








































37 
 

 
 
 

An Examination of the effects of Fan-Based Brand 
Associations of a Professional Soccer League on 

League Brand Equity 
 

Serdar Turedi 
Purdue University Northwest 

 
Sinan Nardali 

Izmir Katip Celebi University 
 

Musa Pinar 
Valparaiso University 

 
Tulay Girard 

Pennsylvania State University-Altoona 
 

Sanem Alkibay 
Gazi University 

 
 
The main objectives of this study are to 1) identify the relevant dimensions of the fan-based brand 
associations (FBBA) of a sports league and develop a measurement scale for FBBA, and 2) investigate 
the relationship between brand equity and its components (brand associations and internalization). 
Data are collected from 227 soccer fans and a partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) analysis is conducted. The results indicate that player, referee, head coach, stadium, team 
success, (team) management, and soccer federation are significant dimensions of the sports league 
FBBA and that the FBBA and internalization can be applied to investigate the brand equity of 
professional sports leagues. The findings also suggest that league managers can collaborate with other 
key members of the industry (e.g., players, head coaches, or team managers) to develop a strong 
professional sports league. 
 
Keywords: Sports league, Sports brand equity, Branding, Soccer brand equity, Fan-based brand 
associations 

 
Introduction 

Due to increased competition and globalization, managers have given top priority to the 
branding efforts of their organizations (Ailawadi & Keller, 2004). Brands allow customers to efficiently 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr     
    2022, Volume 12, pages 37-56 



38 
 

associate personal meaning to the products offered by organizations as brands sustain functional and 
symbolic information about goods, services, and experiences (Oh et al., 2020). Therefore, a strong 
brand refers to the consumers’ association of specific positive attributes with the brand (Kunkel et al., 
2014), and a strong brand is essential for creating positive perceptions among consumers (Kaynak et 
al., 2008; Kunkel et al., 2014). Realizing that a brand is one of the most valuable intangible assets of 
an organization, focusing on developing strong brands and brand equity has become a common 
practice between organizations. Developing brand equity, which is defined as ‘the differential effect 
of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of brand (Keller, 1993, p. 2), is considered 
the central construct in the strategic management of brands (Rosenbaum-Elliott et al., 2011). Further, 
brand equity is related to positive financial and behavioral outcomes (Keller, 1993) that ultimately 
create value for customers (Tong & Hawley, 2009).  

Brand equity has become particularly important in the sports management area as the fans 
develop an emotional connection with the sports teams that they support and the leagues that they 
follow (Biscaia et al., 2013). As the competition for fans across different sports, the proliferation of 
sports franchises, and new social media tools to reach the fans globally increased, teams and leagues 
have adopted a business-like approach to managing their brands (James et al., 2002). These trends and 
changes in the global sports field suggest that it has become essential to build strong sports brands to 
distinguish the leagues and teams from their competitors in the same sport and across different sports 
(Kaynak et al., 2008). Findings of the 2021 annual report on the most valuable (highest brand equity) 
football (aka soccer in the U.S.) brands present good evidence for the importance of branding strategy 
for teams and leagues because nine of the top ten teams in the most valuable and strongest brands’ 
lists have been the same teams (Brand Finance, 2021a). Consequently, managing a team as a brand has 
become a growing paradigm in the sports industry (Ross, 2006) and the number of studies 
investigating sports team brand equity has increased (e.g., Bauer et al., 2005; Bauer et al., 2008; Gladden 
& Funk, 2002; Ross et al., 2006, Ross et al., 2008).  

Prior literature on sports teams and leagues has operationalized brand equity as a multi-
dimensional construct (e.g., Bauer et al., 2008; Biscaia et al., 2013; Kunkel et al., 2017; Ross et al., 
2008). They use brand associations and brand awareness constructs to indirectly measure brand equity. 
Brand associations, which are defined as anything that is linked in memory to a brand (Aaker, 1991), 
are classified as brand attributes (product-related and non-product-related), brand benefits, and brand 
attitudes (Keller, 1993). However, prior studies on sports brand equity focus only on brand attributes 
(e.g., Biscaia et al., 2013; Kunkel et al., 2017) and reveal that sports brand associations provide a sound 
basis for explaining sports brand equity. In contrast, the literature that investigates the role of brand 
awareness, which is defined as familiarity with a brand (Aaker, 1991) on sports brand equity, has 
contradicting results. While some studies argue that brand awareness is not a relevant measure of 
sports brand equity since it would be typically high among the fans of a team or league (Bauer et al., 
2008), others find that brand awareness, measured as the internalization of a brand, explains sports 
brand equity (Biscaia et al., 2013). Because brand awareness and internalization are two different 
constructs, this study uses the attributes-based brand associations and internalization constructs as the 
components of brand equity.  

Despite the growing number of research on the team brand equity topic, to the best of the 
authors’ knowledge, league brand equity has received limited attention (Ekebas-Turedi, Karaatli, & 
Turedi, 2020; Kunkel, 2013; Kunkel et al., 2014; Kunkel, 2017). This is surprising given that a league 
serves as an umbrella brand (master brand) over its teams (sub-brands). In a league-team brand 
architecture, leagues offer the participating teams a platform for their product (games/ matches) as a 
source of entertainment and excitement for fans and for developing their fan base (Kunkel et al., 
2014). Furthermore, leagues function as a franchisor that supports their teams to ensure the team's 
success (Kunkel et al., 2014). This support involves the use of marketing and promotion activities to 



39 
 

build a brand (Pitt et al., 2003). For example, the Turkish Football Federation auctions the Turkish 
Super League’s TV rights nationally and internationally on behalf of all of the teams and organizes 
Turkish Super Cup final games in stadiums outside Turkey to increase international viewership and 
build a stronger brand. In turn, fans’ perceptions of individual teams positively influence their 
perceptions of the league (Kunkel et al., 2017). Therefore, in the league-team brand architecture, 
leagues and teams are mutually dependent on each other’s brand-building strategies, such that one 
cannot exist without the other (Kunkel et al., 2014).  

Moreover, neither team brand equity nor league brand equity literature has attempted to 
explore the relationship between sports brand equity and its components. Kunkel et al. (2014) state 
that it is important to understand not only the team brand equity but also the league brand equity and 
its relationship to its components. However, previous studies on sports brand equity have mainly 
focused on indirect measures of team brand equity and identifying the team brand association 
dimensions (e.g., Bauer et al., 2008; Biscaia et al., 2013; Ross et al., 2008). Most of the studies that 
investigated the components of league brand equity and dimensions of league brand associations also 
used an indirect measure approach and developed a single-item scale for league brand associations 
(Kunkel et al., 2013; Kunkel et al., 2014; Kunkel et al., 2017). These studies have not examined the 
relationship between brand equity and its components as indirect measures intend to identify the 
sources of brand equity. On the other hand, direct measures focus on the responses of customers to 
the marketing efforts of brands (Tong & Hawley, 2009). Therefore, studies that use direct measures 
with a multi-item scale to measure overall brand equity suggest a causal relationship between brand 
equity and its components (Girard et al., 2017). Hence, this study uses the direct measurement 
approach and examines the following three research questions to address the gap in the literature: 

(1) What are the fan-based brand associations of sports leagues? 
(2) How does fan-based brand associations of sports league affect sports league brand equity? 
(3) How does internalization affect sports league brand equity? 

This study investigates these research questions by employing a sample of 227 Turkish soccer 
fans. This study answers the first research question by identifying from the literature the relevant fan-
based brand association (FBBA) dimensions that contribute to a strong sports league brand and 
developing a multi-item measurement scale to measure them. To answer the second and third research 
questions, this study uses league brand equity as the dependent variable and two main components of 
brand equity (FBBA and internalization) as the independent variables. The empirical results of this 
research make two significant contributions to the literature. First, this study aims to extend the 
literature by developing the multi-item FBBA scale. Second, it attempts to shed light on the impact of 
FBBA and internalization on league brand equity. Furthermore, this research also discusses the 
managerial and theoretical implications of the results to developing a strong sports league. Given the 
interdependence of sports leagues and teams through the league-team brand architecture, the findings 
of this research will contribute to sports branding literature by offering a better understanding of the 
league brand associations dimensions and the relationships between a league’s brand equity and its 
components.  

 
Background 

Brand Equity 
Two different perspectives have been used to study brand equity: financial-based (e.g., Simon 

& Sullivan, 1993) and consumer-based (e.g., Keller, 1993). While, financial-based brand equity 
measures the financial value of a brand (Simon & Sullivan, 1993), consumer-based brand equity 
measures the value consumers attached to a brand (Keller, 1993). As Rosenbaum-Elliott et al. (2011, 
p. 90) emphasize, “In a very real sense, understanding brand equity must come from the consumer’s 
point of view because that is what ultimately will affect brand success.” Keller (2013) states that the 



40 
 

power of the brand lies within what customers learn, feel, and hear about the brand and how they 
respond over time, as brand equity is the value that consumers associate with a brand. Brand equity is 
built through the effective management of the brand promise and brand experience and serves as a 
key indicator of a brand’s health (Keller, 1993).  

From a consumer-based perspective, Aaker (1991, p.15) has conceptualized brand equity as 
“a multidimensional concept, consisting of brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, 
and brand loyalty, all of which are important from the customer perspective”, however, he does not 
operationalize any scale to measure brand equity. Following that, Keller (1993) introduced the 
consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) model, which identifies brand awareness and brand image 
associations as essential components that represent the core of brand equity. Consistent with this 
conceptualization, previous studies have examined the relationship between brand equity and its 
components (e.g., Girard et al., 2017; Tong & Hawley, 2009). Nevertheless, there is still a lack of 
consensus on the exact definition of brand equity. Despite the lack of consensus on a definition, there 
is an agreement that successful brands develop a strong personal and emotional relationship with their 
consumers (Aaker, 1996). Such a relationship becomes more apparent in the sport context, as the 
emotional and personal relationship between fans and their favorite sports team tends to be strong 
(Biscaia et al., 2013). 

 
Brand Equity in Sport Industry 

There has been a growing interest in studying the role of brand equity in the sport context. 
Prior literature has investigated the sports team brand equity and developed frameworks for 
consumer-based brand equity of the sports teams (Bauer et al., 2005; Bauer et al., 2008; Biscaia et al., 
2013; Gladden & Funk, 2002; Gladden et al., 1998; Ross, 2006; Ross et al., 2006; Ross et al., 2008). 
For example, Gladden et al. (1998) offer a conceptual framework to show the multidimensional nature 
of sports brand equity. Their framework, which is developed for assessing brand equity in Division I 
college athletics, includes four brand equity components: (1) brand associations, (2) brand awareness, 
(3) perceived quality and (4) brand loyalty. Further, it includes three groups of brand equity antecedents 
(team-related, organizational-related, and market-related attributes) and three group of consequences 
in the marketplace (national media exposure, corporate sponsorship, and merchandise sales). Later, 
Gladden and Milne (1999) add two antecedents (logo design and stadium) to Gladden et al. (1998)’s 
framework to expand it to a sports brand equity context.  
 However, neither study provides a scale to measure their models. Bauer et al. (2005), is the 
first study to propose a measurement scale for brand equity in the context of team sport and develop 
the Brand Equity in a Team Sport (BETS) scale and operationalize brand equity using fourteen 
indicators and two components: 1) brand awareness and 2) brand (image) associations. Bauer et al. 
(2005) suggest that their model would hold over leagues as well as countries and encourage conducting 
further research utilizing it. Yet, the model is criticized for not considering consumer experience with 
the brand (Biscaia et al., 2013). To address this problem, Ross (2006) develops the Spectator-Based 
Brand Equity (SBBE) model by considering consumer experience. The SBBE model also employs 
brand associations and brand awareness as the team's brand equity components. Finally, Biscaia et al. 
(2013) assess the validity of the SBBE model in the European soccer league. They represent brand 
awareness using identification and internalization. However, these two constructs are grouped into a 
single dimension and renamed internalization by the authors. Since the fans are already aware of the 
team brand that they support (Bauer et al. 2005), this study uses brand associations and internalization 
to study league brand equity. 
 



41 
 

Sports Brand Associations  
Several studies have explored brand associations in the sport context. Table 1 summarizes the 

key studies that examine the brand association dimensions for sports teams and sports leagues, and 
lists the dimensions used for measuring brand associations. The studies related to sports teams' 
branding have provided a good understanding of team brand association dimensions.  
 
Table 1 - Summary of Key Research on Sports Brand Associations  
 

Factor Dimension 

Gladden 
and 

Funk 
(2002) 

Ross 
et al. 

(2006) 

Bauer 
et al. 

(2008) 

Ross 
et al. 

(2008) 

Biscaia 
et al. 

(2013) 

Kunkel 
et al. 

(2014) 

Product-
related 

Head coach x  x  x  
Management x    x x 
Non-player personnel  x  x   
Star player x  x   x 
Rivalry / Competition  x  x  x 
(Team) Success x x x x x  
Team (member)   x    
Team performance / Team play  x x x  x 

Non-
product-
related 

Concessions  x  x x  
Club history and tradition x x x x x x 
Fans   x    
Brand Mark / Logo x x x x x x 
Product delivery  x     x 
Stadium (atmosphere) x x x x x x 

Brand 
benefits 

Education      x 
Emotions   x    
Entertainment / Excitement   x   x 
Escape / Diversion x  x   x 
Identification x  x    
Nostalgia x  x   x 
Peer-group acceptance x  x    
Player development      x 
Pride in place x     x 
Socialization  x x x x  

Brand 
attitudes 

Affect x  x    
Importance x      
Knowledge x      
Commitment  x  x x  
Organizational attributes  x  x x  
Specific team      x 

 
Gladden and Funk (2002) develop the Team Association Model (TAM) to enhance the understanding 
of team brand associations. The TAM categorized team brand associations into four factors: 1) 
product-related attributes, 2) non-product-related attributes, 3) brand benefits and 4) brand attitudes. 
Following a four-step procedure, they determined 16 brand associations and offered a measurement 
scale.  

Ross et al. (2006) develop Team Brand Association Scale (TBAS) and identify 11 sports teams' 
brand associations. However, they do not empirically examine the relationships between brand 
associations and their dimensions. Bauer et al. (2008) develop a framework to measure brand (image) 



42 
 

associations and investigate their importance for fan loyalty in the team sports industry in Germany. 
The model includes product-related attributes, non-product-related brands, multifaceted perceived 
brand benefits, and brand loyalty measured as behavioral loyalty. Bauer et al. (2008) reveal that a club’s 
brand associations play a major role in fostering loyal fan behavior, and the influence of non-product-
related attributes is almost tripled those of product-related attributes. This is a surprising result as the 
authors state that product-related attributes are expected to be of greater importance to fans. Based 
on these results, they suggest that neither competitive success nor the team itself is a central driver of 
a fan’s utility perception. Thus, Bauer et al. (2008) argue that there should be a special focus on non-
product-related attributes. 

Ross et al. (2008) criticize the previous models for being derived from the perspectives of 
manufactured goods and are not addressing the importance of the consumer’s actual experience. They 
state that addressing actual experience is critical due to the experiential nature of spectator sport. Ross 
et al. (2008) empirically test Ross (2006)’s SBBE model, which includes dimensions for brand 
associations and brand awareness in line with Keller (1993)’s CBBE model. The results of Ross et al. 
(2008) show that brand awareness and brand associations are relevant constructs for their SBBE 
model for a sports team. Moreover, Ross et al. (2008) find that success and team characteristics 
constructs are the strongest two dimensions of the sports team brand associations. Ross et al. (2008) 
conclude that their model is a reliable tool to measure brand equity in sports. 

Biscaia et al. (2013) empirically test Ross et al. (2008)’s SBBE model on the Portuguese soccer 
league. Their final model includes ten brand association dimensions. Results of the multi-group 
analysis reveal that the SBBE model is a valid tool for assessing the brand equity of soccer teams in 
Europe. Their results also indicate that all ten dimensions of brand associations showed statistically 
significant relationships with the second-order construct of brand associations. The strongest 
dimension of brand associations is team success.  

Kunkel et al. (2013) is the first study to explore the role of branding in the sports league 
context. They test different driver roles of the league and team brands on consumer loyalty. They find 
that a co-dominant brand relationship exists between professional sports leagues and their affiliated 
teams, which is the prevalent perceived brand relationship. Despite these results, a few studies have 
further explored this co-dominant relationship. In a different study, Kunkel et al. (2014) modified and 
integrated Gladden and Funk (2002)’s and Ross et al. (2008)’s team-based brand associations 
frameworks to measure league brand associations. They indicate that brand associations for a 
professional sports league represent attributes, benefits, and attitudes linked in consumer’s mind with 
that league. This is the first study to examine league brand associations from consumers’ perspectives 
and their results reveal that existing team brand equity literature can be applied to explore consumer-
based league brand associations of sports leagues. Kunkel et al. (2014) conclude that team brand 
associations used in previous research (Bauer et al., 2008; Gladden & Funk 2002; Ross et al., 2006; 
Ross et al., 2008) are relevant for sports leagues.  

Kunkel et al. (2017) have integrated brand architecture and brand associations literature to 
examine the role of league brand on the relationship between the team brand and team-related 
behavior. They state that while sports leagues and teams represent unique entities, team brands can 
influence the league brand and the league brand can influence team-related behavior. Thus, teams 
affiliated with a strong league brand benefit from the positive league brand associations that 
consumers form.  

However, the studies that focus on sports team brand associations and brand equity do not 
address the league brand associations or brand equity (Bauer et al., 2008; Gladden & Funk 2002; Ross 
et al., 2006; Ross et al., 2008). Prior studies that cover sports leagues (Kunkel et al., 2013; Kunkel et 
al., 2014) provide some insights about the league brand associations (Kunkel et al., 2014), the role of 
league brand on the relationship between the team brand and team-related behavior (Kunkel et al., 



43 
 

2017) and the driver roles of leagues and teams (Kunkel et al., 2013). However, these studies use 
single-item scales to measure each brand association dimension and do not provide multi-item scales 
for sports league brand association dimensions. They also do not examine the relationships among 
the brand association dimensions as they use formative models. Further, they have never linked the 
league brand associations to league brand equity, nor do they offer measures for league brand equity. 
Hence, it is essential to examine the sports leagues' brand associations, which could help to create a 
strong league brand equity. This study intends to fill this gap in the literature by examining the FBBA 
of a sport (soccer) league – measured with a multi-item scale. Further, drawing from the previous 
sports branding literature, this study proposes that: 

 
H1. A positive relationship exists between fan-based brand associations and league        
        brand equity 
 

Internalization 
Brand awareness is another important component of brand equity. It represents a consumer’s 

ability of brand recognition and brand recall (Aaker, 1996), and it is related to the strength of the brand 
in memory, reflecting consumers’ ability to identify the brand under different situations (Rossiter & 
Percy, 1987). Brand recognition is consumers’ ability to correctly identify a product or service based 
on a brand name, logo, or other indicators (Keller, 1993). For example, fans can recognize a soccer 
game on TV as an English Premier League game or La Liga (Spanish Soccer League) game by the logo 
on the screen without looking at the details of the game. On the other hand, brand recall is the 
likelihood of a consumer’s instant recollection of the brand name when prompted with a product or 
service (Keller, 1993). For example, most fans automatically think of the English Premier League or 
La Liga when they talk about soccer. Thus, brand awareness can be an indicator of product or service 
quality or consumers’ commitment to that brand (Aaker, 1991). It affects consumers’ decision-making 
process regarding a product or service and has a direct effect on brand equity (Tong & Hawley, 2009). 

Brand awareness also received attention in the sports brand equity literature. Bauer et al. (2005) 
is the first study to explore the role of brand awareness on sports team brand equity. They measure 
brand recall through the enumeration of known brands (teams) in professional German soccer, and 
brand recognition through the recognition of certain teams in professional German soccer and 
familiarity with these teams. Bauer et al, (2005) conclude that brand awareness may not be a factor 
that adds a lot of value to understanding the sports team brand equity because the amount of variance 
explained by it is too small. They stated that the use of brand awareness in the sports brand equity 
context might be problematic because the brands in professional sports are well known among fans. 
Thus, Bauer et al. (2005) suggest that brand awareness only adds value to the understanding of brand 
equity when there is a high variance in consumers’ knowledge and diversity in their product category 
expertise.  

Ross et al. (2008) measure team brand awareness using identification – belongingness to a 
brand (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) – and internalization – taking in brand values as one’s own (Deci & 
Ryan, 1985). They state that although there are more direct measures of brand awareness, they use 
psychological commitment to a team as the measure since these two dimensions serve as a gauge for 
recognition and recall and may influence the sports team's brand equity. Biscaia et al. (2013) test Ross 
et al. (2008)’s model on the Portuguese soccer league. Brand awareness is initially measured by eight 
items representing identification and internalization in their model. These constructs are grouped into 
a single dimension which is renamed internalization and measured by three items. In addition, 
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) point out that research has failed to differentiate the aspects of 
identification from internalization. Further, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, none of the sports 



44 
 

league brand equity studies have addressed the importance of internalization on sports league brand 
equity. Hence, drawing from the previous sports branding literature this study proposes that: 

 
H2. A positive relationship exists between internalization and league brand equity 

 
Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual model for FBBA for a sports league, which includes the 

dimensions of league brand associations, internalization, and league brand equity. The studies, from 
which the item scales are developed, along with the measurement items of the multi-item scale of the 
final model are presented in Table 2.  

 
Figure 1 - Proposed Model – Measuring Brand Associations for League Brand Equity 
 

 

 
Table 2 - Final Measurement Scale: Means and Standard Deviations 
 

Constructs 
(Source) Item ID Items Mean Std. Dev. 

Player  
(Gladden & Funk 

2002) 

pl3 Star players in Super League always perform at the highest level. 5.36 1.76 

pl5 Foreign star players in the league improve the quality of their 
teams. 5.48 1.58 

     
Head Coach 

(Gladden & Funk 
2002) 

hc2 Successful teams have the same head coaches for a long time. 5.35 1.63 

hc3 Head coaches in the league maintain discipline for their team's 
success. 5.44 1.63 

     

Stadium          
(Ross et al., 2008) 

sta3 League stadiums are designed for fans to enjoy the game. 5.48 1.55 

sta4 Restrooms and all other facilities at the league stadiums are of the 
best quality. 5.32 1.55 

sta5 Outside of the league stadiums offer places for the fans to have a 
good time before the game. 5.43 1.50 

     
ref2 League referees are consistent in their decisions. 5.60 1.52 

Fan-based Brand Association Dimensions 

Brand Equity 

Player 
 

Head Coach 
 

Referee 
 

Team Success 
 Fan-based Brand 

Association 
 

Management 
 

Stadium 
 

Soccer Federation 
 

League History 
 

Internalization 

H1+ 

H2+ 



45 
 

Referees  
(developed by the 

authors) 
ref4 Referees’ decisions are fair and consistent with the rules of the 

game. 5.60 1.63 

     

Team Success 
(Ross et al., 2008) 

team1 Teams in the league play well in every game. 5.64 1.38 

team2 Teams in the league have star players who would help win the 
games. 5.52 1.57 

     
Management 

(Gladden & Funk 
2002) 

man3 Team managers do not make negative comments about the 
other/opposing teams. 5.42 1.57 

man4 Team managers' priority is to build a strong league brand. 5.37 1.54 
     

Soccer Federation 
(developed by the 

authors) 

sf1 The League commissioner treats every team the same. 5.67 1.54 

sf9 The League commissioner does not discriminate among teams. 5.58 1.58 
     

Internalization 
(Ross et al., 2008) 

int1 I feel like I am a member of the Super League. 5.56 1.58 
int2 Being a fan of the Super League is a large part of who I am. 5.25 1.79 
int3 Fans "live and breathe" league. 5.57 1.55 

     
Brand Equity 

(Tong & Hawley, 
2009) 

be2 Even though there are other sports activities equally fun, Super 
League games are preferred. 5.44 1.53 

be3 The quality of Super League games is worth the price fans pay. 5.30 1.72 
 

Methodology1 
Research Context 

According to the statistics published by Plunkett Research (2016), the sports industry is one 
of the top 20 global industries, with a $1.5 trillion market value, of which advertising makes the most 
significant contribution with $34.9 billion in annual spending. The most recent annual report of the 
world’s most valuable 50 football (soccer) brands (Brand Finance, 2021a) shows that despite the 
effects of Covid-19, there is a growing interest in branding and creating valuable brands in the sport. 
The report indicates that the Premier League of England has the highest brand value with €7,485,189 
billion in 2021. Although the Turkish Super League was not evaluated in the 2021 annual report, 
according to the 2016 Brand Finance Football 50 report, the Turkish Super League has ranked the 
sixth biggest brand among European soccer leagues with a brand value of $211 million (Brand 
Finance, 2016). Also, the brand values of the top three Turkish soccer teams (Galatasaray with $49 
million, Fenerbahce with $48 million, and Besiktas with $35 million) (Brand Finance, 2021b) validate 
the importance of the Turkish Super League among European leagues. Hence, the Turkish Super 
League provides a compelling research context to examine the relationship proposed in Figure 1.  

 
Scale Development 

The current research implements Malhotra and Groves (1998)’s measurement scale 
development framework to achieve the study objectives. First, the constructs of the study have been 
identified. The current research chooses brand associations and internalization constructs as the 
independent variables since the extant literature mainly uses them as the determinants of sports brand 
equity (e.g., Bauer et al., 2005; Biscaia et al., 2013; Keller, 1993; Ross et al., 2008). Further, following 
the models tested in previous non-sport brand equity research (e.g., Girard et al., 2017; Tong & 

 
1 This paper is based on a survey that was designed to provide data for more than one study; hence, the methodology 

presented in this paper is similar to the methodological discussions presented in Pinar et al. (2017).  
 



46 
 

Hawley, 2009; Yoo et al., 2000), the overall league brand equity construct is used as the dependent 
variable.  

The brand associations measures are compiled from previous sports branding literature (Bauer 
et al., 2008; Biscaia et al. 2013; Gladden et al., 1998; Gladden & Funk, 2002; Ross, 2006; Ross et al., 
2006; Ross et al., 2008) and modified to reflect the league brand associations. Even though brand 
associations consist of attributes, benefits, and attitudes (Keller, 1993), prior sports branding literature 
does not integrate attitudes into brand association models because attributes and benefits determine 
attitudes (Bauer et al., 2005; Gladden & Funk, 2002). Attributes define descriptive characteristics of a 
product or service, whereas benefits represent personal value that customers attach to the same 
product or service (Keller, 1993; Kunkel et al., 2014). Hence, this study focuses on the attributes 
dimension of brand associations to examine the proposed model. Gladden and Funk (2002), identify 
eight main attributes in the team context. These attributes are: 1) star player, 2) success, 3) head coach, 
4) management, 5) stadium/arena, 6) tradition, 7) logo design and 8) product delivery. This study uses 
players (5 items), team success (4 items), head coaches (5 items), team management (5 items), stadium 
(5 items), and league history (3 items) to measure the first six attributes respectively.  

This study does not include logo design in the proposed model because the Turkish Soccer 
League is well known among Turkish soccer fans, and logo design may not make any significant 
difference concerning soccer league attributes. Kunkel et al. (2017) confirm this assumption because 
they find logo has no significant effect on consumers’ perception of the league brand. This study also 
does not include product delivery as it is not applicable in the context of the soccer league for Turkey. 
Instead, this study adds two additional brand associations – soccer federation (9 items) and referees 
(5 items) because the soccer federation serves as a franchisor and league’s governing body by 
establishing game rules and implementing these rules via referees. These two dimensions are relevant 
because the soccer federation, as a governing body, develops the game rules to guarantee that each 
team is equally and fairly treated, and promotes the league brand,  while the referees are in charge of 
making sure that the game rules are developed by soccer federations are fairly and consistently 
implemented for all games to assure the improvement of the overall quality of the games (Kunkel et 
al., 2017). 

The measures for internalization are adopted from Biscaia et al. (2013) and modified to reflect 
the sports league. Finally, the league brand equity measurements are compiled from the non-sport 
team branding literature (e.g., Girard et al., 2017; Tong & Hawley, 2009; Sirianni et al., 2013; Yoo et 
al., 2000) and modified to reflect the sports league from the fans’ perspectives because there have been 
no prior scales for measuring sports league brand equity. This is because prior studies focusing on 
sports teams’ brand equity examine the dimensions of brand associations and brand awareness. 
However, those studies do not link brand associations and internalization to sports team brand equity. 
This study uses an importance scale to determine how important the brand association dimensions 
and internalization are in creating a strong league brand equity. Each item is measured on a seven-
point scale (1 = very unimportant to 7 = very important).  

 The survey instrument was originally developed in English using the measurement scale items 
from the aforementioned literature. Following the recommendation of Ball et al., (2002), the survey 
was translated into Turkish and then translated into English by different experts to avoid translation 
errors and maintain the intended meanings of the questions. The original and translated versions of 
the survey were compared until there were no differences. All of the scale items, as explained below, 
were pretested to improve their meaning and ease of comprehension. 

Once the initial survey instrument was developed, the next step was to conduct several pre-
tests to improve the quality of scale items. First, a panel of 3 academics, who are experts on branding 
and scale development, were asked to provide feedback on the survey. Based on the feedback of the 
panel, the survey was revised. The first pre-test was conducted in Izmir (the third largest city with a 



47 
 

population of over 2.5 million), Turkey, with 113 soccer fans, who followed and/or attended soccer 
matches. The respondents were asked to indicate the importance level of each item in the survey in 
creating a strong soccer league brand. To minimize possible bias, the instructions of the survey 
disclosed that the Turkish Soccer League did not sponsor the research. Based on the results of 
exploratory factor analyses, the authors modified the survey and eliminated items that have poor factor 
loadings and/or are loaded on multiple factors. After that, the authors conducted the second pre-test 
in Izmir and Ankara (the second largest city with a population of over 4 million), Turkey. The authors 
administered the survey to 60 respondents in each city which produced 120 valid surveys. As this 
study is designed to examine the brand associations and internalization in soccer leagues, the authors 
purposefully used a convenience sample of respondents who were interested in soccer.  

The authors conducted exploratory factor and reliability analyses that provided useful input 
for improving the measurement scale and establishing the face validity of the constructs (Churchill & 
Iacobucci, 2005; Narver & Slater, 1990). After the modifications, the final survey instrument resulted 
in a total of 31 items, out of which were 25 scale items for the dimensions of brand associations. Each 
of the eight brand association dimensions initially had three items, except for the soccer federation, 
which had four items. In line with Biscaia et al. (2013), internalization also initially had three items. 
Finally, the overall league brand equity initially has three items. The survey also included demographic 
questions.  

 
Sampling Plan 

The target population for this study project was soccer fans in Turkey, who were 18 years old 
or older. The survey was administered with the help of a market research company, Xsights located 
in Istanbul, Turkey, to reach the target population. Identifying an adequate sample size is important 
to ensure the statistical power of the test for the proposed model. Prior literature offers two different 
approaches for determining the minimum sample size required for a powerful analysis: (1) power 
analysis (Cohen, 1988) or (2) a 10-times rule of thumb (Hair et al., 2014). The 10-times rule of thumb 
specifies that the minimum sample size needs to be equal to the larger of: (1) 10-times the largest 
number of formative indicators used to measure a single construct, or (2) 10-times the largest number 
of structural paths directed at a construct in the structural model. On the other hand, power analysis 
recommends using 0.15 for effect size, a level of 5% for an alpha, and a minimum of 80% power 
(Cohen, 1988; Hair et al., 2014). Accordingly, power analysis suggests a minimum sample of 139, 
whereas the 10-times rule of thumb recommends a minimum sample of 150 for this study. Xsights 
administered the survey to a randomly selected 350 soccer fans from their national panel of over 
68,000 members. The respondents were qualified with a screening question to guarantee they were 
soccer fans. Soccer is mostly followed by male fans in Turkey. The sample selection has considered 
this fact. Furthermore, since most soccer teams are in major metropolitan areas, the sample consisted 
of respondents from metropolitan areas. A total of 227 out of 350 surveys were deemed complete and 
usable (64.9% effective response rate) after detailed data screening, cleaning, and omitting outliers. 
Similar to studies of Biscaia et al. (2013) and Kunkel et al. (2017) that used a panel of respondents for 
their survey, a response rate could not be reported. Nevertheless, the effective response rate of the 
research is similar to the effective response rates of similar studies (Biscaia et al., 2013: 62.6%, Kunkel 
et al., 2017: 55%). 

The 227 respondent profiles in Table 3 show that 78% of the respondents were male and 22% 
were female, more than half of the respondents (52%) were between 18 and 31 years old, and 69% of 
them earned monthly income between 2,000 TL and 3,000 TL ($675-$1,000 at the time of the data 
collection). The respondents were asked how they usually followed most of the games in the Turkish 
Super League in a given season. A majority (70%) of the respondents indicated that they followed 
most of the soccer games on TV, whereas 10% followed from social media, and 5% followed from 



48 
 

newspapers and/or did not follow at all. 15% of the respondents indicated that they regularly attended 
the games. In addition, when the respondents were asked how frequently they went to the games of 
the teams that they supported in a regular season, 38% of the respondents indicated that they usually 
attended 1-3 games, 15% attended 4-6 games, 10% attended 7-10 games, only 8% attended more than 
10 games in a regular season, while 29% of the respondents stated that they did not attend games at 
all. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that almost half (46%) of the respondents preferred to have 
both a strong league and team brand, whereas 42% preferred to have a strong team brand, and 12% 
preferred to have a strong league brand.  

 
Table 3 - Selective Demographic Profiles of Respondents 
 

Gender n Percent  Age n Percent 
Female 50 22  18-24 54 24 
Male 177 78  25-31 64 28 
Total 227 100  32-38 52 23 
Income n Percent  39-45 57 25 
Less than 1,000 TL 4 2  Total 227 100 
1,001-2,000 TL 22 10  Attending Games n Percent 
2,0001-3,000 TL 158 69  Never 65 29 
3,001-4500 TL 27 12  1-3 Games 87 38 
More than 4,500 TL 16 7  4-6 Games 33 15 
Total 227 100  7-10 Games 24 10 
Following Games n Percent  More than 10 games 18 8 
From TV 159 70  Total 227 100 
Attending Games 34 15  Brand Preference n Percent 
Social Media 24 10  League Brand 28 12 
Newspaper 4 2  Team Brand 94 42 
Not Follow 6 3  Both team & League 105 46 
Total 227 100  Total 227 100 

 
Results  

 
Assessing Reliability and Validity — Testing Measurement Model 

Smart-PLS 3.2.1 was used to run PLS-SEM for assessing the measurement and path models. 
The path model was designed to be in line with the existing literature. That is, the head coach, soccer 
federation, referee, player, stadium, team success, (team) management, and league history were treated 
as sub-dimensions of brand associations construct (low order constructs – LOCs), and brand 
associations were treated as high order construct (HOC) (Biscaia et al., 2013). All LOCs were modeled 
to be reflective in the measurement since the authors intend to establish a common league brand 
associations factor (Hair et al., 2017). The reliability and validity of each construct as well as their 
measures were assessed before testing the hypothesized relationships in Figure 1.  
 First, outer loadings were examined to test the indicator reliability. Eight items (player4, head 
coach5, refree5, team4, management5, soccer federation2, 8, and be1) were removed from the 
measurement model because of low loadings (below .70). As a result, some of the constructs left with 
only two items. Yet, as Hair et al., (2011) indicate this is not an issue for PLS-SEM. In addition, the 
league history construct was excluded from the model as its items did not load onto the HOC. The 
remaining seven LOCs with a total of 15 items (for details see Table 2) were used as brand association 
dimensions in the final model. Internalization was measured with three items and brand equity was 



49 
 

measured with two items in the final model. Figure 2 illustrates the results of the PLS structure model. 
Furthermore, measurement reliability was tested using the composite reliability scores and all scores 
were above the threshold (.70), indicating no reliability problem (Hair et al., 2014). To test the 
convergent validity, the Analysis of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was used. The highest AVE 
was 0.886, and the smallest AVE was 0.736. Therefore, the result of the analysis revealed that all AVE 
values were higher than the threshold (0.50), which confirmed the convergent validity of all brand 
association dimensions as well as internalization and brand equity constructs. These results indicate 
that the eight items dropped from the model to improve indicator reliability do not affect the 
robustness of the measurement scale. The scores of construct reliability and validity are illustrated in 
Table 4. 
 
Figure 2 - Results of the PLS Structure Model 
 

 
 

Table 4 - Construct Reliability and Validity Scores 
 

Constructs Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 
Head Coach 0.94 0.89 
Brand Associations 0.98 0.74 
Internalization 0.92 0.80 



50 
 

Brand Equity 0.92 0.86 
Soccer Federation 0.94 0.88 
Referee 0.93 0.87 
Player 0.93 0.86 
Management 0.92 0.85 
Team 0.90 0.82 
Stadium 0.92 0.79 

 
The discriminant validity was examined using Fornell and Larcker's (1981) internal consistency 
measure. As Hair et al. (2014) suggest, the discriminant validity between the HOC and the LOCs, as 
well as within the LOCs was ignored because of the high correlations among these constructs. A 
detailed examination of Fornell and Larcker (1981)’s internal consistency measures for HOC and 
brand equity showed that the square root of AVE value for each HOC or latent variable (brand 
associations = 0.858, internalization = 0.895 and brand equity = 0.926) was greater than its highest 
correlation with any other HOC or latent variable. This provides support for the discriminant validity 
among HOC and latent variables. The results of the internal consistency test are shown in Table 5. 
  
Table 5 -  Fornell and Larcker’s Internal Consistency of Constructs 
 

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Head Coach (1) 0.94          
Brand Associations (2) 0.92 0.86         
Internalization (3) 0.80 0.86 0.90        
Brand Equity (4) 0.78 0.86 0.79 0.93       
Soccer Federation (5) 0.87 0.94 0.82 0.81 0.94      
Referee (6) 0.88 0.94 0.80 0.79 0.91 0.93     
Player (7) 0.80 0.92 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.82 0.93    
Stadium (8) 0.84 0.95 0.83 0.83 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.89   
Team (9) 0.78 0.92 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.90  
Management (10) 0.84 0.93 0.80 0.78 0.84 0.86 0.83 0.88 0.83 0.92 

 
Testing the Structural Model 

The findings of testing the path model in Figure 2 suggested that the effects of brand 
associations (β = 0.692, t = 68.327, p = 0.00) and brand internalization on brand equity (β = 0.191, t 
= 2.238, p = 0.025) were positive and significant, which supported both H1 and H2. Results of this 
study also showed that the brand association dimensions of player (β = 0.915, t = 52.964, p = 0.00), 
head coach (β = 0.921, t = 57.539, p = 0.00), stadium (β = 0.953, t = 109.213, p = 0.00), referee (β = 
0.944, t = 100.972, p = 0.00), team success (β = 0.919, t = 64.936, p = 0.00), management (β = 0.930, 
t = 68.327, p = 0.00), and soccer federation (β = 0.939, t = 99.332, p = 0.00) were subcategories of 
sport league brand associations (Figure 2). 

After the measurement model was identified to be within the acceptable level in terms of 
reliability and construct validity, the collinearity issue of the structural model had to be checked before 
interpreting the results. The variance inflation factors (VIFs) were used to evaluate the collinearity. 
The highest VIF value was 3.800, which was lower than the recommended threshold score of five 
(Hair et al., 2014). This indicates no collinearity issue. In addition, full collinearity VIF values were 
investigated to test common method variance. As Kock (2015) recommends, all of the full collinearity 
VIF values were below 3.3, which indicated no common method variance issue. Next, the significance 
level of the path coefficients in the structural model was evaluated by running the bootstrapping 
option to obtain the t-values for all path coefficients (Hair et al., 2014). The direct effect of brand 



51 
 

associations and internalization on league brand equity was tested as part of the overall structural 
model. As path coefficients with standardized values above 0.20 are usually significant (Hair et al., 
2014), initial screening of the path coefficients indicated both brand associations (β=0.692, t=8.82, 
p<0.01) and internalization (β=0.191, t=2.23, p<0.05) had a significant influence on league brand 
equity.  

Additionally, the adjusted R2 value was analyzed to evaluate the explained variance of an 
endogenous variable (brand equity) by all of the exogenous variables (brand associations and 
internalization). The R2 value of 0.25 for an endogenous variable was considered weak, while 0.50 was 
considered moderate and 0.75 was considered substantial (Hair et al., 2011). The R2 value for brand 
equity was 0.74, which can be considered substantial. In addition, the effect sizes of the significant 
path coefficients were used to assess the relative importance of each exogenous variable as an 
antecedent of its related endogenous variables. The thresholds to assess f2 values were 0.02 for a small 
effect, 0.15 for a medium effect, and 0.35 for a large effect (Hair et al., 2014). Based on these 
thresholds, the findings of this study indicate that the effect of brand associations on brand equity is 
large (f2 = 0.493) and the effect of internalization on brand equity is small (f2 = 0.038).  

 
Discussion 

Theoretical Implications 
This study makes several contributions to the sports league brand equity literature by 

enhancing the understanding of the sports league equity concept. One of the main goals of this 
research is to identify fan-based brand associations of a sports league. To address the first research 
question, the authors developed a multi-item measurement scale for an FBBA for sports leagues. To 
the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that develops a multi-item scale for the sports 
league FBBA. Even though the literature offers several team brand association models and multi-item 
scales, there is no robust multi-item measurement scale for league brand associations. The multi-item 
FBBA scale contributes to the theoretical understanding of sports league brand associations. Hence, 
the results of each specific dimension of the league brand association should be evaluated carefully. 
For example, although the stadium is not one of the strongest dimensions of the prior team brand 
associations research (e.g., Biscaia et al., 2013), the findings reveal that it is the strongest dimension of 
league brand associations, which means that the stadium is an important measure for league brand 
associations. One possible explanation is that stadiums are places for capturing the feelings and 
emotions of fans of all teams in the league, not just one team. Given the experiential and entertainment 
nature of the sport, stadiums offer a visual representation of the league, teams, and matches 
(Underwood et al., 2001). Therefore, the atmosphere surrounding a match is one of the most 
important motives for fans to attend games (Koenigstorfer et al., 2010). This result shows that 
stadiums with a great atmosphere can contribute to the experiential and hedonic needs of fans (Biscaia 
et al., 2013). 

In addition, the high loadings of (team) management, head coach, team, and player show the 
importance of the teams as sub-brands for the league brand associations. These dimensions are 
consistent with findings of the previous team brand associations studies (e.g., Bauer et al., 2008; Biscaia 
et al., 2013; Gladden & Funk, 2002; Gladden et al., 1998; Ross, 2006; Ross et al., 2006; Ross et al., 
2008). The results indicate that team management as a decision maker has the authority to hire coaches 
and recruit players to form a strong team and provide high-quality and entertaining games. The 
relatively high mean values for the team management items suggest that fans expect team managers 
not to make any negative comments about opposing teams (man3) and to have priority for building a 
strong league brand (man4). This finding is an indication of fans’ understanding of the importance of 



52 
 

a strong league brand. Similarly, team and player are product-related dimensions and are the producers 
of the game and competition as entertainment.  

Further, none of the previous team brand equity studies included league federation and referee 
dimensions, due to their irrelevance to team brand associations. The measurement scales for those 
two dimensions are developed and included in this study based on expert suggestions and pre-tests. 
Results of this study indicate that these two new constructs (soccer federation and referee) are 
important dimensions of league brand associations, suggesting that these dimensions should be 
included as valid measures of league brand equity. These two dimensions are relevant for measuring 
league brand equity because the soccer federation serves as governing authority of the league, whereas 
a league serves as a foundation for competitive matches offered to fans as sports entertainment 
(Kunkel et al., 2014). Moreover, referees implement the rules and regulations set by the league during 
the matches, therefore their decisions can have a significant impact not only on the quality but also 
on the outcome of the matches. This indicates that the referees can have a direct effect on the 
entertainment value of the matches, and ultimately on the satisfaction of the sports fans with the 
matches. The highest mean values of the perceived importance of the Turkish Soccer Federation and 
referee (for details, see Table 2) indicate that these two factors must be managed well to create a strong 
sports league brand. The soccer federation can play a key role in developing strategies by coordinating 
marketing activities to promote the league matches that will build a strong league (Pitt et al., 2003). 
Hence, the findings confirm the importance of the sports league as a master brand (Kunkel et al., 
2013; Kunkel et al., 2014) for the success of the teams by not only offering a platform for the teams 
to display their matches, but also providing the rules, regulations and standards for the matches that 
are implemented by referees, as well as marketing support for the teams. The importance of soccer 
federation and referees constructs is also confirmed by their high loadings.  

Another goal of this study is to examine the role of brand associations and internalization on 
sports league brand equity. Although previous sports team brand equity studies emphasized the value 
of team and league brand equity (e.g., Ross et al., 2008; Kunkel et al., 2013), they have not included a 
measure for the overall league brand equity construct in linking the brand associations and 
internalization to brand equity. To address the second and third research questions, this study employs 
the overall league brand equity construct and FBBA dimensions to examine the relationship between 
league brand associations, internalization, and league brand equity. The results confirm that the brand 
associations and internalization significantly and positively impact league brand equity. This positive 
impact indicates that brand associations and international are antecedents of league brand equity. This 
means that positive league brand associations and internalization lead to stronger league brand equity. 
This is a vital contribution to the sports brand equity literature, as well as the sports branding literature. 
Since a sports league serves as the master brand and provides a platform for its teams, brand 
association dimensions identified in the study can help to develop branding strategies for creating a 
strong league brand, which in turn, contribute to creating strong team brands. Furthermore, given that 
46% of the respondents prefer to see both strong team and league brands, the results support the co-
dominant relationship between a sports league and the teams in a master brand and sub-brand 
framework (Kunkel et al., 2013).  

 
Managerial Implications 

This study also has several managerial implications for leagues as well as team brands. First, 
the FBBA framework can help league managers to understand the expectations of the fans and guide 
them in developing the right brand associations to attract new fans and retain existing fans. For 
example, stadiums are one of the most important league brand associations for fans. Therefore, league 
managers can incentivize team managers to invest in their stadium facilities to attract new fans to 
stadiums. Consequently, teams can positively influence fans’ experiences, perceptions, and behaviors 



53 
 

by emphasizing the aesthetic characteristics of stadiums (Kerr & Gladden, 2008). As a result, attending 
the games provides a memorable experience to satisfy the fans’ hedonic consumption (Bauer et al., 
2008). While each team could have the aesthetic appeal of their stadium, it is desirable to have some 
uniformity and/or consistency among all stadiums of the league to reflect and/or support the league’s 
brand image because consistency is important for creating a strong brand (Keller, 2013). Moreover, 
because the only thing fans (consumers) take away from a game day is the memories (Gladden et al., 
1998), the managers of the league and teams should do everything to provide fans with an exceptional 
experience at the stadiums before, during, and after each game. The importance of this holistic 
entertainment approach to attending sports games is observed in most sports events in the United 
States at the professional and college level. 

Second, the positive effect of league brand associations on league brand equity indicates that 
league managers should collaborate with other key members of the industry, such as team managers, 
players, and head coaches, to create positive associations. The effective management of the league 
brand associations will allow league managers to improve the league brand equity and develop a 
stronger brand for the league. Similarly, the positive influence of internationalization on league brand 
equity reveals that league managers should attempt to develop a psychological commitment to the 
league brand and encourage fans to incorporate the league into their personal identity. When the level 
of commitment increases, a greater internalization of the league can be developed. Consequently, fans 
can be better equipped to recognize and recall the league brand. 

Finally, five of the seven league brand associations identified in the final model of this study 
are in parallel with team brand associations of previous studies (e.g., Biscaia et al., 2013; Gladden & 
Funk, 2002). Given the interconnected and mutually dependent relationship between a league and its 
teams (Kunkel et al., 2013), league managers should collaborate with managers of the teams to improve 
common brand associations and develop stronger league brand equity that could have a significant 
financial contribution to the leagues and their teams. The English Premier League is great evidence 
for this assertion. It is one of the most watched leagues in the world (Curley & Roeder, 2016) with a 
5.3 billion Euro brand value during the 2016-2017 season (Deloitte, 2018). The Premier League’s TV 
deals have generated $8 million from local contracts and $5 billion from international contracts for 
the 2016-2019 period (Curley & Roeder, 2016).  

 
Limitations and Future Research 

As the first study to examine the league brand equity using multidimensional FBBA using 
multiple items, the findings of the study provide some insights into the relationships among the FBBA 
dimensions and internalization in creating a strong league brand equity. However, the findings must 
be interpreted with some caution due to the limitations of the study. First, this is the first study 
measuring the FBBA of a sports league using data from a European soccer league. Therefore, future 
research may benefit from including and comparing other soccer or sports leagues outside Europe to 
capture the cross-cultural differences and cross-validate the findings. Second, current research is 
conducted in one country. Future research could benefit from conducting similar studies in multiple 
countries for cross-country validation of the findings. Third, while a sample size of 227 sports fans 
may be sufficient for an exploratory study, a larger sample size could help to validate the findings of 
this study more accurately. Further, using a convenience sample may limit the generalizability of the 
results. Fourth, this study focuses on only two brand equity components -- brand associations and 
internalization. Future studies could investigate the role of other brand equity components like 
perceived quality on sports league brand equity. Fifth, some of the brand association dimensions were 
measured using only two items. Even though Hair et al. (2011) state this is not an issue for PLS-SEM, 
future research should develop additional items to improve the reliability of the scale. Sixth, future 
studies could use an agreement scale (i.e., beliefs) rather than an importance scale to determine the 



54 
 

performance of the brand equity components as well as to compare the findings with the 
corresponding importance measures (i.e., value curve analysis or gap analysis). Hence, the authors 
believe that the importance scale used in this study serves as the first step for future research.  

 
References 

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Manage brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: Free 
Press. 

Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press. 
Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and 

research priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 331-342. 
Ball, D.A., McCulloch Jr., W.H., Frantz, P.L., Geringer, J.M., & Minor, M.S. (2002). International 

business: The challenge of global competition, New York: NY, McGraw-Hill. 
Bauer, H. H., Sauer, N. E., & Schmitt, P. (2005). Customer-based brand equity in the team sports 

industry: Operationalization and impact on the economic success of sports teams. European 
Journal of Marketing, 39(5/6), 496-513. 

Bauer, H. H., Stokburger-Sauer, N. E., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in 
professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of sport 
Management, 22(2), 205-226. 

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for 
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88. 

Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Ross, S., Rosado, A. F., & Maroco, J. (2013). Spectator-based brand equity in 
professional soccer. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22(1), 20-32. 

Brand Finance (2016). Football 50 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2022, from 
https://brandirectory.com/download-report/football_50_report_for_print.pdf  

Brand Finance (2021a). Football 50 2021. Retrieved February 20, 2022, from 
https://brandirectory.com/download-report/brand-finance-football-50-2021-preview.pdf  

Brand Finance (2021b). Turkey 100 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2022, from 
https://brandirectory.com/download-report/brand-finance-turkey-100-2021-full-report.pdf 

Churchill, G.A. & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing research: Methodological foundation, (9th ed.). Boston: 
MA, South-Western Cengage Learning. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale: NJ, Routledge. 
Curley, J. and Roeder, O. (2016). English soccer’s mysterious worldwide popularity, Contexts, 15(1), 

pp. 78-81.  
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. 

New York: Plenum. 
Deloitte (2018). Annual review of football finance 2018, Sport Business Group. Retrieved 15 April 10, 

2022, from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/sports-
business-group/deloitte-uk-sbg-annual-review-of-football-finance-2018.PDF. 

Ekebas-Turedi, C., Karaatli, G., & Turedi, S. (2020). The relationship among fan-based league brand 
associations, brand equity, and behavioral intentions. Marketing Management Journal, 30(1), 17-
37. 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable 
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. 

Girard, T., Trapp, P., Pinar, M., Gulsoy, T., & Boyt, T. E. (2017). Consumer-based brand equity of a 
private-label brand: Measuring and examining determinants. Journal of Marketing Theory and 
Practice, 25(1), 39-56. 



55 
 

Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team 
sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport 
Management, 16(1), 54-81. 

Gladden, J. M., & Milne, G. R. (1999). Examining the importance of brand equity in professional 
sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 21-30. 

Gladden, J. M., Milne, G. R., & Sutton, W. A. (1998). A conceptual framework for assessing brand 
equity in Division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12(1), 1-19. 

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural 
equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Los Angeles: CA, Sage. 

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing 
Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. 

James, J. D., Kolbe, R. H., & Trail, G. T. (2002). Psychological connection to a new sport team: 
Building or maintaining the consumer base? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(4), 215-225. 

Kaynak, E., Salman, G. G., & Tatoglu, E. (2008). An integrative framework linking brand 
associations and brand loyalty in professional sports. Journal of Brand Management, 15(5), 336-
357. 

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal 
of Marketing, 57(1) 1-22. 

Keller, K.L. (2013). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, (4th ed.). 
Boston, MA: Pearson.  

Kerr, A. K., & Gladden, J. M. (2008). Extending the understanding of professional team brand 
equity to the global marketplace. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 3(1-2), 
58-77. 

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment 
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. 

Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kunkel, T. (2010). The attractiveness of national and 
international football leagues: Perspectives of fans of “star clubs” and “underdogs”.  
European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(2), 127-163. 

Kunkel, T., Funk, D., & Hill, B. (2013). Brand architecture, drivers of consumer involvement, and 
brand loyalty with professional sport leagues and teams. Journal of Sport Management, 27(3), 
177-192. 

Kunkel, T., Funk, D., & King, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual understanding of consumer-
based league brand associations. Journal of Sport Management, 28(1), 49-67. 

Kunkel, T., Funk, D., & Lock, D. (2017). The effect of league brand on the relationship between the 
team brand and behavioral intentions: A formative approach examining brand associations 
and brand relationships. Journal of Sport Management, 31(4), 317-332. 

Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs 
to theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 407-425.  

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business 
profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. 

Oh, T. T., Keller, K. L., Neslin, S. A., Reibstein, D. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2020). The past, present, 
and future of brand research. Marketing Letters, 31(2), 151-162. 

Pinar, M., Nardali, S., Alkibay, S., & Girard, T. (2017). Türkiye Süper Ligi’nin Marka Değerini 
Etkileyen Faktörlerin Öneminin ve Performasının Değerlendirilmesi. Pazarlama ve Pazarlama 
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(19), 103-122. 

Pitt, L., Napoli, J., & Van Der Merwe, R. (2003). Managing the franchised brand: The franchisees' 
perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 411-420. 



56 
 

Plunkelt Research (2016). Sports industry statistics and market size overview. Retrieved September 10, 
2016, from https://www.plunkettresearch.com/statistics/sports-industry. 

Rosenbaum-Elliott, R., Percy, L., & Pervan S. (2011). Strategic brand management, (2nd ed.). Oxford, 
UK: Oxford University Press. 

Ross, S. D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal 
of sport Management, 20(1), 22-38.  

Ross, S. D., James, J. D., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand 
associations in professional sport. Journal of sport management, 20(2), 260-279. 

Ross, S. D., Russell, K. C., & Bang, H. (2008). An empirical assessment of spectator-based brand 
equity. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3), 322-337. 

Rossiter, J.R., & Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and promotion management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 
Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A 

financial approach. Marketing science, 12(1), 28-52. 
Sirianni, N. J., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Mandel, N. (2013). Branded service encounters: 

Strategically aligning employee behavior with the brand positioning. Journal of 
Marketing, 77(6), 108-123. 

Sood, S., & Keller, K. L. (2012). The effects of brand name structure on brand extension evaluations 
and parent brand dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 373-382. 

Tong, X., & Hawley, J. M. (2009). Measuring customer-based brand equity: empirical evidence from 
the sportswear market in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 262-271. 

Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity: Lessons 
from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(1), 1-13. 

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand 
equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14. 

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and 
brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-211. 


	Serdar Turedi
	Purdue University Northwest
	Sinan Nardali
	Izmir Katip Celebi University
	Musa Pinar
	Valparaiso University
	Tulay Girard
	Pennsylvania State University-Altoona
	Sanem Alkibay
	Gazi University
	Introduction
	Background
	Brand Equity
	Brand Equity in Sport Industry
	Sports Brand Associations
	Internalization

	Methodology0F
	Research Context
	Scale Development
	Sampling Plan

	Results
	Assessing Reliability and Validity — Testing Measurement Model
	Testing the Structural Model

	Discussion
	Theoretical Implications
	Managerial Implications
	Limitations and Future Research

	References

