Content uploaded by Jonas Hedman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonas Hedman on Nov 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 1
Sports Digitalization: An Overview and A
Research Agenda
Completed Research Paper
Xiao Xiao
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark
xx.digi@cbs.dk
Jonas Hedman
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark
jhe.digi@cbs.dk
Felix Ter Chian Tan
University of New South Wales,
Australia
f.tan@unsw.edu.au
Chee-Wee Tan
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark
ct.digi@cbs.dk
Eric T.K. Lim
University of New South Wales,
Australia
e.t.lim@unsw.edu.au
Torkil Clemenson
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark
tc.digi@cbs.dk
Stefan Henningsson
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark
sh.digi@cbs.dk
Ravi Vatrapu
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark; Westerdals Oslo School of
Arts, Communications and
Technology,Norway
rv.digi@cbs.dk
Raghava Rao Mukkamala
Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark; Westerdals Oslo School of
Arts, Communications and
Technology, Norway
rrm.digi@cbs.dk
Jos van Hillegersberg
University of Twente,
Netherlands
j.vanhillegersberg@utwente.nl
Abstract
Ever since its first manifesto in Greece around 3000 years ago, sports as a field has
accumulated a long history with strong traditions while at the same time, gone through
tremendous changes toward professionalization and commercialization. The current waves of
digitalization have intensified its evolution, as digital technologies are increasingly entrenched
in a wide range of sporting activities and for applications beyond mere performance
enhancement. Despite such trends, research on sports digitalization in the IS discipline is
surprisingly still nascent. This paper aims at establishing a discourse on sports digitalization
within the discipline. Toward this, we first provide an understanding of the institutional
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 2
characteristics of the sports industry, establishing its theoretical importance and relevance in
our discipline; second, we reveal the latest trends of digitalization in the sports industry and
unpack its implications for sports organizations; last, we propose an agenda for sports
digitalization research in IS.
Keywords: Sport, Digitalization, e-sport, Sports digitalization, Research agenda
Introduction
Ever since the first Olympic Games was held at Olympia, Greece in 776 BC, sports as a field has
accumulated a strong tradition, filled with glory and heroism. At that time, there were only seven sports:
running, long jump, shot put, javelin, boxing, pankration, and equestrian events. Today, there are over
8,000 indigenous sports (Lipoński 2003). Although there is no general consensus of how sports should be
defined in the academia, a common definition typically entails characteristics of competitiveness, ‘non-
hostility’ nature, physicality (no matter to what extent), and also conformance of predefined rules (Wright
2009). The long history of sports has exemplified its evolution from an activity of game to an activity of
organization that has been codified, strategized, professionalized, and in many cases, commercialized
(Baca 2014).
Analogously, sports science emerged as a research field in Germany in 1960s (Link and Lames 2014). It
comprises a collection of knowledge, theories, and research methods that deal with issues and
phenomenon related to sports (Röthig et al. 2003). Sports science is not one ‘unified science of sport’;
instead, it is an interdisciplinary field (Höner 2001) with several sub-disciplines, such as sports
psychology, sports management, sports economics, sports health, and sports informatics (Baca 2014). The
common theme is the recognition of sports as a unique context with distinctive characteristics that calls
for special attention rather than being treated as just another type of organization (Loy 1968).
Recent years have witnessed another major development in sports – widespread digitalization (Davenport
2014a, 2014b), which can be traced all the way back to Michael Lewis’ work on how Billy Beane, the head
coach of Oakland Athletics, deployed analytics to make evidence-based decisions regarding the
composition of the team (Lewis 2004). Nowadays, the deployment of digital technologies in sports is even
more pervasive. On one hand, the trend of harnessing analytical technologies to support performance
enhancement (for the sake of winning) continues and intensifies. For instance, during the 2014 FIFA
World Cup, the heroic journey of German National Football Team was supported by SAP, a Germany-
based software vendor, who utilized a ‘march insight’ software to help the team improve performance and
learn about their rivals (McKenna 2014). One the other hand, the utilization of digital technologies in
sports also expands to areas such as organizing and managing sports teams and their stakeholders,
accessing and interpreting sports information, inventing new instruments and strategies that would not
be possible otherwise (Caya and Bourdon 2016). Finally, digitalization led to the creation of new sports –
e-Sports (Boyle et al. 2003; Hamari and Sjöblom 2017; Hilvoorde and Pot 2016), which poses profound
implications for the very nature of the sporting field. In Sweden, this is clear after the Swedish e-Sport
Association applied for membership in the Swedish Sport Confederation. Despite declining the request,
the Swedish Sport Confederation concluded that they need to re-think what sports is [www.rf.se]. To sum
up, it is said that information technology and by extension, the increasing digitization in sports, will
forever change the ways sports operate (Krzanich 2016).
In spite of the massive transformation of sports triggered by digitalization, academic research on the topic
is still limited within the IS discipline. Though recent events (such as the special panel on “How
technology is transforming the sports industry” at the 2015 International Conference on Information
systems, and the mini-track on Sports Analytics at 2017 Americas Conference on Information Systems)
suggest emerging interests of the field, we argue that research on IT related issues in sports is still in its
nascent stage. For instance, a preliminary search of sport related studies in IS returned a dozen
conference and journal articles that touch on topics including sports analytics (Lee 2016; Schrader et al.
2016; Shah et al. 2015; Wilkerson and Gupta 2016), social media in sports marketing (Holland 2015), IT-
enabled injury management (Hanisch and Hanisch 2007; Lam et al. 2016; Wilkerson and Gupta 2016), e-
monitoring (Varriale and Tarufi 2014), web site adoption by sports clubs (Bingley et al. 2011), e-ticketing
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 3
(Bedeley et al. 2016; Mignerat and Audebrand 2010), large-scale sports event management (Dodd and
Sathasivam 2010; Loucopoulos and Kavakli 2016), and data integration issues for sport organizations
(McCubbrey and Bloom 2005). For a majority of the abovementioned studies, sports is treated as the
empirical context to illustrate other concepts, rather than as a phenomenon of study with its own
theoretical underpinnings.
We maintain that such broad brushing approach is problematic, considering how sports organizations
differ from conventional business entities from an institutional standpoint (Loy 1968). From the structure
of the organization to the nature of organizational activities (Loy 1968) to the composition of the
stakeholder groups (Junghagen 2016) and to the nature of the consumption product and consumers (Bee
and Havitz 2010; Hunt et al. 1999), sports organizations deal with a higher level of complexity that is not
often seen in other industries (Davenport 2014a). Additionally, changes brought about by the intertwining
relationship between digitalization and commercialization poses further challenges to sport organizations
as such complexities (and in some cases tensions) further heighten. Consequently, dismissing sport
organizations as just another empirical context will translate into missed opportunities for
comprehending an IT-driven phenomenon that might display interesting dynamics due to the uniqueness
of the context at a theoretical level.
Against a backdrop of the changing landscape of sports and the advancement of digital technologies, our
paper directly addresses the topic of sports digitalization. Broadly, we pose the research question: why
and how should we study sports digitalization in the IS discipline? We would like to start off
by conceiving sports as an organizing activity driven by institutional logics, following the seminal
work by Loy (1968). We further define sports organization as “a social entity involved in the sport
industry; it is goal oriented, with a consciously structured activity system and relatively identifiable
boundary” (Slack and Parent 2006, pg. 5). Though our primary focus is on sports and sports organization,
our efforts in proffering a comprehensive overview of the sports digitalization phenomenon imply that the
ensuing implications and research agenda extend beyond the organizational level to also take into account
forces at both individual and industrial levels.
To begin, we first establish sports as a distinctive context that is of theoretical importance. To this end, we
choose the institutional lens and build upon Loy’s (1968) characterization of sports as an institution
encompassing four main components: the organizational component, the technological component, the
symbolic component, and the educational component. Doing so allows us to: (1) decipher the nature of
sports, and; (2) highlight the distinctiveness of the context, whose study we believe will enrich IS research
on digitalization.
Second, we strive to unravel the latest trends of increasing digitalization in the sports industry and unpack
its implications for sports organizations. To do so, we have systematically gathered a wide range of
material on how digital technologies have been (and will be) deployed in various sports contexts. Such
material include: research articles in the sports area involving digital technologies, existing case studies,
news articles, and industrial reports. Our goal is to offer a relatively comprehensive review of how
digitalization transforms each of the four institutional components of sports.
Finally, in light of the preceding points, we aim to put forth a research agenda that covers a wide range of
topics regarding the four components of sports, in order to guide future studies in the field of sports
digitalization. Our overall approach is consistent with existing agenda-setting studies (e.g., de Reuver et
al. 2017; Tilson et al. 2010; Yoo et al. 2010). The rest of the paper is organized into three sections,
corresponding to the above three objectives.
Sports Organizations: A Distinct Institutional Context
Competition in Games and Sports
Though numerous efforts to reach a conclusive definition of sports have proven to be futile, scholars in the
area have endeavored to provide insights into the nature of sports given its long and rich history. In an
attempt to define sports, Loy (1968) compared sports to a game occurrence, and concluded that sport is
similar to game in many aspects (e.g., a private game of tennis versus a tennis match at a tournament).
For instance, just like games, sport is “playful” or a type of play (Caillois 1961; Huizinga 1955), in the sense
that it is “spatially and temporally limited” and its occurrence demands a specific space and time (Loy
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 4
1968); its outcome and course of play is “uncertain” (a feature that is much desired for the sake of
excitement); it is “unproductive” and “non-utilitarian”; it is “governed by rules” that were agreed upon
(sport is even more so than game) to guide the process and also the outcome (i.e., who wins); and finally,
it happens outside of “real life” and demonstrates the characteristics of “make-belief” (Loy 1968; Veblen
2009). Further, sports and games are both competitive, or based on competition between two or more
parties. In other words, without competition, there will be no sports or games. Finally, both sports and
games require “physical skill, strategy, and chance” (Loy 1968, p. 2). However, as Loy (1968) pointed out,
one significant distinction between sports and games is the demand to demonstrate “physical prowess” in
sports, which often requires systematic training at a high level. Due to the aforementioned commonalities,
we therefore argue that sport is rooted in game (Weiss 1969). In other words, a “game is an occurrence
[whereas] a sport is a pattern” (Weiss 1969, p. 82).
Sports as Institutionalized Game
Despite the comparison to games, Loy (1968) went on to argue that a fundamental distinction between the
two is that sports is often considered as an “institutionalized game” for its “distinctive, enduring patterns
of culture and social structure” (Loy 1968, p. 7). The institutionalization of sports stems from the
accumulation of tradition and development in the past, but can also serve as guidelines for the future (Loy
1968). According to Loy (1968), the institutionalized patterns associated with sports include
organizational, technological, symbolic, and educational components.
First, the organizational component concerns the organization of sport in terms of teams, sponsorship,
and government. Unlike games, sports is often carried out by carefully selected “teams” which can be seen
as “stable social organization[s]”, often established as a legal entity and sometimes even traded on the
stock market. Sport organizations consist of players with specialized roles (Loy 1968) (e.g., a quarter back
and a line back in American football). For these organizations, players are their assets, being directly
responsible for producing the sport situations (e.g., the game occurrences)
1
. But a wide range of indirect
producers are also involved, such as coaches, trainers, and medical staff. As sports get increasingly
commercialized, these organizations often need to be gauged by both its sport performance and also its
financial performance (Caya and Bourdon 2016). For instance, Forbes ranks Dallas Cowboys as the most
valuable ($4 Billion) and profitable ($ 270 Million) sports team (Badenhausen 2016) and the CNN
estimates the financial value of the Olympics at $47.5 Billion (Morley 2012). Therefore, organizational
activities not only encompass activities in direct relation to sports production, but they also include
business activities that ensure targeted outcomes (e.g., customer satisfaction and revenue).
Sports is tightly entangled with commercial agents, for instance owners of sportsclubs like Emirates and
RedBull and sporting goods manufacturers like Nike and Addidas. An illustration of how much
commercial agents invest in spoets is General Electric, who reportedly paid $200 million for sponsorship
rights covering London and Vancouver Olympics (Morley 2012). Such entanglement has become ever
more important in sports due to increasing commercialization of the field. Finally, the institutionalization
is also reflected in the various governing bodies at the local, national, and international levels that enforce
codified rules – like the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada). In this regard, we can argue that sports
organizations deal with a higher level of complexity when it comes to the composition of stakeholders. For
instance, when investigating the different stakeholders of a professional football club in Sweden,
Junghagen (2016) discovered that such complexity led to tensions among multiple stakeholders (e.g.,
sponsors versus governing bodies; sponsors versus fans) with conflicting interests.
Second, the technological component of sports emphasizes “the material equipment, physical skills,
and body of knowledge which are necessary for the conduct of competition and… technical
improvements” (Loy 1968, p. 8). To be more specific, technology in sport includes physical equipment
(e.g., field, stadium, ball, racket, car engine, boat, training facilities), physical skills (e.g. strengths, ball
control ability, endurance and resilience), knowledge possessed by players and the teams (e.g. team
spirit, cooperative capability and team play), and skills and knowledge possessed by coaches, team
physicians, and other indirect producers (Loy 1968) to improve the technological components. Many of
1
It is worth noting that for individual-based sports (e.g., tennis), sports organizations revolve around one individual player, rather
than a team of players. However, we argue the organizing activities are similar and the organizing logic is similar across different
sports scenarios (either individual-based or group-based).
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 5
the organizational activities are organized around the technological component, or around the goal of
continuous technical improvement to the physical equipment, the physical skills, and the knowledge.
Third, the symbolic component of sports contains elements of “secrecy, display, and rituals” (Loy 1968).
Similar to other business context, secrets related to game strategies and other technical aspects are often
treated with great priority, which Loy (1968) referred to as “approved clandestine behavior” (e.g., a
starting line-up of a soccer match will not be released by both teams until right before the match).
However, what is different in sport in terms of its symbolic dimension is the embeddedness of display in
the course of a sports occurrence (Goffman 1961). Such display is manifested through numerous sport
events (or even tournaments) (e.g., from a soccer game that lasts 2 hours to an Olympic game that lasts 16
days), which requires involvement from even more indirect sport producers, such as mainstream media,
broadcasting companies, event sponsors and voluntaries. The last element of the symbolic component of
sports is ritual, though not contributing to the technical components of sports, but is crucial in creating
“solemnity” among people who directly or indirectly engaged in the sport occurrence (Loy 1968). Such
rituals could be the gesture of hand shaking between opponents before the game, the singing and chanting
of fans during the game (Serazio 2013), and even certain superstitious behaviors performed by players
(Bleak et al. 1998).
Distinct from organizations in other contexts, sports consumers or co-called fans (Hunt et al. 1999) are a
major part of the symbolic component of sport, both as observers and as participants, depending on their
roles and level of engagement. Sport fans are mainly driven by emotions and social values, whereas
consumers in more traditional business context evaluate primarily the utility of the product or service
they consume (Biscaia et al. 2012; Underwood et al. 2001). This distinction is further exemplified through
the complexity related to how and why sport consumers engage with or participate in sports occurrences
(Bee and Kahie 2006). Studies from the marketing discipline have indeed identified different types of
sport consumers (fans) according to the level of attachment to and identification to the particular sport
(or sport organizations) (Hunt et al. 1999; Stewart et al. 2003).
Finally, the educational component of sports deals with the activities of acquiring the above-mentioned
skills and knowledge when we discussed the technological component (Huizinga 1955; Loy 1968). Unlike
in games, such knowledge and skills in sports need to be gained through formal instruction, often in the
form of training. Such education and formal training are not limited to direct producers of sport – players,
but also apply to indirect producers such as coaching staff, managers, physicians, and referees (Loy 1968).
This is especially true for the latter, as certifications are often a prerequisite to enter the field. Moreover,
the educational component of sport is embedded in the routines of sports organizations, as we see
training constituting a major portion of what players and teams do on a daily basis. In this sense, the
education component is closely related to its technological counterpart: high demand of technological
excellence (both in intellectual knowledge and physical skills) in competition and hence the requirement
of continuous technical improvements has attested to the importance of formal education.
Table 1. Distinct Institutional Context of Sports Organizations
Organizational
component
• Sports performed by carefully selected individuals or teams that compose of
players with different specialization.
• Sports produced directly by teams and players; indirectly by coaches, physicians,
etc.
• Sports organizations concern with both sports performance and business
performance, separating organizational activities into sports activities and
business activities.
• Sports are entangled with sponsorship.
• Sports are governed by different governing bodies at various levels.
• Sports organizations deal with stakeholder complexities (various stakeholders
with different interests).
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 6
Technological
component
• Sports and competition in sports demand physical equipments, physical skills and
sports knowledge.
• Physical skills and knowledge are required for sports producers such as players
and teams.
• Physical skills and knowledge and/or certifications are required for indirect sport
producer such as coaches, physicians, and referees.
• Sports demand continuous improvements of the technological components.
Symbolic
component
• Secrecy or “approved clandestine behavior” are considered an important part of
sports.
• Display is embedded in sports.
• Rituals are important elements of sports, both among sport producers and also
among sport observers.
• Sport consumers participate in the symbolic component of sports.
• Sport consumers show diversity and complexity in motivations and hence needs
when it comes to their engagement in sports occurrences.
Educational
component
• Formal instructions are required to obtain the physical skills and knowledge in
sports, for both direct producer (players) and indirect producers (coaches,
referees).
• Training makes up majority of organizational activities (in order to meet the
demand of continuous improvements of the technological components).
Table 1 summarizes the four components of sports from an institutional point of view. Based on the
patterns we have highlighted across the organizational, technological, symbolic, and educational
components, we argue that the distinctiveness of the sport organizations lie in the complexity embedded
in their organizational structure and activities, the criticality of technologies in the choice of equipment,
the importance of symbolic elements in product consumption, the complexity of customer composition
and relationship, as well as the formalized acquisition and continuous improvement of skills and
knowledge. Conceivably, it is imperative to not dismiss sports organizations as just another empirical
context, but rather, to recognize the contextual distinctiveness at the theoretical level. Our arguments
resonate with those of Chiasson and Davidson (2005), who call for viewing industries in IS research as
institutional context by explaining how structures of certain industries, including schemas, rules, norms,
and routines, become entrenched as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. In the next section, we
will discuss how the latest trends of digitalization in the sports industry further shape these four
components of the institutional context for sports organizations, which in turn lends credibility to the
relevance of sports in the IS field.
The Digitalization of the Sports Industry
The preceding discussion on the institutional context of sport organizations has painted a picture of how
sports organizations operate in a distinctive environment of structure, norms, routines, and schemas.
Similar to other industries with longstanding traditions (e.g., financial or food industry), the sports
industry is also going through the waves of digitalization. Recent advances in digital technologies have
prompted massive change to the sports industry, one which has traditionally been labelled as conservative
(Smith and Stewart 1999). This in turn has ushered in a new era where an in-depth appreciation of
digitalization and sports has become ever more pertinent. Table 2 summarizes the implications of
digitalization for the sports industry across the four institutional components, which we will elaborate
further in the remainder of this section.
Table 2. Implications of Digitalization on the Sports Industry
Organizational
component
• Administration of sports is supported by digital technologies eliminating manual
processes and creating real time access to game results as well as historical data.
• Live broadcasting and the separation between TV and digital rights of sports
events provide new value to teams, viewers and sponsors.
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 7
• Business intelligent and analytics are increasingly utilized in sport organizations
to pursue both business outcomes and sports outcomes.
• Emergence of digitally born sports, such as e-Sports, the organization of which
demonstrates different dynamics, creates new types of competitions for
traditional sports.
• Utilization of digital touch points, such as websites, mobile applications, and
social media, enable new ways to interact and engage with various stakeholders,
(e.g., sponsors, advertisers, players, club management, national association
employees and management).
• New specialized stakeholders, such as data providers, software developers, and
data analysts, emerge with capabilities addressing the digital technologies.
Technological
component
• Commercialization of the technological component of sports (physical skills and
knowledge) results in producing new digital products, such as e-Sports.
• Increasing accessibility, traceability, and visibility of the technological
component of sports (physical skills and knowledge) driven by the use of IoT and
data analytics technologies, as well as emerging digital platforms that enable data
production and data aggregation.
• Technological component of sports is increasingly integrated in live broadcasting
(consumption) of sports event, which creates new revenue streams.
• The increasing importance of technological component that is enabled by digital
technologies in creating competitive advantages.
• Players play a more active role in the production and distribution of their own
technological data, and hence democratizing the recruitment process (from top-
down to bottom-up).
Symbolic
component
• Pluralization of channels for sport organizations and its members to identify and
brand themselves.
• Digital presence of sports increases the accessibility of sports events and related
content to potentially more stakeholders than before.
• Display and rituals are extended to online sphere with digital means
• Boundaries between online display and offline (physical) display are blurred.
• Visibility to actions (goals, fouls committed, inappropriate behavior) increases.
Educational
component
• Increasing utilization of data analytics in training, preparation and post-match
analysis, challenges the traditional way of coaching, and demands new skill sets
for sports producers.
• Technological advancement in HCI, IoT, VR, and AR create more
individualized/tailored training opportunities, or in some cases, replaces physical
training with virtual training (digital simulator).
• ‘Democratization’ of sports as information asymmetries (“training secrets”)
reduced when novel practices spread viral.
Organizational Component of Sports Digitalization
Changes brought about by digitalization to sport organizations are multi-faceted. First, the most direct
impact is that new digital means translate into touchpoints that allow for integration of various
stakeholders of sports organizations. In other words, sports digitalization integrates lots of administrative
functions such as player registration, ranking lists, tournament (single event and seasonal) management
including registration of results, and more, into a comprehensive ICT system/service with multiple
channels such as websites and mobile applications. The structural complexity related to the organizational
component of sports organizations and its stakeholder groups is in full manifestation through digital
displays. For instance, in individual-based sports, such as badminton, it is clear that the organizing has
changed as the individual players today relate to both the national association and their own club,
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 8
whereas in the past, recreational players related to their own club, and only elite players related to the
national association. Within the sports of badminton today, the national association is important for
players to administer their ranking (if they have such one), obtain and review player license, register for
tournaments, monitor tournament results, etc.. At the same time, the players’ local badminton club often
has a website that supports local club life, which may mirror many of the same functions that are on the
national association website, including tournament management, sponsorship, game statistics, and more.
Second, digitalization extends the ecosystem of sport organizations, as new IT stakeholders, such as
software providers and data providers, enter the picture. For instance, in the above-mentioned example,
the success of the German national soccer team in utilizing data analytics in the World Cup tournament
was largely supported by software provider SAP. Indeed, Davenport (2014a) pointed out that for sports
organizations to successfully ride the digitalization trend, they will have to rely on a larger ecosystem, due
to the size of such organizations (comparable to small-and-medium size enterprises) and the associated
resource constrains. Therefore, with the entrance of new players, we are likely to witness the expansion
and increasing complexity of sports ecosystems, as well as the growing importance of IT players.
Third, increasing digitalization also implies that administration (governance) of sport can be supported by
digital technologies through the elimination of manual processes and creating real time access to game
results as well as historical data. For instance, Stats.swehockey.se is the official statistics website of the
Swedish Ice Hockey Association. The site provides current and historical data from all sanctioned official
games and leagues, from youth leagues to the highest national division, by the Swedish Ice Hockey
Association. Besides displaying information on leagues, teams and players, the system has also digitalized
most of the administration surrounding ice hockey, including game reports, league management, player
register and coach register. For instance, the system helps game organizers to prepare and publish official
line-ups and team roasters before the game, real time game progress reports including goals and
penalties, and post-game official game reports. The system also supports the allocation of referees to the
individual games. All these reports and task were historically carried out manually and on paper and often
submitted to the Swedish Ice Hockey Association for archiving.
Fourth, digital technologies provide new means for sports organizations to interact with both its own team
members and also other stakeholder groups such as sponsors and fans. In other words, the digitalization
of sports consumption product through various online channels renders opportunities for sport
organizations, especially the ones with limited resources, to configure and deliver sport
content/service/product in customized ways (Hoye et al. 2015). Sports consumption products are not
limited to only match-day events any more. Instead, they have been extended to the whole organizational
process such as training, scouting, and recruitment of player, thanks to various online channels, such as
social media sites that allow sport organizations to stay connected with the fans and other stakeholders on
a daily (if not hourly) basis across the globe. Further, such distribution of content is also democratized in
the sense that every member of the sport organization as well as fans themselves can be part of the
process (DiMoro 2015). Finally, even for the traditional broadcasting of events, digital technologies
provide new means that would allow enhanced accessibility and interactivity. Take extreme skiing for
example, a free ride skiing competition takeing place on a mountain with a decent of 500-800 meters with
its steepest inclination being as far as 60 degrees (e.g. in Haines, Alaska). It is, therefore, difficult for the
sports fans to get to the actual location of the event and watch the competition. So instead, the Free Ride
World Tour is broadcasting all events over the web, which overcomes the space and time constrains,
provides the audience an opportunity to follow the skiers and their performance, as well as gives the
sponsors wider exposure. Moreover, the live web broadcast offers the re-play function of the individual
runs, often enabled by digital cameras mounted on players’ helmets, which further increases the visual
experience of the event.
Fifth, the increasing use of business intelligence and analytical tools in the sports industry also presents
new means to improve how sports organizations conduct their business and sport activities (Caya and
Bourdon 2016; Davenport 2014a, 2014b; Troilo et al. 2016). However, it should be noted that, due to the
complexity inherent in the organizational component of sport organizations, the utilization of BI and
analytical tools also renders different dynamics. For instance, a recent study by Tan et al. (2017) on
Bayern Munich, a German football club revealed that analytics in the sports context span different areas,
which could include performance and health analytics (for sports activities), business analytics (for
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 9
business activities; often consumer facing), and event management (for game-day activities that concern
with the organization of the event).
Finally, digitalization has enabled the emergence of e-Sports. Though it is still debatable whether e-sports
should be considered sports to begin with (Hilvoorde and Pot 2016), its success is likely to introduce more
competition to traditional sports, especially considering its different structural and organizational
features that are likely to fit with the digital world we live in. For instance, for eSports, power is vested
predominantly in game developers (and not governing bodies) because they hold the intellectual property
rights for game software. Also, gaming rules are either imposed by game developers (through game
mechanics and therefore more universal) or emerged from social consensus (through negotiation and
thus more game-specific). Finally, gaming events do not necessarily generate revenue (oftentimes losses
are incurred); rather, value creation and capturing stem from the conversion of audience into players
(through sales of game software and/or in-game micro-transactions). These organizational characteristics
of eSports could provide some reference points for traditional sports in better coping with the digital
environment (Hilvoorde and Pot 2016).
Technological Component of Sports Digitalization
The most direct impact of digitalization on the technological component of sports is on the physical
equipment, in the sense that IT hardware and software are now included as essential parts of many of
these equipment. Drastically different from the picture painted by Loy (1968) half a century ago,
competition in sports now heavily involves competition on the digital assets. For instance, in Formula
One, digitalization combined with the new formula of hybrid power units with internal combustion
engines paired with energy recovery systems has led to a software competitiveness era. Accordingly, team
composition has changed from predominantly mechanical and aerodynamics engineers and technicians to
include software programmers and data analysts.
Besides the technological advancement of physical equipment and the inclusion of IT components, what is
also relevant for IS researchers is the ever-increasing importance of data and information generated,
integrated, and analyzed through various digital tools, both software and hardware. Admittedly, such
trend is not recent and has been accumulating since the seminal work by Michael Lewis (2004) on the
legendary story of Oakland A Baseball Team and how robust technical analysis based on performance
data outperformed intuition and old-school wisdom when it came to decision making related to
recruitment of players as well as team composition. However, latest development in digital technologies
that led to increasing capacity in producing data has further stimulated interests in the area (Ferguson
2013; Travassos et al. 2013). First, due to the increasing use of IoT (Internet of Things) technologies such
as sensors and wearables and analytical tools, what used to be “hidden” information on the technological
component of sports (e.g., the level of physical skills of certain players, performance data of players and
teams) has become increasingly accessible, traceable, and visible to the public (Davenport 2014a). For
instance, in 2014, MLBAM (Major League Baseball Advanced Media) in U.S. rolled out a “camera-and-
radar-based system” in all the baseball stadiums for MLB teams, which allows the tracking of live data
related to not only the baseball (e.g., travelling speed) but also performance of each player with great
details (Neyer 2014). Similarly, NBA (National Basketball Association) teams have started to use the so
called “Player Tracking” technology which would allow them to track movements of each player “25 times
per second,” the data of which will then be aggregated and analyzed to generate innovative statistics on
player performance (Steinberg 2015).
The 2014-15 edition of the Volvo Ocean Sailing race tested the world's best professional sailing teams to
the limit in a race around the world. For the first time, the race adopted a “one-design” boat (all teams
sailed with an identical boat) with the latest technology on board. The boat is equipped with 160 sensors
that offer new opportunities to understand the behavior of the boat in various conditions. More data is
available than ever before and this data can be stored, aggregated and analyzed to facilitate understanding
and learning and ultimately support both small operational decisions (such as trimming of sails or setting
keel angle) and eventually more strategic decisions (such as deciding to take an alternative route seeking
wind and current conditions that fit the boat best). As sailing teams had little experience with the
application of data analytics on large data sets, external expertise was called for. Van Hillegersberg et al.
(2017) describe how a university research team supported the Dutch Volvo Ocean sailing team by
developing a race evaluation dashboard and architecture. The dashboard offered the sailing team various
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 10
visualizations and analytics of the sensor data to analyze performance over each route leg and investigate
the impact of the use of sail configurations under changing wind conditions. The sailing team confirmed
that the use of data analytics greatly enhanced their understanding of the boat and supported on-board
decision making. It can be expected that in future races the importance of the use of data analytics to
improve sailing performance will further increase.
The implications of the wide-spread use of data technologies are three-fold. First, the technological
component that is essential for the competitiveness of sport is now influenced by digital means. In other
words, it is not only important for players and teams to gain physical skills, but it is also increasingly
indispensable to codify such skills into data/information that can be used to evaluate performance and
prepare for future events. For instance, as the example of German soccer team at the beginning of the
paper illustrated, it is both the players’ physical skills and the national team’s way of collecting and
analyzing data on the players’ physical skills that lead them to the final success in winning the World Cup.
Second, the scouting or discovery of talents has also been revolutionized. As Lewis (2004) recounted,
scouting and recruitment are no longer old-school game based on intuition and experience. With the
availability (and abundance) of statistics generated by the digital means such as above mentioned
systems, it can be expected that scouting and recruitment of players will be less reliant on “eyes” and more
dependent on data (Steinberg 2015). It could also be expected that the skill requirement for scouting
experts will be different under the new operations: shifting from the ability to read the talent to the ability
to identify relevant information sifting through a sea of data. Finally, the increasing availability and
visibility of live performance data can then be used for fan engagement and commercial opportunities,
especially in enhancing match-day experiences (Klug 2015).
Further, we argue that players are playing a more active role in the production and distribution of their
own technological data, thanks to emerging digital platforms that enable user-generated content and
leverage the interactive/participatory nature of web 2.0 (O’Reilly 2007). For instance, Tonsser
(www.tonsser.com) is a Danish tech startup that has created ‘Facebook for football’ - a social network site
for youth football players. The Tonsser app was first launched in Denmark in March 2015. Within a year,
the app was released also in Sweden, Norway, Italy, France and Spain. Two years later, the app was
actively used by 250,000 youth players. At its core, the Tonsser platform provides functionality for
register about players, teams and matches. The content is crowdsourced and dependent on that players
provide the data themselves, which they to a large extent do. For the players, Tonsser has become the
window to display achievements and for spying on opponents’ performance and the pin board for team
management. Two types of actors have shown a particular interest in accessing the Tonsser platform:
agents and club scouts. Having data specialists analyzing the individual contributions of players have
become core components of the recruitment process in football. For agents and scouts, Tonsser’s detailed
and longitudinal data consists an opportunity for talent management. Currently, the data allows for
identification of top performance in a certain season. As data is aggregated, it will allow for specific
inquiries into the relative contribution of individual players across teams and squads, in different
positions, and even by controlling for game time, weather and season. In short, what this example has
showcased is not only how scouting in sports has been increasingly relying on data analytics, but more so,
how players have now become active producer of their own data profiles to demonstrate their physical
skills. In other words, digitalization in a way has democratized the recruitment process of sport – young
players are not passively waiting to be discovered any more.
Finally, as discussed above, digitalization of sports is also driving the rise and popularity of e-sports,
which, from the technological point of view, represents commercialization of physical skills and
knowledge possessed by sports producers in creating digital products (often in the format of digital
games). For instance, the popularity of FIFA Football can be attributed to its simulation of the real world,
where gamers reside in and control players whose skills are duplicated from the data gathered on their
live counter parts (Hilvoorde and Pot 2016). This area will gather further attention considering the great
potential of VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) technologies in creating simulated gaming
scenarios that are close to real-life experience (Hamdhaidari 2016).
Symbolic Component of Sports Digitalization
Digitalization of the symbolic component of sport can refer to the pluralization of channels through which
sports organizations and their members can (and need to) utilize in constructing display and building
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 11
their identity and brand. However, such digitalization of identities can sometimes change the symbolic
attributes of a certain sport, especially the ones carrying long traditions. For instance, Badminton is
historically labelled as a “white sport” by middleclass people to show off their cultural capital (Warde
2006). Such identity is evident through symbolic products such as photos of well-fed and well-dressed
kids and grown-ups in white clothes who listen respectfully to instructions or clearly collaborate with
good manners. In other words, the image was created under certain social context. While increasing
digitalization of sports can certainly reinforce such image, it also bears the question of whether the
symbols of badminton will be challenged given the different social and cultural contexts associated with
digitalization (Deuze 2006). Another example to demonstrate such dynamic is a recent move by one of the
oldest Italian football club Juventus F.C. in changing their old-school, badge-style logo that has been in
place for decades to a modern logo that embodies minimalistic design (“Black and White and More”
2017). The change has stirred great controversies among the fans, overseeing a clash between the old
value, associated with heritage and history, and the new one that is tailored for the modern world
dominated by commercialization and digitalization (it was argued that the new logo suits the future as its
design is much easier to be reproduced and optimal for digital channels) (Guardian Sport 2017).
Second, different digital channels make sports event and related content accessible to potentially more
stakeholders than before. For instance, livestreaming of eSport, such as Dot2, throught Twitch.tv. The
implications here are multi-fold. To begin with, the display and ritual of sports have been extended to
online sphere, meaning that new opportunities arise for sports organizations and its members to engage
in such displays. The previous example on extreme skiing provides an excellent point in how digital
means not only remove the constraints of time and space in accessing the sport content, but also intensify
the display of the sports through replays facilitated by various camera angles. Another example related to
ritual of sports being carried out in digital means can be found in soccer. On January 11th, 2015, when the
legendary player Francesco Totti of the Italian soccer club A.S. Roma scored a momentum goal in so-
called Roma derby, as part of the celebration, he took a selfie with the emotional, flag-waving supporters
in the background, and posted the photo live on his social media site (Bandini 2015). Such moment was
later touted by media as historic, as smartphone and social media for the first time became part of the
sports ritual – celebration of goals – carried out by players live on the field (Laird 2015). In a way, the
seemingly unbreakable boundary between the physical sphere and the online sphere in sport events is
getting blurry. Such blurring of boundaries is also demonstrated by the above-mentioned case of Tonsser,
where the players have the platform and the capability to document their display on the field and
distribute it to the digital world. It can then be asked whether such possibility of extending on-field
display to the on-line environment and hence the increased visibility of actions (positive and negative)
would then influence players’ performance on the field.
Regardless of whether and how digital channels will influence players’ performance, they have enabled
the online sports consumption for sports fans (Seo and Green 2008; Witkemper et al. 2012). For instance,
the role of social media in sport and sport culture has become increasingly important (DiMoro 2015). It is
even deemed as a necessity for every team, club, and player to maintain a social media presence
(Sanderson 2011). For an industry where emotions and attachments are a major part of the consumption
product (Bee and Havitz 2010; Hunt et al. 1999), it is reasonable to argue that social media platforms
render as powerful tool for sports organizations to enhance the consumption experience through
increased interaction possibilities. Additionally, when combining this with the increasing availability of
live match and player data (see above), new opportunities arise to further diversify online sports
consumption and create new revenue streams. For instance, in cricket, live broadcasting includes data
analytics in terms of projected score and predicted winner, and social media engagement in terms of polls,
activity counters, and sentiment metrics. As for sport organizations, the afore-mentioned Juventus F.C.
provides another example when they created so-called Juventus Pass (https://pass.juventus.com), a
portal where fans can consume various digital content (comprising mostly of match highlights and
historical match videos) based on a subscription model.
Educational Component of Sports Digitalization
The educational component of sports refers to the development and continuous improvement of physical
skills and knowledge that are deemed essential to be competitive. As discussed in the technological
component, digitalization has made it easier to collect and analyze data related to players and teams’ skills
and performance, and hence enabling the widespread utilization of such data in training and game
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 12
preparations. Data analytics utilized in the educational component of sports can be separated to two
areas: performance analytics and player health and injury prevention analytics (Davenport 2014b). The
above-mentioned examples of MLB and NBA illustrate how such data can be gathered live and utilized
later in training and preparing for future matches. Similarly, in Europe, the same trend can be found in
soccer where we have witnessed data analytics going beyond the descriptive statistics with increasing
focus on the diagnostic and prediction components (Davenport 2014a). For instance, F.C. Bayern, a
pioneer when it comes to data analytics, in collaboration with software provider SAP and data provider
Opta, would collect 80 million pieces of data for one single soccer match, which will then be integrated
and utilized in training together with training data gathered from censors at training centers to
monitor/evaluate the performance of each player and the overall team (Tan et al. 2017). However, as
Davenport (2014b) pointed out, sport producers (players and coaching staff) will not be able to take full
advantage of data analytics until they fully embrace the technology and use them to their advantage. Such
observation reflects one of the main issues/implications of digitalization to the sports industry in
challenging its traditional mindset (Smith and Stewart 1999). As Lewis (2004) documented, the clash
between the old way of doing business – heavy reliance on intuition and tacit knowledge – and the new
way of doing business – reliance on technology and evidence – is real and contests the core of the
industry. Further, similar to the discussion of scouting, beside mindset change, utilization of data
analytics in training and match preparation also requires new skill sets for coaching staff (possibly players
as well) that would allow them to interpret and use the data in an effective way.
Second, technological advancement in HCI, IoT, VR, and AR are creating more individualized/tailored
training opportunities, which might change the collective nature of sport (Coleman 2012). With again
badminton as an example, meeting several times a week with a large group of other people in specialized
rooms – badminton clubs – is currently necessary to train the skills that are required to play the game
even on a recreational level. In the near future, a diversity of other approaches may become available to
the individual player. Already for years, elite players had access to time and trainers in badminton clubs
so that they could train, but with instructional technologies, these players will be able to train individually,
and not be constrained to a single location (i.e., the club training center). In this sense, the collectiveness
of the sports, especially related to the educational part, can be further challenged.
Following up on the previous point, technological advancement and consequently the accessibility of data
and information, also further drives the democratization of sports. On one hand, as described in the
badminton example, individualized training based on instructional technologies (that are
commercialized) could potentially lower the barrier for future sportsman to gain education and training.
On the other hand, information asymmetries (e.g., tactical secrets) are reduced due to the public
availability of performance data (as discussed above). In fact, even fans and/or individual sport journalist
nowadays engage in the interpretation and analysis of performance data on various social media
platforms. In other words, what used to be the exclusive domains of experts can now be accessed and
interpreted by the general public, i.e., a decrease in the barriers to participate and the declassification of
the secret nature of sports.
Finally, in certain sports such as Formula One, digitalization combined with restrictions on testing (both
pre-season and in-season) led to increased reliance on race simulators. In this regard, physical training is
replaced by full or partial virtual training. In the future, we might witness the spreading of this trend to
more sports domain, as technologies in VR and AR continues to develop.
Proposal of a Research Agenda for Sports Digitalization
The previous section demonstrates how digitalization has prompted tremendous changes to the sport
industry and sport organizations, marking a new era where studying digitalization and sports has become
more relevant and important. This is evident from a broad range of sports, from the ones with long history
and tradition, such as badminton, soccer, baseball, cricket, skiing, to newly-emerging, digitally-born
sports – eSports. In this section, we aim at providing a research agenda for sports digitalization, by
making sense of the implications listed in Table 2 and reviewing relevant areas in IS research. Specifically,
we look for different topics that are of theoretical and practical importance across the organizational,
technological, symbolic, and educational components of sport organizations, in relation to the
digitalization in these areas. Table 3 presents a summary of such agenda.
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 13
Table 3. A Research Agenda for Sports Digitalization
Organizational
component
• How can we understand the new ecosystem as a result of sport digitalization, with
new participants entering the picture?
• What are the relationships among the new sports format, business model
innovation, and digitalization?
• What is the nature of the relationships between different organizational levels of
sports in the digital context?
• How does digitalization impact the competitive landscape of a certain sports
industry (e.g., Formula One)?
• How does digitalization (digital infrastructure and digital platform) influence the
co-opetitive dynamics among sports organizations within a certain industry?
Technological
component
• How can we design digital systems/platforms, and integrate sports data across
different channels?
• In sports scouting and recruitment, how are information and knowledge used to
evaluate players’ physical skills generated and analyzed through utilization of
digital technologies? How have digital technologies changed scouting and
recruitment practices?
• How do digitalization of sport impact traditional live broadcasting on radio and
TV and new digital broadcast platforms?
• What are some unique design requirements for digital technologies (e.g.,
analytical tools, software, digital platforms) in the sports context?
Symbolic
component
• How to retain and further develop the brand of the sports when the symbols
move from offline to online?
• How do players manage their own data profiles to attract recruiters’ attention?
• How do increased measurements and game transparency impact player
performance?
• What are the ethical concerns and managerial implications of players leaving a
‘digital trace’ in a club? Who should own the data?
• How do new forms of symbolic relationships form due to a combination of
innovations in sports formats, business models and digitalization?
• How does the increasing utilization of digital technologies in delivering sports
events influence both individual experience and collective experience?
Educational
component
• What kinds of capabilities are required for coaching staff to better utilize data
analytics in enhancing performance? What kind of organizational capabilities are
required to fully take advantages of data analytics in training players?
• Will playing a physical sport - like badminton - against robots change what is
learned during training and what is meant by playing the sport?
• How can we use IoT technologies and IA (machine learning) to design and
develop smart personal trainers/coaches for players?
Developing a Research Agenda in relation to the Organizational Component
Existing IS literature has shown tremendous interests in understanding digital ecosystems that are built
upon digital infrastructure or platforms (Tilson et al. 2010; Tiwana et al. 2010; Yoo et al. 2010). In a
similar vein, researchers can focus on how digitalization has influenced the existing sports ecosystem and
the emerging or changing ecosystem surrounding sports. The pursuit of this agenda can reveal how a
number of new specialized actors, such as data providers, data integrators, livestreaming services, and
software providers, are becoming critical constituents of a new ecosystem providing the sport industry
with new recourses, skills and competences. As traditional IT players such as SAP move into industries
like sports, and the emergence of new data provider and data aggregator due to increasing demands for
data analytics (e.g. Opta for professional soccer) (Tan et al. 2017), this research agenda is significant: to
extend our understanding of how the entrance of IT players changes the ecosystem dynamics or what role
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 14
IT players will be playing in such an ecosystem (e.g., commodity player or niche player (Iansiti and Levien
2004)).
Against this back drop, a broader question can be asked as to how digital technologies transform the
sports industry. To answer this question, researchers can focus on either a specific technology or a specific
sports area. For instance, as we see the increasing relevance of digital platforms in the sports context (e.g.,
new business models such as above-mentioned case of Tonsser), one could ask specifically how would
digital platforms change the structure of a certain sports industry? We believe the quest of such nature
can contribute to the collective dialoge in the area of digital platforms and digital ecosystems (e.g., de
Reuver et al. 2017): 1) unlike other indsturies (e.g., transportation), the sports industry is only beginning
to experience influences posed by digital business models, allowing us to witness the unfolding of the
impacts; 2) the dynamics of sports industry (e.g., complexity when it comes to the ecosystem composure
as well as the relationship among different eosystem players) will render unique opportunities for us to
further our understandings in areas such as platform ecosystems.
Moreover, if we zoom into various organizing acitivites, we can then look at new business opportunities
and their implications on traditional roles in sports. For instance, one area that is affected is the
organizational activities related to sports team compositions and competitive advantages. What will the
role be for traditional talent scouts – when all data is available online? Furthermore, how will sports
transform due to the increased media exposure through live broadcasting and subscription revenue
models? From this, we have an opportunity to study how digitalization changes different operational
areas of sports organizations, both related to the sports domain and the business domain.
Finally, digitalization poses new competitive dynamics, when considering the digital infrastructure that
can be shared across competitors (e.g., the player tracking in NBA). There, sports (with increased
digitalization) provide a unique context to explore the co-opetition phenomenon (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff 2011), where different sports organizations compete with each other to achieve dominance on
one hand, whereas on the other choose to collaborate to improve the standings of the sports itself. It
would be interesting to investigate how digitalization influences the co-opetitive dynamics within a certain
sports industry.
Developing a Research Agenda in relation to the Technological Aspect
To date, many IS scholars have reported on the capabilities of information technology for organizations
particularly through adopting the resource-based view (Bharadwaj 2000; Nevo and Wade 2010). IS
research has also identified a comprehensive set of different types of IT capabilities that can be held by a
firm, which include outside-in capabilities which deal with responding to the market, inside-out
capabilities that deals with internal operations, and spanning capabilities which integrate the previous
two (Wade and Hulland 2004). Given that technology has the capability to integrate data between
technologies and platforms, a research program on data integration across different sports makes it
possible for us to better understand how to compare and learn from other sports and remain competitive
(Steinberg 2015). Hence, we can reveal what standards should be developed to enable such integration,
extending the knowledge of integrating sports generated data with online content (e.g. social media and
user generated content) (O’Reilly 2007). We have an opportunity to reveal how to combine or co-present
IT- based resources with other resources and capabilities (Bharadwaj 2000).
In addition, we also call for studies on how digital technologies can be used to build a body of knowledge
(expert systems) that can be used to improve the material or the physical skills. For instance, how can 3D
models and simulation models (Hamdhaidari 2016) be used to test new material. This is significant as we
can extend our knowledge of how technological capabilities change practices. For example, when it comes
to the recruitment of players, how can digital technology be used to collect knowledge? Furthermore, how
can such technologies be used to detect over-performance, i.e. doping, or even incidents related to
gampling and betting, to create a fair game? Other relevant research questions in sports scouting and
recruitment include, how could the information and knowledge used to evaluate players’ physical skills be
generated and analyzed through the utilization of digital technologies? How have digital technologies
changed scouting and recruitment practices?
Finally, from a design perspective, we can ask what are some of the unique requirements and challenges
in designing digital technologies specifically for the sports context (Caya and Bourdon 2016).
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 15
Developing a Research Agenda in relation to the Symbolic Component
IS researchers have a long tradition of studying identity related issues of IT users (Lamb and Kling 2003;
Nakamura 2002). The concept of symbolism has also been used as a blueprint for IS research on focus of
the IT systems use and their processes (Gopal and Prasad 2000; Ng and Tan 2004). More recently, such
efforts have been extended to social media users (Kreps 2010), and users in online communities (Animesh
et al. 2011). A central question resolves around how (accurately) users utilize digital means to present
themselves in the digital world, and the influence of such virtual representation. Similarly, digitalization
leads to several research avenues regarding users and related to displays and rituals. When considering
the extension of display to the digital arena, questions can be raised about the virtual identity of both the
sports organizations and their producers (especially players) as well as the fans. Hence, we call for
initiatives on how stakeholders in sports manage their digital presence. Specifically and from sports
players’ perspective, it will be interesting to investigate questions such as how players would manage their
own data profiles to attract recruiters’ attention. How do presence of an online profile (online display)
impact a player’s performance? Or from a marketing point of view, how could digital technologies be used
to further develop the brand of the sport, the team, or the player? Furthermore, with the emerging digital
traces (Hamdhaidari 2016) how should teams and players manage their past and who own such traces?
IS researchers have also revealed new forms of symbolic relationships formed as a result of technology
intervention for promotion and advertising with consumers (Li et al. 2015). As for the sports consumers,
similarly, social media channels have transformed fan bases by diversifying audiences and amplifying
subjective aspects such as sentiment. Therefore, the availability of such data that reflects the emotions of
sports consumers has rendered new opportunities for examining the connection between online display
and offline behavior. For instance, studies from the communication discipline have looked into issues
such as how sports fans’ online discourses (re)produce their social believes offline (Sanderson 2010), and
how fans use digital platforms to collectively solve identity issues (Sanderson 2013). On the sport
organizations’ side, Egebjerg et al. (Forthcoming) addresses the research question of how social data
generated by the fans can provide important insights for organizations to understand their fan base. As
such, we call on more research on how to retain and further develop the brand of sport.
Finally, we believe studying the digitalization of the symbolic component of sports will provide IS
researchers with unique opportunities in areas such as experiential computing (Yoo 2010). The utilization
of digital technologies (both software and hardware) in delivering sports consumption products is
advancing at two ends: around the physical experience of the live sports event itself and around the virtual
event broadcasted through various channels. Thus, on the individual level, we can study how the
entanglement of the digital and the physical influences consumer experience, whereas on the group level,
we attend to the question of how the introduction of digital channels changes the collective experience
(Yoo 2010).
Developing a Research Agenda in relation to the Educational Component
Similarly, studying how information systems and technologies facilitate learning in an organizational
context has a long standing tradition in IS research. Findings from IS research on technology enabled
organizational learning can be used to inform processes, performance and innovation (Alavi and Leidner
2001; Andreu and Ciborra 1996; Scott 2000). As digitalization changes how sports producers improve
their physical skills, especially in relation to the increasing utilization of data analytics, we stress the
importance of studying how players and coaching staff cloud use digital technologies to gain knowledge
and facilitate the training process. Along the same line, one can also examine the types of new skills are
required for players and coaching staff to utilize digital means in training. Further, as the new way of
training and match preparation challenges the traditional way of learning and education in sports, it is
relevant to examine how digitalization influences (or is influenced by) the existing norm systems, or,
institutional logics(Scott 2013; Thornton and Ocasio 2008) of certain sports industries. Finally, as we see
the advancement and wider use of IoT technologies, such as wearables, we delve into more intrusive and
extensive performance monitoring systems that could influence the players’ physical performance and
psychological well-being.
As increasing knowledge and competence in IT is synonymous with change, in mindset (Smith and
Stewart 1999) and in practice (McEwan and Gutwin 2016), a potential avenue of research could be
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 16
focusing on the change in the design and development of tools and practices in sports digitalization. For
instance, the increasing capabilities of AI and robotics might bring robots to the sports training ground.
Whilst researchers have found that learning to play chess with a computer is different from playing chess
against a human opponent, it is noteworthy to investigate if playing a physical sport like badminton
against shuttlecock robots will change how humans play badminton. This is due to the richer affective and
social aspects found in turn-based games like badminton (e.g. waiting some seconds for the tired player to
get ready before serving the shuttlecock); where the user experience when playing with robots may be
different as flow and immersion are important (IJsselsteijn et al. 2007). Hence communication levels in
the robotics should be carefully designed (McEwan and Gutwin 2016).
Concluding Remarks
In this conceptual paper, we focus on the field of sports and the broad phenomenon of sports
digitalization. In fulfilling the three research objectives we have presented at the beginning, we aim to
make important contributions to both sports related research within the IS discipline. We discuss the
research implications of this paper below.
First and foremost, in reviewing the institutional characteristics of sports, a field with long and glorious
tradition, we are able to establish the theoretical importance of treating sport organizations as a different
context for research. As discussed above, the complexity embedded in the organizational structure and
activities, the importance of symbolic elements in the consumption product, the complexity of customer
composition and relationship, and the criticality of technologies in the format of equipment, and skills
and knowledge which need to be formally acquired and continuously improved, together represent a
unique industry. By systematically demonstrating the differences of sport organizations across the
organizational, technological, symbolic, and educational components, we contribute to the theoretical
understanding of the sports industry. Doing so, we hope more research on the sports context will be
conducted by IS scholars to further investigate this distinct field for IT related phenomenon.
Second, in reviewing the latest trends of increasing digitalization in the sports industry, we have also
demonstrated the different components of sport organizations that have been changed, challenged, and
transformed. This includes how the organizational component changes with new virtual ways of
integrating and engaging with various stakeholders, emergence of new specialized stakeholders, and new
means for interacting with team players; how the technological component has changed when
technological data becomes increasingly accessible, traceable, visible, and data analytics becoming a key
component of player recruitment and team formation; how the symbolic component is amplified through
the online sphere with digital means; how boundaries between online display and offline (physical)
display are blurred; how the educational component changes due to advancement in HCI, IoT, VR, and
AR to create more individualized/tailored training opportunities, which might challenge the collective
nature of sport; and how match and player performance data is available for analysis before, during, and
after the particular match. We believe such a broad overview of sports digitalization, demonstrated by
various examples and cases across various types of sports, will further establish the importance and the
relevance of conducting IS research in this domain. Additionally, due to the institutional characteristics of
the sports industry, many changes we are witnessing in the sports would provide us with unique
opportunities to study digitalization related phenomenon which cannot be easily observed in generic
business context. As Davenport (2014b) argued that, organizations represent a much more advanced field
when it comes to utilization of data analytics tools, from which business should learn from.
Finally, we have proposed a research agenda with a sample of research questions for the IS community to
delve deeper into the sports context in general and sports digitalization in specific. We believe this is the
first effort in the IS discipline to provide such a blue print that covers a broad range of topics in relation to
the organizational, technological, symbolic, and educational components of sports digitalization, and
touches upon different IS streams of research. Our hope is that future research in sport digitalization will
not be limited to only sports analytics (exemplified by MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference), and that
our effort will activate more researchers to this field conducting more diversified research.
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 17
References
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. 2001. “Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues,” MIS quarterly, pp. 107–136.
Andreu, R., and Ciborra, C. 1996. “Organisational Learning and Core Capabilities Development: The Role
of IT,” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, (5:2), pp. 111–127 (doi: 10.1016/S0963-
8687(96)80039-4).
Animesh, A., Pinsonneault, A., Yang, S.-B., and Oh, W. 2011. “An Odyssey into Virtual Worlds: Exploring
the Impacts of Technological and Spatial Environments on Intention to Purchase Virtual
Products,” MIS Quarterly, (35:3), pp. 789–810.
Baca, A. 2014. Computer Science in Sport: Research and Practice, Routledge.
Badenhausen, K. 2016. “Dallas Cowboys Head The World’s 50 Most Valuable Sports Teams Of 2016,”
Forbes, July 13 (available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/07/13/dallas-
cowboys-head-the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams-of-2016/; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Bandini, P. 2015. “Francesco Totti’s selfie-conscious celebration and the Rome derby,” The Guardian
(available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/12/francesco-totti-selfie-
roma-lazio-serie-a-blog).
Bedeley, R., Benbow, M., and Iyer, L. 2016. “An Analytics-based Strategy for College Sports Ticket Sales
and Management,” AMCIS 2016 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/Decision/Presentations/25).
Bee, C. C., and Havitz, M. E. 2010. “Exploring the Relationship Between Involvement, Fan Attraction,
Psychological Commitment and Behavioural Loyalty in a Sports Spectator Context,” International
Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, (11:2), pp. 37–54.
Bee, C. C., and Kahie, L. R. 2006. “Relationship Marketing in Sports: A Functional Approach,” Sport
Marketing Quarterly, (15:2), pp. 102–110.
Bharadwaj, A. S. 2000. “A Resource-based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm
Performance: An Empirical Investigation,” MIS Q., (24:1), pp. 169–196 (doi: 10.2307/3250983).
Bingley, S., Burgess, S., and Sellitto, C. 2011. “Website Adoption By Local Sporting Bodies In Australia
And New Zealand,” PACIS 2011 Proceedings (available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/28).
Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, A., Maroco, J., and Ross, S. 2012. “The Effects of Emotions on Football
Spectators’ Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions,” European Sport Management Quarterly,
(12:3), pp. 227–242 (doi: 10.1080/16184742.2012.679949).
“Black and White and More: Juventus’ future, now.,” 2017. Juventus.com (available at
http://www.juventus.com/en/news/news/2017/black-and-white-and-more-juventus-future-
now-.php; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Bleak, J. L., Frederick, C. M., and others. 1998. “Superstitious behavior in sport: Levels of effectiveness
and determinants of use in three collegiate sports.,” Journal of Sport Behavior, (21:1), pp. 1–15.
Boyle, R., Haynes, R., and others. 2003. “New media sport.,” Sport, media, culture: global and local
dimensions, pp. 95–114.
Brandenburger, A. M., and Nalebuff, B. J. 2011. Co-Opetition, Crown Publishing Group.
Caillois, R. 1961. Man, Play, and Games, University of Illinois Press.
Caya, O., and Bourdon, A. 2016. “A Framework of Value Creation from Business Intelligence and
Analytics in Competitive Sports,” in 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS), January, pp. 1061–1071 (doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.136).
Chiasson, M. W., and Davidson, E. 2005. “Taking Industry Seriously in Information Systems Research,”
MIS Quarterly, (29:4), pp. 591–605.
Coleman, B. J. 2012. “Identifying the ‘Players’ in Sports Analytics Research,” Interfaces, (42:2), pp. 109–
118 (doi: 10.1287/inte.1110.0606).
Davenport, T. H. 2014a. “Analytics in Sports: The New Science of Winning,” (available at
http://balancedoffense.com/uploads/8/2/3/7/82373604/iia_-_analytics_in_sports.pdf).
Davenport, T. H. 2014b. “What Businesses Can Learn From Sports Analytics,” MIT Sloan Management
Review, (55:4), p. 10.
de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., and Basole, R. C. 2017. “The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda,” Journal
of Information Technology, pp. 1–12. (https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3).
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 18
Deuze, M. 2006. “Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital
Culture,” The Information Society, (22:2), pp. 63–75 (doi: 10.1080/01972240600567170).
DiMoro, A. 2015. “The Growing Impact of Social Media On Today’s Sports Culture,” Forbes, July 2
(available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonydimoro/2015/07/02/the-growing-impact-of-
social-media-on-todays-sports-culture/; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Dodd, S., and Sathasivam, V. 2010. “Mega-Project Management: A Case Study of the London Olympic
Games 2012,” UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2010 (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2010/19).
Egebjerg, N. H., Hedegaard, N., Kuum, G., Mukkamala, R. R., and Vatrapu, R. Forthcoming. “Big Social
Data Analytics in Football: Predicting Spectators and TV Ratings from Facebook Data,” in 2017
IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Hawaii. U.S.A. (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2015/proceedings/ISdesign/1).
Ferguson, C. 2013. “It’s time for the nursing profession to leverage social media,” Journal of Advanced
Nursing, (69:4), pp. 745–747 (doi: 10.1111/jan.12036).
Goffman, E. 1961. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction, Oxford, England: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Gopal, A., and Prasad, P. 2000. “Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the Focus from
Technology to Interaction,” MIS Quarterly, (24:3), pp. 509–546 (doi: 10.2307/3250972).
Guardian Sport. 2017. “Juventus unveil bold new club crest at ceremony in Milan,” The Guardian
(available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/16/juventus-unveil-new-crest-
serie-a).
Hamari, J., and Sjöblom, M. 2017. “What Is eSports and Why Do People Watch It?,” SSRN Scholarly
Paper No. ID 2686182, , Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2686182).
Hamdhaidari, M. 2016. “Digital Trends for the Sports Industry in 2016,” deltatre, January 27 (available at
http://www.deltatre.com/2016/01/digital-trends-for-the-sports-industry-in-2016/; retrieved
May 4, 2017).
Hanisch, B., and Hanisch, J. 2007. “Injury Management: The Development and Implementation of
Innovative Software in an Elite Sporting Club,” PACIS 2007 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/8).
Hilvoorde, I. van, and Pot, N. 2016. “Embodiment and fundamental motor skills in eSports,” Sport, Ethics
and Philosophy, (10:1), pp. 14–27 (doi: 10.1080/17511321.2016.1159246).
Holland, C. 2015. “Internet and Social Media Strategy in Sports Marketing,” ECIS 2015 Completed
Research Papers (doi: 10.18151/7217357).
Höner, O. 2001. “Interdisziplinäre Theorienbildung als Leitorientierung für den sportwissenschaftlichen
Nachwuchs?–Eine Anregung zur wissenschaftstheoretischen Diskussion,” Ze-phir, (8:1), pp. 16–
29.
Hoye, R., Smith, A. C. T., Nicholson, M., and Stewart, B. 2015. Sport Management: Principles and
Applications, Routledge.
Huizinga, J. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-element in Cult, Beacon Press.
Hunt, K. A., Bristol, T., and Bashaw, R. E. 1999. “A Conceptual Approach to Classifying Sports Fans,”
Journal of Services Marketing, (13:6), pp. 439–452 (doi: 10.1108/08876049910298720).
Iansiti, M., and Levien, R. 2004. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business
Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability, Harvard Business Press.
IJsselsteijn, W., Kort, D., Poels, K., Jurgelionis, A., and Bellotti, F. 2007. “Characterising and Measuring
User Experiences,” Presented at the Proceedings of Digital Games International Conference on
Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACM Press (available at
http://lrcm.com.umontreal.ca/dufresne/COM6535/IJsselsteijn%20et%20al%202007%20Charac
terising%20and%20Measuring%20User%20Experiences%20ACE%202007%20workshop.pdf).
Junghagen, S. 2016. “Tensions in stakeholder relations for a Swedish football club – a case study,” Soccer
& Society, (0:0), pp. 1–18 (doi: 10.1080/14660970.2016.1267621).
Klug, W. 2015. “A whole new ball game: how data and tech are changing sport,” The Guardian (available
at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/09/how-data-and-tech-changing-sport).
Kreps, D. 2010. “My Social Networking Profile: Copy, Resemblance, or Simulacrum? A Poststructuralist
Interpretation of Social Information Systems,” European Journal of Information Systems, (19:1),
pp. 104–115 (doi: 10.1057/ejis.2009.46).
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 19
Krzanich, B. 2016. “Digitization Is Upon Us — The Biggest Change In Sports In Over 100 Years,” The
Cauldron, February 11 (available at https://the-cauldron.com/the-digitization-of-sports-the-
biggest-change-in-sport-in-over-100-years-7a0761c2e14a; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Laird, S. 2015. “How soccer star Francesco Totti’s famous selfie came to be,” Mashable, January 13
(available at http://mashable.com/2015/01/13/totti-selfie/; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Lamb, R., and Kling, R. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems
Research,” MIS Quarterly, (27:2), pp. 197–236.
Lam, K., Sauers, E., and McLeod, T. V. 2016. “The Athletic Training Practice-Based Research Network: A
National Model for Point-of-Care Sports Injury and Outcomes Documentation to Improve Athlete
Health and Wellness,” AMCIS 2016 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/Decision/Presentations/7).
Lee, C. 2016. “A Content Analysis of Sports Analytics Resistance,” AMCIS 2016 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/Decision/Presentations/4).
Lewis, M. 2004. Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, W. W. Norton & Company.
Link, D., and Lames, M. 2014. “An introduction to sport informatics,” in Computer Science in Sport:
Research and Practice, pp. 1–18 (available at
https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=q02vBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT16&ots=D6F9w
JcShe&sig=ENHLRqZiiptMKk-SWIV3leLptOc).
Lipoński, W. 2003. World Sports Encyclopedia, Oficyna Wydawnicza Atena.
Li, Y.-W., Yang, S.-M., and Liang, T.-P. 2015. “Website Interactivity and Promotional Framing on
Consumer Attitudes Toward Online Advertising: Functional versus Symbolic Brands,” Pacific
Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (7:2) (available at
http://journal.ecrc.nsysu.edu.tw/index.php/pajais/article/view/314).
Loucopoulos, P., and Kavakli, E. 2016. “Capability Modeling with Application on Large-scale Sports
Events,” AMCIS 2016 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/SAND/Presentations/6).
Loy, J. W. 1968. “The Nature of Sport: A Definitional Effort,” Quest, (10:1), pp. 1–15 (doi:
10.1080/00336297.1968.10519640).
McCubbrey, D. J., and Bloom, P. 2005. “Usa Swimming: The Data Integration Project,” Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, (16), pp. 299–316.
McEwan, G., and Gutwin, C. 2016. “Chess As a Conversation: Artefact-Based Communication in Online
Competitive Board Games,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting
Group Work, GROUP ’16, New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp. 21–30 (doi: 10.1145/2957276.2957314).
McKenna. 2014. “SAP helps Germany lift the World Cup,” ComputerWeekly, July 14 (available at
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240224421/SAP-helps-Germany-lift-the-World-Cup;
retrieved May 4, 2017).
Mignerat, M., and Audebrand, L. 2010. “Towards the Adoption of e-Refereeing and e-Ticketing in Elite
Soccer Championships: an Institutional Perspective,” ICIS 2010 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/114).
Morley, G. 2012. “Is the Olympics worth more than Google?,” CNN, July 25 (available at
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/25/sport/olympics-london-2012-google-apple/index.html;
retrieved May 4, 2017).
Nakamura, L. 2002. “After/Images of identity: Gender, technology, and identity politics,” in Reload:
Rethinking women+ cyberculture, pp. 321–331 (available at
https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8LFsPwN2AJIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA321&dq=Nakam
ura+2002+identity&ots=YPMQLsd5gh&sig=3FrBPo8sWRgErjRR7NlJ6ZKgniY).
Nevo, S., and Wade, M. R. 2010. “The Formation and Value of IT-Enabled Resources: Antecedents and
Consequences of Synergistic Relationships,” MIS Quarterly, (34:1), pp. 163–183.
Neyer, R. 2014. “How does all this new baseball technology affect real-life scouting?,” FOX Sports, March
5 (available at http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/how-does-all-this-new-baseball-technology-
affect-real-life-scouting-030514; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Ng, M. M. T., and Tan, M. T. K. 2004. “Symbolic Processes in ERP Versus Legacy System Usage,” in
Information Systems Research, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, B.
Kaplan, D. P. T. III, D. Wastell, A. T. Wood-Harper, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Springer US, pp.
713–722 (available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_49).
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 20
O’Reilly, T. 2007. “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software,” SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1008839, , Rochester, NY: Social Science Research
Network (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1008839).
Röthig, P., Prohl, R., and others. 2003. Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon, Hofmann (available at
http://www.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/tocs/9970681.pdf).
Sanderson, J. 2010. “Weighing in on the Coaching Decision: Discussing Sports and Race Online,” Journal
of Language and Social Psychology, (29:3), pp. 301–320 (doi: 10.1177/0261927X10368834).
Sanderson, J. 2011. It’s a Whole New Ballgame: How Social Media is Changing Sports, Hampton Press.
Sanderson, J. 2013. “From Loving the Hero to Despising the Villain: Sports Fans, Facebook, and Social
Identity Threats,” Mass Communication and Society, (16:4), pp. 487–509 (doi:
10.1080/15205436.2012.730650).
Schrader, D., Gupta, A., Iyer, L., Schiller, S., and Sharda, R. 2016. “Sports Analytics Research
Collaborations: Connecting Business Schools with Athletic Departments,” AMCIS 2016
Proceedings (available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/Panels/Presentations/4).
Scott, J. E. 2000. “Facilitating Interorganizational Learning with Information Technology.,” Journal of
Management Information Systems, (17:2), pp. 81–113.
Scott, W. R. 2013. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, SAGE Publications.
Seo, W. J., and Green, B. C. 2008. “Development of the Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption,”
Journal of Sport Management, (22:1), pp. 82–109 (doi: 10.1123/jsm.22.1.82).
Serazio, M. 2013. “The Elementary Forms of Sports Fandom: A Durkheimian Exploration of Team Myths,
Kinship, and Totemic Rituals,” Communication & Sport, (1:4), pp. 303–325 (doi:
10.1177/2167479512462017).
Shah, F. A., Kretzer, M., and Mädche, A. 2015. “Designing an Analytics Platform for Professional Sports
Teams,” ICIS 2015 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2015/proceedings/ISdesign/1).
Smith, A., and Stewart, B. 1999. Sports management: A guide to professional practice, Allen & Unwin.
Steinberg, L. 2015. “CHANGING THE GAME: The Rise of Sports Analytics,” Forbes, August 18 (available
at http://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2015/08/18/changing-the-game-the-rise-of-
sports-analytics/; retrieved May 4, 2017).
Stewart, B., Smith, A., and Nicholson, M. 2003. “Sport consumer typologies: A critical review,” Sport
Marketing Quarterly, (12:4), pp. 206–216.
Tan, F., Hedman, J., and Xiao, X. 2017. “Beyond ‘Moneyball’ to Analytics Leadership in Sports: An
Ecological Analysis of Fc Bayern Munich’s Digital Transformation,” AMCIS 2017 Proceedings
(available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2017/StrategicIT/Presentations/10/).
Thornton, P. H., and Ocasio, W. 2008. “Institutional logics,” in The Sage handbook of organizational
institutionalism, (Vol. 840), pp. 99–128 (available at
https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2CIlCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA99&ots=5nAlT6
0W3z&sig=y2mFOwMqtbEiSnOz6hOCd05jabs).
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., and Sørensen, C. 2010. “Research Commentary —Digital Infrastructures: The
Missing IS Research Agenda,” Information Systems Research, (21:4), pp. 748–759 (doi:
10.1287/isre.1100.0318).
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., and Bush, A. A. 2010. “Research Commentary—Platform Evolution:
Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics,” Information
Systems Research, (21:4), pp. 675–687 (doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0323).
Travassos, B., Davids, K., Araújo, D., and Esteves, P. T. 2013. “Performance Analysis in Team Sports:
Advances from an Ecological Dynamics Approach,” International Journal of Performance
Analysis in Sport, (13:1), pp. 83–95.
Troilo, M., Bouchet, A., Urban, T. L., and Sutton, W. A. 2016. “Perception, Reality, and the Adoption of
Business Analytics: Evidence from North American Professional Sport Organizations,” Omega,
Business Analytics, (59, Part A), pp. 72–83 (doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.011).
Underwood, R., Bond, E., and Baer, R. 2001. “Building Service Brands via Social Identity: Lessons from
the Sports Marketplace,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, (9:1), pp. 1–13 (doi:
10.1080/10696679.2001.11501881).
van Hillegersberg, J., Vroling, M., and Smit,F. 2017. "Improving Decision Making in Ocean Race Sailing
using Sensor Data." AMCIS 2017 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2017/DataScience/Presentations/32/)
Sports Digitalization
Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul 2017 21
Varriale, L., and Tarufi, D. 2014. “E-Mentoring for Sport Science: Implications and Applications,” MCIS
2014 Proceedings (available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2014/36).
Veblen, T. 2009. The Theory of the Leisure Class, Oxford University Press.
Wade, M., and Hulland, J. 2004. “Review: The Resource-based View and Information Systems Research:
Review, Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research,” MIS Q., (28:1), pp. 107–142.
Warde, P. A. 2006. “Cultural Capital and the Place of Sport,” Cultural Trends, (15:2-3), pp. 107–122 (doi:
10.1080/09548960600712827).
Weiss, P. 1969. Sport; a Philosophic Inquiry, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Wilkerson, G., and Gupta, A. 2016. “Sports Injuries and Prevention Analytics: Conceptual Framework &
Research Opportunities,” AMCIS 2016 Proceedings (available at
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/Decision/Presentations/24).
Witkemper, C., Choong Hoon Lim, and Waldburger, A. 2012. “Social Media and Sports Marketing:
Examining the Motivations and Constraints of Twitter Users,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, (21:3),
pp. 170–183.
Wright, M. B. 2009. “50 years of OR in sport,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, (60:1), pp.
S161–S168 (doi: 10.1057/jors.2008.170).
Yoo, Y. 2010. “Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing,” MIS
Quarterly (34:2), pp. 213–231. (https://doi.org/10.2307/20721425).
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. 2010. “Research Commentary —The New Organizing Logic of
Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research,” Information Systems
Research, (21:4), pp. 724–735 (doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0322).
