ow n

CONCOR01

CONCOR02

CONCOR03

CONCOR04

CONCOR05

CONCOR06

Performanc e The club is completely satisfied with its strategic pe rformance in the soccer market Current sponsors are providing the conditions needed for the succ ess of the club The club br and offers competitive advantages in relation to competitors The club’s communication with supporters is a competitive differential Competitors do not present superior differentiatio n The sponsor knows exactly the product/service the club offers The number of supporters of the club has increase d The number of partners /supporters of the club has increase d The equity/physical structure of the club is a competitive differential

DESEMP01

DESEMP02

DESEMP03

DESEMP04

DESEMP05

DESEMP06

DESEMP07

DESEMP08

DESEMP09

s in t

ated b

s ( i f

n t

Figure 1. Variable

Source: Elabor

Thus, based on the collected data, the profile of the occer clubs that answered the research could be outlined

Fig. 2). With regard to the countries, the largest partic- pation of soccer clubs per country in the research came rom Brazil, England, and Ireland. Angola had the smallest

a t E

he questionnaire.

y the authors.

umber of clubs (only one). This information is impor- ant to understand the degree of relevance of the research,

s illustrated by the participation of clubs from tradi- ional competitions like Italy, France, Portugal, Brazil, and ngland.

30 M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Management Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

Table 1 Reliability analysis.

Constructs Cronbach’s alpha

Equity 0.788 Brand 0.902 Communication 0.755 Product 0.610 Sponsoring 0.502 Competition 0.763 Performance 0.890

Source: Field research.

Country Fr. % NationalTitles Fr. % International

Titles Fr. %

Angola 1 3.0 0 (n one) 8 24.2 0 (n one) 28 88.4 Australia 2 6.1 1 6 18.2 1 3 9.1 Brazil 5 15.2 2 8 24.2 10 1 3.0 Costa Rica 2 6.1 3 1 3.0 32 1 3.0 Denmark 2 6.1 4 1 3.0 TOTAL 33 100.0 Scotl and 3 9.1 6 1 3.0 Own stadium Fr. % France 2 6.1 8 1 3.0 Yes 31 93.9 England 5 15.2 10 1 3.0 No 2 6.1 Ireland 5 15.2 11 1 3.0 TOTAL 33 100.0 Italy 3 9.1 12 1 3.0 Division Fr. % Portugal 3 9.1 17 1 3.0 1st division 15 45.5 TOTAL 33 100.0 23 1 3.0 2nd division 11 33.3

28 1 3.0 3rd division 7 21.2 44 1 3.0 TOTAL 33 100.0

TOTAL 33 100.0

n c m c m b s

t i t c n

D

p r c a

f M c M

Table 2 Dimensionality of the equity construct.

Variables Factor loadings H2

The club uses the physical structure (stadium) for other commercial ends other than games

0.764 0.583

The club prioritizes the preparation of baseline athletes

0.736 0.541

The club offers resources for the professional qualification of its employees

0.832 0.692

The club offers courses for the professional qualification (training, short-term courses, specialization, etc.) of the external public

0.814 0.662

Source: Field research.

Table 3 Dimensionality of the brand construct.

Variables Factor loadings H2

The club brand is highly valued in the market 0.953 0.908 The brand offers important advantages to the

club 0.921 0.848

We make the meaning of our brand very clear to our supporters

0.832 0.693

The club works to construct aspects that differentiate the brand from others

0.824 0.679

Source: Field research.

Table 4 Dimensionality of the communication construct.

Variables Factor loadings H2

Communication directly targets the club’s supporters

0.916 0.839

Communication with the sponsors takes place constantly

0.905 0.820

The club uses its own channel (TV, internet, 0.603 0.364

S

l s T fi p a s s

f o s t

c T t

Figure 2. Characteristics of soccer clubs.

Source: Field research.

Concerning the number of titles, 14 clubs have one or two ational titles, showing the importance of winning clubs. And onsidering the other clubs, it is noticeable that 11 clubs gained ore than two national titles, with one club winning the national

hampionship 44 times. With regards to international titles, the ajority (28 clubs) had never won a competition beyond national

orders. Three clubs had won an international title and, in one pecific case, the club had won 32 international titles.

As for owning a stadium, the majority of clubs (32 clubs in otal) have a soccer stadium, while only 2 did not own one. Own- ng a stadium is considered a source of competitive advantage in his highly competitive market. And, finally, to characterize the lubs that were part of the study, the majority dispute the main ational championship, that is, the first division in each country.

imensionality analysis of the data

The results of the factor analysis show that the four items resent an explained variance of 61.97%. The KMO index cor- esponded to 0.635 and Bartlett’s sphericity test presented a hi-squared coefficient of 52.554, with six degrees of freedom nd a significance of 0.000 (Table 2).

For the brand construct (Table 3), a first test round of the actor analysis was undertaken and the variables MARCA02 and

ARCA03 were removed due to low communality (h2) < 0.5, orresponding to 0.441 and 0.432, respectively. The variables ARCA04 and MARCA09 were removed because they were

f

c

etc.) to communicate with supporters

ource: Field research.

oaded as a second factor. These variables may be measuring omething specific that was not noticed in the initial proposal. herefore, the choice was made to not consider them in the nal analysis. Next, a new four-item factor analysis was applied, resenting an explained variance of 78.20%. The KMO index mounted to 0.785 and Bartlett’s sphericity test showed a chi- quare coefficient of 91.135, with six degrees of freedom and a ignificance coefficient of 0.000.

As regards to communication (Table 4), the results of the actor analysis for the three items present an explained variance f 67.43%. The KMO index corresponded to 0.579 and Bartlett’s phericity test presented a chi-square coefficient of 34.850, with hree degrees of freedom and a significance of 0.000.

The results of the factor analysis for the three-item product onstruct (Table 5) presented an explained variance of 60.45%. he KMO index amounted to 0.385 and Bartlett’s sphericity

est showed a chi-square index of 39.355, with three degrees of

reedom and significance of 0.000.

In Table 6, the results of the factor analysis for the four-item ompetition construct present an explained variance of 59.65%.

M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Management Journal 53 (2018) 23–34 31

Table 5 Dimensionality of the product construct.

Variables Factor loadings H2

Our products/services are the best in this business

0.990 0.992

The club targets diversity in the supply of products/services

0.959 0.931

The club develops other professional sports modalities than soccer

0.939 0.933

Source: Field research.

Table 6 Dimensionality of the competition construct.

Variables Factor loadings H2

We know our competitors well 0.892 0.850 We know the strengthens and weaknesses of

our competitors 0.941 0.887

We know the market opportunities and threats to our competitors

0.846 0.897

Competition is important for the performance of the club

0.968 0.937

Source: Field research.

Table 7 Dimensionality of the performance construct.

Variables Factor loadings H2

The club is completely satisfied with its strategic performance in the soccer market

0.909 0.826

The club brand offers competitive advantages in relation to competitors

0.799 0.638

The club’s communication with the supporters is a competitive differential

0.858 0.737

The number of supporters of the club has increased

0.775 0.600

The number of partners/supporters of the 0.851 0.725

S

T t f

r o s d

A

a a s d t 1 a a

Table 8 Descriptive statistics of compound variables.

Variables N Mean S.D.a

Performance 33 5.27 0.964 Equity 33 4.47 1.372 Brand 33 5.55 1.102 Communication 33 5.60 0.735 Product 33 4.69 1.299 Competition 33 5.86 0.763

Source: Field research. a S.D., standard deviation.

Table 9 Multiple regression (backward method).

Model Additional variables

Variables removed Method

1 Competition, brand, equity, product, communication

ENTER

2 Equity Backward F-to-remove ≥ 0.100.

5 Product Backward F-to-remove ≥ 0.100.

Source: Field research.

Table 10 Summary of the model.

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Estimated standard error

1 0.749 0.561 0.479 0.696 2 0.745 0.555 0.492 0.687 3 0.717 0.514 0.463 0.706

S

m o 1 4 b 2 S a c c

m v r

w v fi

club has increased

ource: Field research.

he KMO index amounted to 0.559 and Bartlett’s sphericity est presented a chi-square index of 62.41, with six degrees of reedom and significance of 0.000.

Finally, for the five-tem performance construct (Table 7), the esults of the factor analysis presented an explained variance f 70.53%. The KMO index amounted to 0.705 and Bartlett’s phericity test showed a chi-square index of 125.152, with ten egrees of freedom and a significance of 0.000.

nalysis of theoretical model

In this section, the constructs are presented as compound vari- bles (index), that is, the items that remained after the reliability nd dimensionality analysis were grouped, turning them into a ingle variable for each construct. According to Table 8 of the escriptive statistics, concerning the means and standard devia- ions, 33 clubs participated and their mean scores on a scale from

to 7 (ranging from “I strongly disagree” to “I strongly agree”) re high, indicating that the respondents agree more with the ssertions of each construct analyzed.

( a b

ource: Field research.

The respondents present a high level of perceived perfor- ance, with a mean score of 5.27 and standard deviation (SD)

f 0.964 and a variance coefficient (VC = 100.SD/Mean) of 8%. As for the equity construct, the mean coefficient was .47%, with a SD = 1.372 (VC = 31%). The mean score for rand was 5.55, SD = 1.102, and had a variance coefficient of 0%. For the communication construct, the mean was 5.60, and D = 0.735 (VC = 13%). Product presented a mean score of 4.69 nd SD = 1.299 (VC = 28%). And, finally, the mean score for the ompetition construct was 5.86, SD = 0.763, and had a variance oefficient of 13%.

Table 9, with the variables added and removed, shows that, in odel 1, all variables were added, while in model 2 the equity

ariable was removed, considering p ≥ 0.100, followed by the emoval of the product variable in model 3.

Table 10, showing the model summary, presents an R = 0.717, hich shows a substantial correlation between the independent ariables and the dependent variable, the determination coef- cient, which according to Fávero, Belfiore, Silva, and Chan 2009) is frequently interpreted as the proportion of total vari-

nce in the performance perceived by the soccer club, explained y the independent variables. In this case, the independent

32 M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Managem

Table 11 ANOVA.

Model Sum of squares df Mean squares F Sig.

3 Regression 15.268 3 5.089 10.204 0.000 Residual 14.465 29 0.499 Total 29.733 32

S

v c

s e d c r r m w t t o 0

s v v t r ( s

t B i t p w p t

i t c c

1 s

s w w v v t a – t m

c b c s r p p

C

t t t c c m w p t t c t p r f

m Morgan and Summers (2008), when working with the brand, the clubs perceive the benefits, differences, and credibility of

T C

3

S

ource: Field research.

ariables explain 51.4% of the performance perceived by the lub. The determination coefficient ranges between 0 and 1.

The adjusted R2 corresponds to 0.463. In the multiple regres- ion, the adjusted R2 is more appropriate than the R2 value in xplaining the influence of the independent variables on the ependent variable, because it corrects the determination coeffi- ient when there is more than one independent variable. Having emoved the variables equity and product in models 2 and 3, espectively, the adjusted R2 did not change much. The esti- ated standard error is 0.706, the root-mean-square (RMS), hich measures the dispersion of residues (or errors) around

he adjusted line. If it is not lower than the standard deviation, he regression model is not better than the mean as a predictor f the dependent variable (Fávero et al., 2009). In this analysis, .711 compares favorably with the standard deviation of 0.964.

In Table 11, the ANOVA shows that the proposed model is tatistically significant, that is, at least one of the explanatory ariables significantly explains the behavior of the dependent ariable. The F-statistics are highly significant, indicating that he simultaneous test that each coefficient equals zero can be ejected. The fact that the associated probability (Sig.) is so small 0.0005) does not imply that each of the independent variables ignificantly contributes to the adjustment of the model.

In Table 12, model 1 includes all variables, a process similar o the enter method (although only the final phase was used). ased on the complete table, although only model 3 is presented,

t was perceived that not all explanatory variables were Sig. < 0.05. It was verified that the variables brand and competition resented Sig. t < 0.05, communication presented Sig. t < 0.10, hich is marginally significant, and the variables equity and roduct presented Sig. t > 0.05 and were therefore excluded from he model.

As an additional test, the continents variable was included n the regression model in order to verify whether the rela- ions initially identified in the model would persist. Thus, as the

ontinents variable is a qualitative variable, consisting of four ategories (Europe, 23; Latin America, 7; Oceania, 3; and Africa,

t p

able 12 oefficients.

Model Non-standardized coefficients Standardized c

B Standard error B

(Constant) 2.528 1.504 Brand 0.432 0.123 Communication −0.356 0.186 Competition 0.398 0.171

ource: Field research.

ent Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

), three dummy variables were created (n − 1) with Europe erving as the reference category.

The inclusion of these dummy variables in the initial regres- ion model using the backward method showed that the variables ere gradually excluded from the model, resulting in a model ith the same variables found earlier, without the inclusion of ariables related to continents. The summary of model 1, with all ariables included, resulted in an adjusted R2 of 0.429 and, after he removal of the variables equity, product, Oceania, Africa, nd Latin America, model 6 obtained an adjusted R2 of 0.463

equal to the initial regression test, without the inclusion of he dummies. The coefficients of model 1 and the final model,

odel 6, are displayed in Table 13. Due to the multiple regression results the research hypotheses

ould be assessed, leading to only hypotheses H2, H3, and H6 eing confirmed. The remaining hypothesis, H0, that is, that the onstructs do not influence the performance perceived by the occer clubs, could not be rejected. The validated hypotheses efer to strategic brand management, communication, and com- etition constructs as factors that influence the perceived market erformance of the soccer organizations analyzed.

onclusion

Based on the findings for the research problem – How do he professional soccer clubs perceive their competitive advan- ages in the framework of the RBV? – it is demonstrated hat, among the internal resources and aspects external to the ompany (which were the management of sponsorship, brand, ommunication, product, and competition), only the strategic anagement of the brand, communication, and competition ere relevant in the model when explaining variances in com- etitive advantage. In other words, the confirmed variables are he factors that most strongly influence the competitive advan- age according to the clubs. It is important to highlight that the lubs’ perception can present perception biases with regards to he investigated information as well as in the perceptive filtering rocess the executives use to observe and understand the envi- onment, with possible distortions in the understanding of the actors in a logical sequence (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988).

The brand represents a cognitive or even affective association echanism (Almeida, 2011). It is highlighted that, according to

he brand. This variable is considered important in the managers’ erceptions, because it is a factor for strengthening alliances and

oefficient t Sig. 95.0% confidence interval for B

Inferior limit Superior limit

1.682 0.103 −0.547 5.604 0.494 3.521 0.001 0.181 0.683

−0.271 −1.917 0.065 −0.736 0.024 0.315 2.334 0.027 0.049 0.747

M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Management Journal 53 (2018) 23–34 33

Table 13 Coefficients with dummy variables.

Model Non-standardized coefficients Standardized coefficient t Sig. 95% confidence interval for B

B Standard error B Inferior limit Superior limit

1 (Constant) 1.564 1.989 0.787 0.439 −2.540 5.669 Equity 0.072 0.113 0.102 0.632 0.533 −0.162 0.306 Brand 0.456 0.148 0.521 3.085 0.005 0.151 0.760 Communication −0.366 0.219 −0.279 −1.668 0.108 −0.819 0.087 Product 0.133 0.111 0.180 1.196 0.243 −0.097 0.363 Competition 0.392 0.190 0.310 2.063 0.050 0.000 0.784 Latin America −0.130 0.360 −0.056 −0.362 0.721 −0.874 0.613 Oceania −0.100 0.561 −0.025 −0.178 0.860 −1.257 1.057 Africa 0.452 0.799 0.082 0.566 0.577 −1.197 2.101

6 (Constant) 2.528 1.504 1.682 0.103 −0.547 5.604 Brand 0.432 0.123 0.494 3.521 0.001 0.181 0.683 Communication −0.356 0.186 −0.271 −1.917 0.065 −0.736 0.024

S

i o s

t e 2 c g b t n a i

s t c t g i c f

e m t p t l

L

H t o b

l m c o r o a e s

C

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

B C

C

Competition 0.398 0.171 0.315

ource: Field research.

dentifying supporters of the club. Other complementary factors f brand importance include its association in the provision of ervices or the sale of club products.

Communication was perceived as a tool that adds value to he company image. Communication tools can maximize brand xposure and leverage business relation benefits (Vomberg et al., 015). This variable was considered significant in the clubs’ per- eption because it provides a way to interact with stakeholders, aining competitive advantage in accordance with the brand eing well accepted by the target public and easy to recognize in he soccer environment. Television is a great ally in this commu- ication process due to its capacity to globally broadcast games, s well as being an important moment for the club to transmit ts message to interested audiences.

One noteworthy factor is the managers’ perception on the trategic management of competition as a competitive advan- age. It makes sense to think that one needs to study one’s ompetitors in order to always stay a step ahead, whether in he hiring of future athletes, in the collection of funding from ood sponsors, or by discovering ways to defeat competing clubs n championships. According to Rossi et al. (2013), competitors an serve as parameters in setting targets for clubs when looking or external resources from partners.

Finally, this study greatly contributed to the study of strat- gy in the soccer industry, because it managed to uncover the ain sources of internal resources and the aspects external to

he soccer clubs that are relevant for the clubs in achieving com- etitive advantage. Thus, managers in this segment who intend o achieve better competitive results should better assess factors ike the brand, communication, and competitors.

imitations and recommendations for future research

The sample size (only 33 clubs) does not offer robust results.

owever, in view of the difficulties in obtaining a larger sample,

he results nevertheless present a relative contribution to the field f strategy and the soccer industry, although the findings should e interpreted with caution.

D

2.334 0.027 0.049 0.747

In addition, the equity variable was not assessed due to its ow alpha coefficient in the reliability analysis of the items that

easured this variable. Other items could better measure this onstruct, in order to be included in a joint assessment with the ther variables. Therefore, new items should be created in future esearch, which would permit the analysis of clubs’ perception f sponsorship in relation to competitive advantage. Also, as

suggestion for future research, different internal resources or xternal aspects not addressed in this study could be considered, uch as human resources.

onflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

eferences

bosag, B., Roper, S., & Hind, D. (2012). Examining the relationship between brand emotion and brand extension among supporters of professional foot- ball clubs. European Journal of Marketing, 46(9), 1233–1251.

lmeida, S. (2011). Os efeitos da participação em comunidades virtuais de marca no comportamento do consumidor: Proposição e teste de um modelo teórico. RAC, 15(3), 366–391.

talay, A., Yucel, A. S., & Boztepe, E. (2013). A different approach to the modern sport administration: Method of innovation. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(2), 109–115.

arney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.

arney, J. B. (2011). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. New Jersey: Pearson.

arney, J., & Hesterly, W. (2011). Administração estratégica e vantagem com- petitiva. São Paulo: Pearson.

attaglia, A. (2010). Administração de clubes. São Paulo: Arte e ciência. hurchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing research: Methodological

foundations (9th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson Learning. osta, M. F., & Farias, S. A. (2016). Efeitos da música ao vivo e mecan-

izada em ambientes de varejo supermercadista. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 20(2), 154–174.

e Witt, B., & Meyer, R. (2004). Strategy: Process, content, context. Italy: Thomson.

3 nagem

D

E

F

G

G H

H

H

H

H

I

J

K

K

K

L

L

L

M

M

M

N

O

O

O

P

P P

P

P

P R

S

S

S

S

S

T

T V

4 M.F. Costa et al. / RAUSP Ma

utta, D. K. (2015). Hypercompetitive environments, coopetition strategy, and the role of complementary assets in building competitive advantage: Insights from the resource-based view. Strategic Management Review, 9(1), 1–11.

derson, T. (2015). Producing atmospheres at the match: Fan cultures, commer- cialisation and mood management in English football. Emotion, Space and Society, 15(2), 82–89.

ávero, L. P., Belfiore, P., Silva, F. L., & Chan, B. L. (2009). Análise de dados: Modelagem multivariada para tomada de decisões. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.

arcia, C., & Farina, E. (2013). Concorrência e a participação minoritária entre as firmas rivais. Economia Aplicada, 17(1), 71–89.

urgel, A. (2006). Futebol S/A: A economia entra em campo. São Paulo: Saraiva. air, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005). Análise

multivariada de dados (5. ed). Porto Alegre: Bookman. arrison, J. (2005). Administração estratégica de recursos e relacionamentos.

Porto Alegre: Bookman. averila, M. J., & Fehr, K. (2016). The impact of product superiority on cus-

tomer satisfaction in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 570–583.

ill, J. H., & Vicent, J. (2006). Globalisation and sports branding: The case of Manchester United. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsor- ship, 7(3), 213–218.

oeber, L., & Hoeber, O. (2012). Determinants of an innovation process: A case study of technological innovation in a community sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 26(3), 213–223.

to, N., & Gimenez, F. (2011). Uma conversa entre Porter e VBR: Framework do valor da transação da vantagem competitiva. Organizações em contexto, 7(14), 29–56.

anin, F. (2017). When being a partner means more: The external role of football club management accountants. Management Accounting Research, 35, 5–19.

ase, K., De Hoyos, I. U., Sanchis, C., & Breton, M. (2007). The proto-image of Real Madrid: Implications for marketing and management. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 8(3), 7–28.

im, Y. K., & Trail, G. (2010). Constraints and motivators: A new model to explain sport consumer behavior. Journal of Sport Management, 24(2), 190–210.

riemadisa, T., Terzoudisa, C., & Kartakoullis, N. (2010). Internet marketing in football clubs: A comparison between English and Greek websites. Soccer & Society, 11(3), 291–307.

eone, N. M. C. (1991). A dimensão física das PME’s: A procura de um critério homogeneizador. RAE, 31(2), 53–59.

ioukas, C. S., Reuer, J. J., & Zollo, M. (2016). Effects of information technology capabilities on strategic alliances: Implications for the resource-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 53(2), 161–183.

u, C. M., Chen, S. J., Huang, P. C., & Chien, J. C. (2015). Effect of diversity on human resource management and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 857–861.

adichie, N. (2009). Management implications of foreign players in the English

Premiership League football. Management Decision, 47(1), 24–50.

alhotra, N. K. (2006). Pesquisa de marketing: Uma orientação aplicada (4th ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.

organ, M., & Summers, J. (2008). Marketing esportivo. São Paulo: Thomson. Z

ent Journal 53 (2018) 23–34

emati, A. (2010). Impact of resource based view and resource dependence theory on strategic decision making. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 110–115.

casio, W., & Radoynovska, N. (2016). Strategy and commitments to insti- tutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization (in press).

gbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2014). Organizational cultural perpetuation: A case study of an english premier league football club. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 667–686.

lson, E. M., Duray, R., Cooper, C., & Olson, K. M. (2016). Strategy, structure, and culture within the English Premier League: An examination of large clubs. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 6(1), 55–75.

anda, D., & Reddy, S. (2016). Resource based view of internationalization: Evidence from Indian commercial banks. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 10(1), 41–60.

enrose, E. (1995). The theory of growth of the firm. Oxford: University Press. itts, B., & Stotlar, D. (2002). Fundamentos de marketing esportivo. São Paulo:

Forte. orter, M. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review,

November–December. riem, R., & Butler, J. (2006). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective

for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.

roni, M. W. (2000). A metamorfose do futebol. São Paulo: UNICAMP. ossi, M., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2013). Football performance and strate-

gic choices in Italy and beyond. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(4), 546–564.

ener, J., & Karapolatgil, A. A. (2015). Rules of the game: Strategic in football industry. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207(2), 10–19.

eyedghorban, Z., Matanda, M. J., & LaPlaca, P. (2015). Advancing theory and knowledge in the business-to-business branding literature. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2664–2677.

olberg, H. A., & Mehus, I. (2014). The challenge of attracting football fans to stadia? International Journal of Sport Finance, 9(1), 3–19.

tarbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Donald Hambrick (Ed.), The exec- utive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

totlar, D. (2005). Como desenvolver planos de marketing esportivo de sucesso. São Paulo: Ideia e Ação.

hornton, P. H. (1995). Accounting for acquisition waves: Evidence from the U.S. College Publishing Industry. In R. W. Scott, & S. Christensen (Eds.), The institutional construction of organizations: International and longitudinal studies. London: SAGE.

ubino, M. (2011). Dimensões sociais do esporte. São Paulo: Cortez. omberg, A., Homburg, C., & Bornemann, T. (2015). Talented people and strong

brands: The contribution of human capital and brand equity to firm value. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 2122–2131.

auner, A., Koller, M., & Fink, M. (2012). Sponsoring, brand value and social media. RAE, 52(6), 681–691.