3.1.2.1EVOLUTION OF SPORT MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
The existing literature, although not specifically addressing international co-branding strategies, does discuss the need for innovation in sport management education. Experiential learning within program curricula allows students to keep pace with the rapid global changes in the sport business industry (Choi et al., 2013; Costa, 2005; de Haan & Sherry, 2012; Kelley
et al., 1994; LeCrom et al., 2018; Li et al., 2012). The evolution of sport management education has reflected the growth of the sport industry itself. Indeed, it was Walter O’Malley, then president of the Brooklyn Dodgers, who was one of the first to recognize that sport was growing as a business, specifically with the advent of television. He predicted the need for professionally trained sport business administrators and sport management as a separate and distinct educational curriculum. This vision led to the creation of the first accredited sport management program in the world when Dr. James Mason established the graduate program at Ohio University (Parks, Quarterman, & Thibault, 2011). Today, there are over 800 bachelor, masters, and doctoral level sport management programs throughout the world, and the list is growing (NASSM, 2019). As of March 2020, according the website degreesinsports.com, there are 447 undergraduate programs, 254 masters programs, and 36 doctoral programs in the United States that offer sport management-specific degrees (Degrees in sports, 2020). Many of these institutions also offer online hybrid and executive education options. With sport management programs increasingly well established, it is now important for curricula to reflect experiential and international foci.
3.1.2.2INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SPORT MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
There have been many attempts to empirically assess sport business opportunities and challenges over the past 25 years (Choi et al., 2013; LeCrom et al., 2018). Scholars have identified differences between North American and overseas sport managers in terms of educational background, language, and cultural training. This is amplified in many countries by having nonnative athletes live and compete in different cultures, such as professional sports organizations from North America and Europe competing on each other’s continents (de Haan & Sherry, 2012; LeCrom et al., 2018; Masteralexis & McDonald, 1997; Popp, Hums, & Greenwell, 2009; Ridpath, Rudd, & Stokowski, 2020). To improve training of globally minded students, sport management programs must provide students with the requisite curriculum and skill development (Foster, O’Reilly, & Davila, 2020).
Light and Dixon (2007) discussed adapting sport management pedagogy in relation to changes in the sport industry. Traditional learning, they argued, needs to evolve toward experiential learning, suggesting that education is expected to involve students in the practices of the sport management community. Lave and Wenger (1993, p. 29) referred to this as “legitimate peripheral participants,” which means that participating in the sport management profession not only involves learning specific skills but also the execution of
those skills. Specifically, concerning the continued evolution and globalization of the sport business industry, it also involves learning the culture of the community and how to participate in its practices.
There have been efforts in sport management pedagogy to maximize experiential learning, ideally with such experiences having an international component. The original Sport Education model developed by Siedentop (1998) emphasized experience that is relevant to the real world of sport. This model still holds today, and current thinking suggests the need to include the increasingly global nature of the field (e.g., Foster et al., 2020). Although not specifically internationally focused, the Siedentop (1998) model theorized the importance of actual experience in a sport setting to maximize hands-on learning through community-based sport clubs. One of the significant recommendations overlooked in North American sport management programs is the value of being exposed to non-English speaking settings.
Although English is a worldwide language, it is imperative that sport management students be exposed to other cultures and languages to better position themselves in the global sport marketplace (Danylchuk & Boucher, 2003; Thibault, 2009).
Parks et al. (2011) noted that sport is constantly changing, so future sport managers must be equipped to deal with it. North American professional leagues like the National Basketball Association and National Football League schedule games in foreign countries and are considering expansion to global markets (NFL, 2016; USA Today, 2018). Although the United Kingdom has been the primary focus of the National Football League, the league has also held games in Mexico City. There are also plans for Canada, China, and Brazil to host exhibition games and training camps, and these countries may have an expansion franchise, too (Breer, 2015; NFL, 2016). Meanwhile, European professional leagues and clubs have a similar strategic approach. Football clubs like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, and Arsenal F.C. compete in the International Champions Cup with most of the games taking place in the United States (International Champions Cup, 2019). European clubs also play friendlies in international markets all over the world (Foster et al., 2020; Ridpath et al., 2020).
Fay et al. (2011) discussed the importance of education mirroring and advancing understanding of international sport operations. Sport crosses international boundaries and can be an agent for change. One example is when three long-time political adversaries, the United States, Russia, and Iran, put differences aside to save the sport of wrestling in the Olympic Games (MacFarquhar, 2013). American and Iranian wrestlers embraced and
showed sportsmanship during the 2015 Wrestling World Cup and, then, challenged the International Olympic Committee’s decision to drop the sport from the Olympics. This alliance demonstrated the intersection of international sport and politics and highlighted the importance of the internalization of sport management education. Co-branding efforts based on a partnership between educational programs can improve sport management education, in this sense, and foster greater understanding across the global sport marketplace (Moore, 2004).
3.1.2.3INTERNATIONAL CO-BRANDING THROUGH A DOUBLE DEGREE PROGRAM
Recently, branding research has focused on stakeholders and relationships. From this perspective, customers are active contributors to branding, and brand management is a continuous, social, and interactive process between all actors involved (Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009). Current sport management research has also considered these relationships among sport brands (Kunkel & Biscaia, 2020) and social and interactive aspects, such as the co-creation of brand meaning (Ströbel & Germelmann, 2020).
A brand evolves through the interaction of various actors. Thus, it cannot be built autonomously (Ströbel & Germelmann, 2020). Several interactions and behaviors must be coordinated so that brand image, brand strength, and, ultimately, brand value can flourish.
This platform, or network-oriented perspective, means that every actor integrates resources.
Brodie, Benson-Rea, and Medlin (2017) defined this perspective as integrative branding. The co-actors need to balance the brand meanings for all involved actors by sharpening the collective brand meaning through coordinated branding activities and, in turn, integrating these into the brand identity communication. This concept is pivotal for any branding activity, such as co-branding between two or more independent brands. Co-branding refers to the systematic cooperation between two or more independent brands in a strategic marketing context to realize joint synergies (Woratschek, Kunz, & Strobel, 2008). A narrower definition of co-branding extends the brands’ systematic cooperation to the co-creation of a new product or service. Major reasons for co-branding strategies are signalling effects and mutual image improvements (Bengtsson & Servais, 2005; Helmig, Huber, & Leeflang, 2007; Leuthesser, Kohli, & Suri, 2003; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Therefore, the actors cooperate on advertising campaigns, dual branding, or joint sales promotions. In such a co-branding strategy, the perceived fit of the brands and their activities plays a major role in shaping attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the co-branded activity.
Increased competition in the international sport management education marketplace calls for systematic marketing of university brands and their programs. University brands drive future students’ likelihood to apply for a study program (Judson, Aurand, Gorchels, & Gordon, 2008; Rauschnabel, Krey, Babin, & Ivens, 2016). Empirical work on co-branding in education research is scarce. One of few studies about higher education marketing was an analysis of the effect of co-branding between universities in the United Kingdom with the British Council (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). While the co-branding activities of the British Council supported the university brand in their marketing efforts, it also affected the university’s brand identity. The authors concluded that universities must consider harmonizing all cobrands inside and outside the university to be successful.
Therefore, universities must develop their brand identity and coordinate the branding activities of their sub brands together with potential co-brands and other actors outside the university to co-create a collective brand meaning.
Co-branding universities from different countries and cultural backgrounds is challenging.
Coordinated brand communication activities are the necessary groundwork. A common degree program between two institutions in different countries takes international co-branding to an even more sophisticated level by eliciting a collective brand meaning among all co-actors to promote specific programs and universities (Brodie et al., 2017). A double degree program can serve as a platform for any co-branding activities and, thereby, secure a strategic advantage. Although sport management programs have been cooperating internationally for many years in areas such as research, faculty exchanges, and study abroad programs, a co-branding strategy along with the concept of a formal double degree program is novel. Therefore, this article is a case study of innovative marketing—the co-branding through a double degree program between the long-standing sport management programs at Ohio University and the University of Bayreuth. A successful curricular and research alliance between academic institutions depends on adequate brand fit, so this is considered in the current case. In addition, the authors discuss the opportunities and threats deriving from this co-branding strategy.