Despite the existence of network approaches in sport sponsorship (Chanavat et al., 2016;
Cobbs, 2011; Morgan et al., 2014; Olkkonen, 2001), the real practical aspects of this phenomenon are not conceptualised sufficiently. The overall value in sport sponsorship, however, is not limited to the rights and obligations determined in bilateral contracts but rather is more comprehensive. Resource integration exceeds the contract components and is examined as a behavioural manifestation of engagement (Van Doorn et al., 2010).
Our empirical study reveals sponsors’ and sponsees’ integration of management competencies, technical competencies, networking skills, innovative ideas, and products and services beyond the sponsorship contract. The identified types of resources can be assigned to the resource categorisation of Hunt and Derozier (2004). Management competencies can be assigned to human resources, as both sponsors and sponsees integrate knowledge, expertise, and their respective employees’ time in sport SE. Technical competencies in SE can be identified as access to physical resources; for example, sponsoring companies provide access to technical infrastructures, such as R&D facilities, or ways to develop or improve materials. Relational resources represent networking skills that are integrated in sport SE; for example, the mediating role of the sponsee has the potential to build relationships between two or more sponsors. From these alliances with other business partners, sponsors derive additional value (e.g. in the form of future business). Innovative ideas are considered as organisational resources. Finally, products and services are the result of a combination of different resources, such as human and physical resources. We refer to the resources integrated on the basis of contractual agreements by the sponsee as legal resources, while sponsors integrate financial resources as well as products and services (resource combination). Table 1 provides an overview of the empirical findings and the assignment to resource categories according to Hunt and Derozier (2004).
Type of
‘the main benefit from the sponsor is financial, of course, there are also contributions in kind’
(exp_22)
Financial resources
Payment in kind ‘payments in kind are of growing interest’
(exp_39) Resource combination of themselves, e.g. the logo in the sense of visibility and brand presence‘ (exp_51)
Legal resources
Usage rights ‘usage rights only unfold their performance if
sponsors leverage the rights‘(exp_51) Legal resources
Voluntary
‘tax consultant is also a sponsor and then advises us [the sports club] without billing, for the most part, at least‘ (exp_8)
Human resources
Technical competencies
‘the sponsor is involved in the development of our boats. They provide us with wind tunnels to improve our performance’ (exp_45) club]’ (exp_16) or ‘even bring him [the partner] along, that we [the sports club]
personally can convince them’ (exp_16).
Relational resources
Innovative ideas
‘we basically bring the ideas’ (exp_5) as ‘they have their own event department that helps with the implementation. So they are creating and have tools that they use and that you can use as a partner’ (exp_46).
Organisational resources
Products and services
‘for example, if players move, they mostly use the moving company [sponsor]. Of course, with relatively good conditions’ (exp_6).
Resource combination Table 1: Contractual and voluntary resource integration in sport sponsorship.
No contractual commitment exists among the different sponsors. However, sponsors also engage and exchange resources, including management competencies, technical competencies, networking skills, and products and services. This circumstance makes the sponsor–sponsor relationship special in consideration of sport sponsorship as an EP. Through the bilateral agreement with a sponsee, corporate sponsors gain access to other resource integrators on the sponsorship EP; company representatives then act as resource providers while also benefitting from other actors’ resources. This perspective lends support to
Olkkonen’s (2001, p. 317) idea that sponsorship ‘can be described as a value-adding exchange network’. Figure 4 illustrates the types of resources that are integrated into the sport sponsorship network beyond the sponsorship contract.
Figure 4: Resource integration in sport sponsorship.
In addition to the distinct and well-discussed objectives in sport sponsorship, corporate sponsors benefit from their own and other actors’ SE. Underpinned by the empirical results, SE is a widespread phenomenon confirmed by our empirical study and is theoretically based on actor engagement and EP literature. The reason for sponsees to show engagement behaviour is to foster sponsor satisfaction and retention. Sponsors engage beyond the contract to develop multilaterally beneficial partnerships with sport properties. On some prominent platforms, such as FIFA or the IOC, or for global football brands, such as Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, and Manchester United, sponsors engage to extend their contract with the property and not lose it to a competitor. In addition, sponsors use their access to the network and engage to develop business contacts. Ideally, these business contacts lead to increased turnover and thus can be traced back to the original idea of sport sponsorship.
Sponsorship revenue accounts for a substantial share of the total sports market (IEG, 2018).
The leveraging of purchased rights requires additional investments as it involves the total amount of sponsorship spending beyond the purchased rights (Cornwell & Kwon, 2020).
These leveraging measures do not necessarily need to be regulated by a contract but are often the output of platform actors’ innovative collaborations.
In addition, financial figures on sponsorship (e.g. Deloitte, 2018; IEG, 2018) do not include the voluntary, non-contractual share of benefits discovered in the current study. The potential to generate monetary value from sport sponsorship, therefore, should be estimated as
significantly higher. Sponsees also should pay more attention to the effects of SE, so that the hidden potential for generating value, both monetary and non-monetary, can be realised. It is also essential for sponsee’s managers to understand their role as operators of a platform granting access to other actors. In sponsorship practice, operations that facilitate interactions include sponsor workshops, business speed-dating, or sport games for the business club.
There is no value to the isolated sale of sponsorship rights, as the value only results from the use of the rights. The price for sponsorship rights represents an indicator of the scarcity of access to a sponsorship EP. Expenses for mere access are not sufficient. SE is a necessary condition for the creation of value from sponsorship contracts. The empirical results contribute to raising awareness of sponsorship partners about which resources they can integrate to increase the value of sport sponsorship.
4.2.6CONTRIBUTIONS
The contributions to the literature are manifold. First, we conceptualise sport sponsorship as an EP at the meso-level embedded within a sport service ecosystem at the macro-level.
Therefore, we contribute to a broader understanding of the network approach in sport sponsorship. Second, building on our conceptualisation of sport sponsorship as an EP, we empirically analyse what types of resources sponsors and the sponsee integrate within and especially beyond the contract at the micro-level. This enables us to validate our conceptualisation. Third, we present a more precise concept of sport sponsorship as an EP.
In doing so, we specify voluntary resource integration as SE. Fourth, we show that sponsees grant access to an EP in which actors’ expertise and knowledge aid in the co-creation of value. Fifth, we develop sport sponsorship beyond a pure promotional and sales tool to a networking tool for sponsoring companies using economic specialisation and technology competencies of other actors. Sixth, we model sponsees as gatekeepers and operators of EPs, which increases their monetary and non-monetary value.
By engaging in resource integration on the EP, sponsors and sponsee co-create value in sport sponsorship. In these relationships with knowledgeable resource integrators, all actors benefit collaboratively. Voluntary resource integration by reciprocal SE helps to establish and continue multilaterally beneficial partnerships in sponsorship. Sporting activities are at the fundamental core for the emergence of different types of EPs, one of which is sport sponsorship (Woratschek et al., 2014; Woratschek & Buser, 2018). Managers and decision-makers in the sports industry need to be aware of the unique opportunities provided by
resource integration in sport sponsorship. Using the EP to build relationships with other actors not only serves as a way to leverage the sponsorship but also helps to develop business contacts and enlarge sponsors’ and sponsees’ networks. On the one hand, sponsors can improve their strategic focus by collaborating with other actors, which might lead to joint campaigns or innovative ideas. On the other hand, for sponsees, enlarging their business network by increasing the attractiveness of the EP leads to benefits from others’ economic specialisation and technology transfer. In general, value can be monetary and non-monetary.
The sponsorship platform is more than a pure promotional and sales tool for companies to reach their strategic objectives. SE in a business network opens the door to access knowledgeable actors and benefit from the integration of physical, human, organisational, informational, and relational resources. With access to the EP, which is granted by the sponsorship contract, sponsors can co-create their business network together with the sponsee and benefit from others’ resource integration. The platform itself represents the venue for innovation through the access and integration of resources (Aal et al., 2016). Given the importance of business relations in sponsorship networks, it is essential to be aware that sponsorship value can be derived beyond a dyadic relationship and is not limited to contract components. Therefore, the underlying concept of sponsorship as an EP provides a foundation for actors’ collaboration and the co-creation of value through resource integration.
Furthermore, the empirical study shows what types of resources can be integrated, leading to benefits from economic specialisation and technology transfer.