Content uploaded by Stephen Hills
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Hills on Aug 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The British Olympic football team
A quasi-experimental assessment of support
for a new sport team among Scottish and
English football fans
Stephen Hills
London Metropolitan University, London, UK
Bob Heere
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA, and
Matt Walker
Department of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The decision by the British Olympic Association to enter a soccer team into the Olympic Games of
2012, having not participated in the Olympic soccer competition since 1960, provided an opportunity to study
representation as a predictor of fan identification. The paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach –Using a quasi-experimental research design, the authors empirically
validated the value of representation by comparing the identity levels of homogeneous samples of English
and Scottish respondents toward the Great Britain Olympic National Football, participating in the Olympic
Games of 2012.
Findings –Only partial support for four sets of hypotheses was found. In general, there seemed to be low
levels of identity of each of the samples with the football team, because neither English nor Scottish
respondents perceived the team to be representative of them. Nevertheless, the results support the general
notion that representation is a valuable predictor of consumer identification.
Originality/value –Representation has been proposed as a central component of a sport team’s ability
to serve as a symbol to their community, which enables the team to benefit from existing fan identities
and the community the team is associated with. Yet, an empirical assessment of this phenomenon
is lacking.
Keywords Olympics, Representation, Football, Soccer, Team identity
Paper type Research paper
Team identity allows scholars to examine fans based on the notion that they are members of
a community, rather than consumers of a product (Andrijiw and Hyatt, 2009; Heere and
James, 2007a; Wann and Branscombe, 1993). Team identity has been shown to explain
variance in consumer behavior such as attendance, merchandise sales, media consumption,
and sponsor preference (Fisher and Wakefield, 1998; Heere, Walker, Yoshida, Ko, Jordan,
and James, 2011) and as such, it has become a key concept in sport marketing and consumer
behavior studies. In order to understand what drives team identity, Heere and James (2007b)
proposed that for many the team is not the focal point of the identity, rather the team was
seen as an instrument to identify with a larger associated community. Many of these larger
communities (nations, states, cities, etc.) are what Anderson (2006) refers to as “imagined
communities”–too large and abstract to identify directly, thus we seek symbols and points
of attachment that allow us to identify with these communities.
Throughout the twentieth century, sport teams have become powerful symbols that
allow for identification with these larger communities (Heere and James, 2007a). Therefore,
team identity could be explained by how strongly we identify with the communities the
team represents. The authors provided a list of “external group identities”that historically
have been associated with sport teams around the world. Empirical evidence of such
International Journal of Sports
Marketing and Sponsorship
Vol. 19 No. 3, 2018
pp. 276-289
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1464-6668
DOI 10.1108/IJSMS-05-2016-0017
Received 12 May 2016
Revised 27 January 2017
6July2017
Accepted 10 August 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1464-6668.htm
276
IJSMS
19,3
associations has been posited for many different contexts, ranging from university identity,
city identity, and state identity (Heere, Walker, Yoshida, Ko, Jordan, and James, 2011),
to national identity (Bogdanov, 2011), and gender identity (Heere and Newland, 2013).
Yet, what remained unexamined in these empirical studies is the issue of representation. In
their conceptual article, Heere and James (2007b) argued that associated communities can
only predict team identity if the team is deemed explicitly representative of the external
community, in which representation is defined by the extent to which the sport team is able
to serve as a symbol for the larger community. While the strength and significance of an
association could perhaps be seen as an indicator of how well the team represents their
community (Heere, James, Yoshida, and Scremin, 2011), there are currently no explicit
examinations of the concept of representation itself.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the concept of representation through a
quasi-experimental assessment of team identity among different fan groups. To accomplish
this end, the authors took advantage of a unique case study surrounding the 2012 Summer
Olympic Games in London. For this event, the British Olympic Association entered a united
team representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (from here on
referred to by its official name of Team GB) into the Olympic men’s football competition,
rather than individual nation state teams as is common in football. This team had not
competed in the Olympic Games since 1960, had not attempted to qualify for the Olympic
football tournament since 1972, and had never included any players from outside England
(Dunmore, 2011). Team GB would consist of 18 players, 13 of them from England, 5 of them
from Wales, and no players from Scotland or Northern Ireland. This uneven representation
of players from the different states allowed us to test how important representation was for
the team to take advantage of an associated community, through a comparison of how
people in each state would identify with Team GB.
Literature review
Nations, sport teams, and social identity theory
Team identity is a concept based on the belonging to a larger social group (Wann and
Branscombe, 1991), community (Heere, Walker, Yoshida, Ko, Jordan, and James, 2011) or
organization (Fisher and Wakefield, 1998), and is firmly rooted in social psychology
(Ashmore et al., 2004; Tajfel, 1978; Turner et al., 1987). Heere and James (2007b) used the
definition of social identity in relation to sport, explaining that team identity is “[…]that
part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership
of social group [team] together with the value and emotional significance attached to
that membership”(Tajfel cited in Heere and James, 2007b, p. 66). One line of research on
team identity as a source for social identity focused on team identity as an instrument for
positive psychological outcomes (Wann, 2006). This line of research has shown that team
identity plays a significant role in social loafing (Cockerill, 2002), psychological health
(Wann, 2006), social well-being (Wann and Weaver, 2009), and trustworthiness of
others (Wann and Polk, 2007). Others have attempted to explain what drives team identity
(Fink et al., 2002; Lock et al., 2011), or what the consequences of team identity were
(Fink et al., 2009; Phua, 2010; Potter and Keene, 2012; Shapiro et al., 2013). Heere and James
(2007b) argued that we should not examine the social identity process in a vacuum but
instead examine how the social identification process with one group affects the social
identity process with another. In particular, they discussed how important national
identity is to the concept of team identity.
The relationship between sport teams and national identity has received considerable
attention in the literature (Bairner, 2001; Chalip, 2006; New Zealand Tourism Research
Institute, 2007). The claim has been that national sport teams serve as an instrument
for national identity, which brings people together for a period of time (Chalip, 2006).
277
The British
Olympic
football team
Smith and Porter (2004, p. 12) claimed that: “[…] national sporting affiliations are
among the most public statements that they make about their identities, because one
of the dominant features of modern sport has its link with the geopolitical ideology
and nationalism.”While this line of research allows us to explain team identity and its
association with national identity in general, we still know very little of differences
between nations. For instance, in the Netherlands, the national team is extremely popular
and has created a phenomenon called “Orange Fever.”Ratings for these games encompass
the entire top ten list of the most watched shows in Dutch history, with over 70 percent of
the population viewing (NOS, 2010). Conversely in the UK, only the World Cup Final
appearance of England in 1966 made the top ten list of most watched shows, with less
than 60 percent of population watching the game (Tapper, 2005), and fans seem to find
their club teams more important than their national team (King, 2000).
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (from here on referred to as
the UK) provides a fascinating case study to examine the effect of national identity on
team identity. This political structure provided the population of the UK with two sources
for “national”identity. First, is the source of British identity, which is characterized by
attributes such as: “[…] English language, the monarchy, parliament, liberal democracy,
Protestantism, a strong civil culture, respect for authority, and a common enemy”
(Wasson, 2010, p. 320). British identity remained strong among the UK population until
the Second World War, after which local national identity, as the second source for
national identity, came to the forefront. This shift toward English, Scottish, Welsh, and
Northern Irish identity is explained by the decline of the British Empire and the current
political forces toward a united European Union (Wasson, 2010). According to the Office
for National Statistics’(ONS, 2005) Focus on Ethnicity & Identity Report, respondents
from the White British group (88 percent) were more likely to describe their national
identity as English (58 percent) rather than British (36 percent). Unfortunately, the study
did not incorporate Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish respondents, thus no intra-group
comparisons could be made. Recent political developments, among them the referendum
on Scottish independence in 2014, seem to suggest that particularly the Scottish
population seems to have the Scottish identity as their prime focal point for national
identity (BBC News, 2013). The fact that each separate state in the UK is allowed to field
their own national football team in international competitions might further exaggerate
these feelings of national identity. In an interview in 2006, when the successful tennis
player Andy Murray was asked who he would support during the World Cup as Scotland
did not qualify for the tournament, he illustrated this sentiment and joked, “[…]anyone
who England are playing”(Mott, 2012). Therefore, these conflicting “national”identities
might impact how people identify with Team GB. People who feel stronger about their
state would be less likely to support Team GB, particularly if they feel this team was not
representative of their own nation.
Looking at Scotland in particular, because British identity is strongly associated with
English identity (Wasson, 2010), we would expect for the Scottish to have a lower identity
with Team GB than the English. A lower identification with the UK is suggested by the 2014
referendum of whether or not Scotland should leave the UK. Although Scotland voted
“No”by a margin of 55 to 45 percent (BBC News, 2014a), the fact that the issue was able to
get as far as a referendum is a clear indication of the strength of Scottish national identity
over British identity. Indeed, in the subsequent UK General Election in 2015, the Scottish
Nationalist Party, who forms the pro-independence party, secured 50 percent of the vote in
Scotland, although this dropped to 36.9 percent in the 2017 General Election. To put this
in context, there has not been, nor are there plans for, independence referendums in
Northern Ireland and Wales. Although there is significant support for pro-independence
parties in Northern Ireland, as evident in the UK 2015 General Election where 24.5 percent of
278
IJSMS
19,3
voters in Northern Ireland voted for Sinn Fein and 13.9 percent voted for the Social
Democratic and Labour Party, there is greater support for pro-unionist parties, as evident in
the UK 2015 General Election where the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist
Party secured 25.7 and 16 percent of the vote, respectively. This greater support for
unionist parties was confirmed in the 2017 General Election. Support in Wales for the
pro-independence party Plaid Cymru is markedly lower with the party securing only
12 percent of votes in the 2015 General Election and only 10.4 percent of votes in the 2017
General Election. That is not to say that general election results alone are strong indicators
of strength of British identity, indeed devolved assembly elections would also add insight.
Returning to the Scottish referendum, it does not suggest that 55 percent of voters
felt more British than Scottish, rather the question was “Should Scotland be an
independent country?”Thus, when all issues were considered, 55 percent of residents in
Scotland concluded that Scotland was better off in the UK. For example, UK public
spending per head is higher than the UK average in Scotland but lower than the UK
average in England (BBC News, 2014b), thus English taxes can be said to be subsidizing
public spending on Scottish residents. Indeed, the pro-independence campaigners focused
on sovereignty issues with slogans such as “Scotland’sfutureinScotland’shands”and
“Don’t let them tell us we can’t,”whereas anti-independence voters focused on economy
and defense issues with their slogan “Better Together.”Therefore, it can be inferred that
45 percent of Scottish residents prioritized the issue of sovereignty (a pro-Scottish and
anti-British feeling), even where economy and defense issues meant that Scotland could be
worse off.
The issue of representation
Heere and James (2007a) argued that: “[…] the extent to which the team identity is
representative of the external identities is moderated by the perceived fit between the
external group identities and the team identity”(p. 321). According to the authors, perceived
fit is affected by three components. First, the team represents only one external group
identity and does not need to be “shared”with other groups. For instance, the area of
Merseyside in the UK is home to Liverpool F.C., Everton F.C., and Tranmere Rovers.
Whereas both Liverpool and Everton have an international following, the fan-base of
Tranmere is likely restricted to Merseyside.
Second, Heere and James (2007a) argued that representation only occurs if people are able
to strengthen their external identity through the sports team. Yet, the authors were unclear
about what characteristics a sport team might exhibit to allow people to strengthen their
external group identity through the sport team. It could be argued that the different brand
associations of the team (Gladden and Funk, 2002; Ross et al., 2006) might play a role in
perceived fit. Most notably, within international football, the presence of players on the team
that also represents the external group identity is important attribute that could assist in
creating a fit. Robinson et al. (2005) stated that our identification with a “team”is not
one-dimensional, and consists of different points for attachment. Those points of attachment
included the team itself, the coaches, the (geographic) community, the university (for collegiate
athletics), and players. This supports the view that players might be a crucial point in
establishing “representativeness”of the community by the team.
Historically, teams such as Athletic Bilbao (Spanish football team) and Yorkshire Cricket
Club only allowed players from their own region to play for the team, which allowed for a
strong fit between the team and the region. In contrast, English football teams have been
criticized for the lack of English players on their teams, notably when Arsenal played
Portsmouth in 2009, which was the first time in the English Premier League when neither
team fielded an English player in their starting line ups (BBC Sport, 2009). Thus, for nations
with salient states, such as the UK and Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), the issue of
279
The British
Olympic
football team
representation becomes important. The lack of Scottish and Northern Irish players on the
team might have affected how people from these two nations identified with Team GB.
Finally, Heere and James (2007a) proposed that success of the team assumed an
important role with perceived fit between group identities. Only when the team is successful,
fans bask in reflected glory ( Jensen et al., 2015) and use the team to identify with the overall
community. Therefore, the success of Team GB should have played an important part on
how fans identify with the team. Since Team GB lost in the quarterfinal against South Korea
and was not able to live up to the lofty expectations, it is unlikely that fans used the team for
self-esteem issues, especially considering the success of the UK at the Olympics overall.
Player-related constructs
One of the brand associations that deserve specific mention is the players. Existing research
has established team players as a factor that influences overall team identification
(Wann et al., 1996). However, rather than focusing on representation of the players to the
team, research in this area has focused on how identification is enhanced by physical skill
and physical attraction of the players (Trail et al., 2000) or by overall effort and teamwork
displayed (Matsuoka et al., 2003). More related to the construct of representation is team
similarity, which describes the extent to which sport fans perceive their favorite team as
being similar to themselves (Fisher, 1998). Team similarity discusses whether fans view
themselves as having a thing in common or being alike with members of a team, or even
having attitudes that are similar to those held by members of the team (Fisher, 1998).
The consideration of attitudes is particularly relevant in this case in that a player may be
viewed as having opposing attitudes to their fellow countrymen by playing on a British
team. Team similarity has been found to significantly positively affect team identification
(Kelman, 1961; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Fisher, 1998; Kim and Kim, 2009).
Related to team similarity and team identification is the construct of player identification,
which is the orientation of the self toward another person, or an individuals’perception
of the link between themselves and specific players, resulting in close attachment
(Trail et al., 2000). Such a perceived link could be the extent to which an individual feels
represented by the player. However, previous research has not considered the source of a
perceived link, rather it has focused on the repatronage outcomes of strong player identification
(Mahony et al., 2002; Gladden and Funk, 2002; Thomson et al., 2005). Other research has
considered the relationship between player identification and team identification, establishing a
positive relationship between player identification or attachment to the players and team
identification (Wann et al., 1996; Hong et al., 2005). Wu et al. (2012) found that team identification
wasthemaindeterminantoffans’repatronage intention, but that player identification had an
indirect effect, which must go through team identification to repatronage intention. Although
this research offers some insight into the relationship between players and team identification, it
does not isolate the effect of player representation, which required a unique case study.
Hypotheses
The unique case study of Team GB allowed the researchers to examine how important
representation was for creating a linkage between associated group identities. To that end,
we formulated a set of hypotheses to test the relationship between Team GB and two of the
different nation states of the UK. The two chosen nation states for the purpose of this study
were Scotland (who had no players on the team), and England (who had 13 players on the
team). To examine the relationship between the different group identities, and to control for
existing negative or positive relationships between British and English/Scottish identity, we
performed a longitudinal assessment of how representation influenced team identity.
Thus, we examined team identity among the two groups at three different time points.
First, we tested team identity prior to the squad being announced, which allowed for an
280
IJSMS
19,3
examination of team identity before respondents had a full understanding of how well they
would be represented on Team GB. At this point, we expected each of the two groups to
have different levels of team identity, based on their overall support of having a football
team that symbolizes the UK:
H1. The Scottish respondents will have significant lower levels of team identity than the
English respondents before the team squad is announced.
To find additional support of this proposition, we wanted to find evidence of the negative
perception among Scottish toward the English, and the UK in general. Thus, we proposed
the stronger someone identified with Scotland, the lower their identity with Team GB team
would be:
H2a. There is a negative relationship between Scottish national identity and identity
with Team GB.
Second, because of the likely strong representation of English players on the team, and the
support of the English Football Association toward the team, we believed that there would
be a positive and strong relationship between English identity and Team GB:
H2b. There is a positive and strong relationship between English national identity and
identity with the British Olympic Football Team.
Once the squad was announced, the different groups of respondents were able to assess the
extent they felt they were represented on the team. To find further evidence of H1 and H2,
we used repeated measure design to examine the differences between the different time
points. Due to the lack of Scottish players, and the presence of a large English delegation on
the team, we proposed the following hypotheses:
H3a. Once the team squad is announced, the level of team identity among Scottish
respondents will further decrease, due to the lack of representation.
H3b. Once the team squad is announced, the level of team identity among English
respondents will not change, because of the expectancy of a strong representation.
Ultimately, Team GB would be dismantled after the tournament and would not play any
games again. Therefore, we proposed that the temporary nature of Team GB would negate
any lingering feelings of identity with the Olympic football team:
H4. After the Olympic football tournament ends, the levels of team identity will (further)
decrease among all respondents, regardless of nation.
Method
A quasi-experimental repeated measures research design was used to test our hypotheses.
The 2012 Olympic Summer Games in London served as the event manipulation to test the
hypotheses over time. The first data collection was held before the Olympic squad was
announced, and served as a baseline to understand how respondents in each nation felt
about the Olympic team, before knowing how well their nation would be represented.
The second data collection was held after the squad was announced, right before the
tournament started. The third and final data collection was performed after the tournament
had completed. In light of the challenge of collecting data from the same individuals over an
extended period, attrition rates were surprisingly low (o0.25 percent).
Data collection
To ensure homogeneous samples from each of our populations, questionnaires were collected
(n¼231) among students at two universities, one in England, and one in Scotland. After the
281
The British
Olympic
football team
third data collection, the researchers compiled a final sample, eliminating those respondents
that did not fill out all three surveys. This resulted in a final sample of 172 respondents
(England: n¼82, Scotland: n¼90). A student sample was chosen because of the relative ease
to stay in touch with them over the course of the study (thus having a lower dropout rate of
respondents throughout the three data collections), and because they ensured a valid
comparison between two homogeneous groups. Students in the business school were contacted
through e-mail, with the local instructor acting as an intermediate to remind students to
complete the questionnaire. While each of the samples is not deemed representative of their
nations, each of the samples exhibits similar biases (such as young age, and high level of
education), allowing for intergroup comparisons. Data were collected a few months before the
tournament, prior to the announcement of which players would represent Team GB. During
this first data collection, respondents were unaware whether players in the Olympic team
would represent their own nation states. The second data collection was conducted right after
the announcement of the squad a few weeks prior to the start of the Olympic Tournament.
The third data collection was performed after the Olympic tournament had ended.
Instrumentation
To measure the identity of respondents with their own nation state, the National Identity
scale developed by Huddy and Khatib (2007) was used. Their one-dimensional scale consists
of four items (see Table I) and measures national identity. The scale was tested for internal
consistency and deemed reliable in this particular context (α¼0.88) (Lance et al., 2006).
Team identity was measured through the use of a modified four-item one-dimensional Team
Identity scale from Kwon and Armstrong (2002). The scale was tested for internal consistency
anddeemedreliableinthisparticularcontext(α¼0.85). Finally, the authors collected
demographic data such as gender, age, and highest completed degree to ensure the similarity of
the different student samples (Table II). Due to the repeated measure design, the authors chose
to use one-dimensional scales to measure the identity processes, to prevent respondent
exhaustion, having to fill out the same long questionnaire three times in a relatively short time.
This contradicts with the work of Heere, James, Yoshida, and Scremin (2011), Heere, Walker,
Yoshida, Ko, Jordan, and James (2011), and Lock et al. (2014) who used the multi-dimensional
Team ×ID scale of Heere and James (2007b) to measure team identity. Yet, while Heere and
James (2007b) advocate for the use of a multi-dimensional scale, they never made the claim that
the use of a one-dimensional is invalid. In fact, recently Heere (2015) argued:
This does not mean I believe that our current one-dimensional team identity scales […] lack
evidence of validity. For many purposes, particularly in those instances where team identity merely
functions as a mediator or outcome, the use of a one-dimensional scale might be preferential since
they are so much more practical to use.
Scaling MSD
National identity (Huddy and Khatib, 2007, α¼0.88)
How important is being (Insert Nation) to you? 3.04 1.71
To what extent do you see yourself as a typical (Insert Nation)? 3.06 1.67
How well does the term (Insert Nation) describe you? 2.94 1.62
When talking about (Insert Nation) how often do you say “we,”instead of “they”? 2.36 1.58
Team identity (Kwon and Armstrong, 2002, α¼0.85)
When someone criticizes the (British Olympic Football team) it feels like a personal insult 3.07 1.52
The successes of the (British Olympic Football team) are my successes 3.12 1.23
I feel a sense of “ownership”for the (British Olympic Football team) rather than being just a fan 3.23 1.45
Overall, I would say that the (British Olympic Football team) is a primary interest in my life 2.96 1.20
Table I.
Instrumentation to
measure national and
team identity
282
IJSMS
19,3
As the focus of this paper is on representation, and team identity merely serves as an
indicator to test differences for this construct, the use of a one-dimensional scale is deemed
appropriate. For both the national identity and team identity scale, open-ended questions
were used that asked people what nation/team they identified with most. If their responses
indicated a nation or team different than England or Scotland, their data were removed from
the analysis.
Data analysis
To examine the first hypothesis, mean comparisons were conducted, using the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) technique. To examine the second set of hypotheses (H2a and H2b),
correlations between the nation state identity and the Team GB identity were calculated
for time point one, before it was announced which players would represent their teams.
To examine the third and fourth set of hypotheses (H3a,H3b,andH4), repeated measurement
analyses were conducted.
Results
To test the first set of hypotheses, an ANOVA analysis confirmed support for the
assumption that Scottish respondents had significantly lower scores than the English
(F¼4.944, df ¼1, p¼0.027) for team identity than the English (M¼2.71 vs M¼3.14).
After the announcement of the squad, two correlation analyses were conducted to measure
the relationship between Scottish and English national identity, and Team GB identity.
Contrary to our posited negative hypothesis, H2a, no significant relationships between team
and national identity were found for the Scottish sample. There was a significant positive
relationship ( p¼0.029) for English respondents between national identity and team
identity. While this result partially supported H2b, we view this relationship with caution
since it could be debated whether a score of r¼0.242 should be interpreted as “strong.”
We did not find any support for our third or fourth set of hypotheses. The English
support for the team did not change, and remained stable (T1: 3.14, T2: 3.05, T3: 3.18, F:
0.546 (df ¼2), p¼0.580 ns). Also, the expected decrease of Scottish fans after the squad was
announced did not occur (T1: 2.64, T2: 2.47, T3: 2.74, F: 2.275 (df ¼2), p¼0.106 ns).
The main cause for this lack of decrease might have to do with the low scores overall, well
below the mid-point. It is important to point out how low their general scores were on a
seven-point Likert-type scale. As all identity scores were well below the mid-point of 4.0
(which indicates disagreement), it appears that the decrease did not occur, because the
increase in team identity with the team never happened in the first place.
Demographics English (n¼82) Scottish (n¼90)
Education
High school 20 16
Bachelor’s degree 53 59
Master’s degree 27 25
Gender
Male 59 50
Female 41 50
Age (years)
W25 74 79
o25 26 21
Note: All numbers in the table are percentages
Table II.
Sample demographics
283
The British
Olympic
football team
Apost hoc GPower analysis (see Erdfelder et al., 1996) was performed to gauge whether
the results of non-significance were due to a lack of statistical power. Power (1−β) was set at
0.80 and p¼0.05, two-tailed for the analysis. The analysis was sufficiently powered;
however, the results of this test indicated that if group sample sizes would increase to
n¼251 (i.e. for each independent group), the group differences could have reached 0.05
statistical significance. Based on this, it is unlikely that our non-significant results can be
attributed to a somewhat small sample size, since a total sample size of n¼502 is unusually
large for a repeated measures design of this type.
Discussion
The one-time integration of the different British football nations into one Olympic Football
Squad was a unique case study that allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the issue of
representation and how it affects the ability (or lack thereof) of a sport team to serve as a
symbol for a community (Heere and James, 2007a). The Scottish respondents never identified
with the team, because they did not feel the team represented them, as they had no players on
the team. Contrary to our initial assumptions, the English shared their sentiments, and might
have seen this team as a “diluted”version of a true English team. The results of this study
might also support existing research, which has indicated that players are an important point
of attachment and source of team identification (Hong et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2005; Wann
et al., 1996; Wu et al., 2012). Initially, the English fans did display a higher identity to the team
than the Scottish fans (and maintained this higher level throughout the study) because of the
presence of English players. This adds to the research that has established physical skill and
physical attraction of the players (Trail et al., 2000) and overall effort and teamwork of the
players (Matsuoka et al., 2003) as sources of team identification.
Despite the support the authors found for the notion of “representation,”the authors were
not expecting how little of an impact the team would make overall. Overall, the mean scores
were low and well below the mid-point of four on a seven-point Likert-type scale, which means
that most respondents disagreed with the items asking them about their identity with Team
GB. We expected this for the Scottish respondents, as they had no representation on the team
and it is culturally accepted in their society to dislike English teams, best exhibited by the
recent referendum on whether the Scots should become independent from Great Britain, yet as
stated before, the low identity of the English respondents was surprising.
We had expected that the unique opportunity to combine players from England, Wales,
Scotland, and Northern Ireland would elicit identification with the team. A similar team
formation process exists for the British and Irish Lions Rugby Union team whereby players
are selected from the national sides of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. This team is
formed every four years to tour Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa and has a huge
following. Indeed, there was a global cumulative audience of 18.3 million, including 4.6 million
viewers in the UK, with the first Test generating a record high viewing figure for a rugby
match for UK broadcaster Sky Sports (Marketing Society, 2013). The fact that such support
might also exist for the similarly formed Team GB football team was indicated by the media
attention of the team formation process and potential players. For example, there was much
media attention following Wales star player Gareth Bale being the first player to pose wearing
the British Olympic team supporters’shirt and stating that he wanted to play for Team GB,
with a spokesman for Gareth Bale stating “[…] while he is 100% Welsh, he is also British”
(Pearce, 2011, para. 5). This was contrary to the position of the Wales FA, with the Wales FA
Chief Executive Jonathan Ford stating “[…] our position remains unchanged. We are not for
Team GB. Gareth can make his own choices and make his own decisions. But we are not going
to stop anyone playing”(Pearce, 2011, para. 6).
Furthermore, former England captain David Beckham’s declaration of his desire to
captain the Team GB football team (BBC Sport, 2012) also received much media attention.
284
IJSMS
19,3
However, despite evidence of British fans identifying with similarly formed British teams
and media attention of the team formation, high levels of team identification with Team GB
did not manifest. The convenience sampling used in this study might prohibit definite
conclusions in this regard, yet there is very little reason to assume that these university
students were less inclined to develop an identity with this team than the general
population. Additionally, while the small sample size might be seen as a severe limitation,
the quasi-experimental approach to this study, which tracks the same respondents over
time, further supports the overall indifference toward the team. In hindsight, we came up
with several explanations for the low team identity overall.
First, the temporary nature of the team prevented people from identifying with this team.
The key difference between the British and Irish Lions and Team GB is that the British and
Irish Lions have a long and continuous history dating back to 1888 and future tours planned,
whereas Team GB had not participated in an Olympic Games since 1960 and had limited
future prospects. The English FA, the only supporters of Team GB at London 2012, have
subsequently stated that they will not support a British team at subsequent Olympics, partly
due to the political wrangling with the other FAs (Kelso, 2012). As such, the Team GB football
team is temporary in nature, with very limited history and future prospects. This did not
provide fans with the time and opportunity to identify with the team. Second, the team got lost
in the overall success of the British sport teams in the Olympics, with Gold Medal winners
from each nation state, most notably, the gold medal for Andy Murray (Scotland) in tennis, the
gold medals for Mo Farah (England) in track and field, and gold medals for Welsh athletes
such as Jade Jones, Geraint Thomas, and Tom James. Overall, Team GB won 29 gold medals,
allowing for extensive BIRGing ( Jensen et al., 2015), something the football team was unable to
provide, as ultimately, they were not successful in winning a medal. Third, football is one of
the few sports left where the best male athletes are not participating in the Olympic Games,
and the male football tournament is limited to players under 23 years old (when qualifying
starts), with three dispensation players. As such, it ranks third in importance for most nations,
behind the World Cup tournamentand the different continental tournaments. Fourth, both the
Welsh and English fans might have been disappointed that some of the most popular players,
such as Gareth Bale and David Beckham, were not selected or had to excuse themselves
because of claimed injuries, and therefore gave the team little attention. Although team
identification was low at the first point of data collection, prior to Gareth Bale and David
Beckham not being included in the team, an opportunity to increase team identification
following the announcement of the squad was lost. Fifth, as discussed in the introduction,
British football fans do not follow their national teams with the same passion as other nations
(King, 2000), such as the Dutch, as indicated by the television ratings mentioned in the
literature review. Rather, British football fans are more passionate about their club teams, who
they follow on a week-to-week basis in the Premier League, which is widely regarded as the
top club league in the world, as indicated by global television revenues in excess of £3.3 billion
for the period of 2013-2016 (Sporting Intelligence, 2014). The low levels of identification for
Team GB indicated the continued trend of British fans supporting their club teams over their
national teams. Finally, the lack of support for a Team GB from the non-English Football
Associations may have hindered the process of identification. The perceived threat to Wales’,
Scotland’s, and Northern Ireland’s independent statuses may have transferred to the fans.
However, this does not explain the low identification from the English respondents.
Ultimately, our only plausible explanation for their low responses might be because they saw
Team GB as a diluted version of the English national team. In the end, all these limitations
caused Team GB to fail as an effort to make everyone care for the Olympic football team;
instead they became a team that nobody cared for.
As discussed above, a limitation of this study was the low levels of team identification across
all subjects and at all points of data collection. Future research could address this limitation by
285
The British
Olympic
football team
again isolating the effect of representation but in a case where identification with the subject
team is higher. More generally, future research could continue to isolate other factors that
contribute to team identification. This study was delimited to a comparison between English and
Scottish fans. While efforts were made to collect data from Wales, the dropout of the respondents
throughout the study led to a sample that was too small for analysis. Yet, the data from Wales
seemed to fall in line with the data we collected from the other two nations; they were equally
unmoved by the initiative. We did not collect data from the fourth UK nation, Northern Ireland,
as we had concerns about the homogeneity of the sample. Because of the division between the
pro-British and the pro-Irish, we were concerned that the data would not work.
Conclusion and managerial implications
Establishing the importance of representation yields important managerial implications.
The importance of looking at a fan as a member of the organization and acknowledging the
different memberships each individual possesses with other groups has been well
established in recent years (Heere, Walker, Yoshida, Ko, Jordan, and James, 2011). However,
the results of this study support the notion that in order for managers to take advantage of
team’s associated communities, they need to maximize these efforts to actually represent
that particular associated community. The managers behind the Team GB initiative never
did such a thing. Player representation of each nation was never discussed as a requirement,
leaving two nations completely unrepresented, and the fact that the team would only
compete once, made it easy for fans not to become psychological invested in the team. There
were many alternative opportunities to BIRG with other teams/athletes that better
represented either their own nation or the UK in general. Player representation is a
particular salient in the matter of representation, as it might conflict directly with the ability
of the team to be successful (and thus allow for BIRGing). Managers often have to make a
choice here: do they want to maximize their representation of the associated community, or
do they want to maximize their chances of being successful on the field? For example,
Yorkshire Cricket Club’s addition of Sachin Tendulkar as a player was in contrast to their
policy of player representation, but it is likely that the popularity of the player and the
success he brought the team more than compensated for any loss in team identification
suffered from him not being representative of Yorkshire by birth. A better understanding of
these contrasting perspectives is warranted. Therefore, future studies should perhaps
implement a cross-sectional comparison approach, in which a successful example of player
representation is compared to an unsuccessful approach.
References
Anderson, B. (2006), Imagined Communities, 2nd ed., Verso Publishing, London.
Andrijiw, A.M. and Hyatt, C.G. (2009), “Using optimal distinctiveness theory to understand identification
with a nonlocal professional hockey team”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 156-181.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”,Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Ashmore, R.D., Deaux, K. and McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004), “An organizing framework for collective
identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 130
No. 1, pp. 80-114.
Bairner, A. (2001), Sport, Nationalism, and Globalization: European and North American Perspectives,
Suny Press, Albany, New York, NY.
BBC News (2013), “Scottish independence: referendum to be held on September 18, 2014”, available at:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21828424 (accessed January 10, 2015).
BBC News (2014a), “Scotland decides”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/
results (accessed January 10, 2015).
286
IJSMS
19,3
BBC News (2014b), “Daily question: how much does Scotland pay in tax and how much does it spend?”,
available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267 (accessed January 10, 2015).
BBC Sport (2009), “Arsenal 4-1 Portsmouth”, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_
prem/8209326.stm (accessed January 10, 2015).
BBC Sport (2012), “David Beckham wants to captain GB at 2012 Olympics”, BBC Sport, available at:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16641469 (accessed January 10, 2015).
Bogdanov, D. (2011), “Influence of national sport team identity on national identity”, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Chalip, L. (2006), “Towards social leverage of sport events”,Journal of Sport & Tourism, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 109-127.
Cockerill, M.I. (2002), Solutions in Sport Psychology, Thomson, London.
Dunmore, T. (2011), Historical Dictionary of Soccer, Scarecrow Press, Plymouth.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F. and Buchner, A. (1996), “GPOWER: a general power analysis program”,Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Fink, J., Parker, H., Brett, M. and Higgins, J. (2009), “Off-field behavior of athletes and team
identification: using social identity theory and balance theory to explain fan reactions”,Journal
of Sport Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 142-155.
Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T. and Anderson, D.F. (2002), “An examination of team identification: which motives
are most salient to its existence?”,International Sports Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 195-207
Fisher, R.J. (1998), “Group-derived consumption: the role of similarity and attractiveness in identification
with a favorite sports team”,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 283-288.
Fisher, R.J. and Wakefield, K. (1998), “Factors leading to group identification: a field study of winners
and losers”,Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Gladden, J.M. and Funk, D.C. (2002), “Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport:
empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 54-81.
Heere, B. (2015), “Team identity theory”, in Cunningham, G., Fink, J. and Doherty, A. (Eds), The
Routledge Handbook of Theory in Sport Management, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 213-222.
Heere, B. and James, J.D. (2007a), “Sports teams and their communities: examining the influence of external
group identities on team identity”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 319-337.
Heere, B. and James, J.D. (2007b), “Stepping outside the lines: developing a multi-dimensional team
identity scale based on social identity theory”,Sport Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 65-91.
Heere, B. and Newland, B. (2013), “Moving beyond the female spectator as a demographic: measuring
the salience of gender identity and its effect on team identity”,Journal of Contemporary Athletics,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 197-207.
Heere, B., James, J.D., Yoshida, M. and Scremin, G. (2011), “The effect of associated group identities on
team identity”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 606-621.
Heere, B., Walker, M., Yoshida, M., Ko, Y.J., Jordan, J.S. and James, J.D. (2011), “Brand community
development through associated communities: grounding community measurement within
social identity theory”,The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 407-422.
Hong, J., McDonald, M.A., Yoon, C. and Fujimoto, J. (2005), “Motivation for Japanese baseball fans’
interest in Major League Baseball”,International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 141-154.
Huddy, L. and Khatib, N. (2007), “American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement”,
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Jensen, J.A., Turner, B.A., James, J.D., McEvoy, C., Seifried, C., Delia, E., Greenwell, C., Ross, S. and
Walsh, P. (2015), “Forty years of BIRGing: new perspectives on Cialdini’s seminal studies”,
Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 149-161.
287
The British
Olympic
football team
Kelman, J.C. (1961), “Process of opinion change”,Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 57-78.
Kelso, P. (2012), “British Olympic association chief executive Andy Hunt criticises football association
for lack of support”,The Telegraph, August 14, available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/
olympics/9476068/British-Olympic-Association-chief-executive-Andy-Hunt-criticises-Football-
Association-for-lack-of-support.html
Kim, Y.M. and Kim, S. (2009), “The relationships between team attributes, team identification
and sponsor image”,International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 18-32.
King, A. (2000), “Football fandom and post-national identity in the new Europe”,British Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 419-442.
Kwon, H.H. and Armstrong, K.L. (2002), “Factors influencing impulse buying of sport team licensed
merchandise”,Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 151-163.
Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M. and Michels, L.C. (2006), “The sources of four commonly reported cutoff
criteria: what did they really say?”,Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 202-220.
Lock, D., Taylor, T. and Darcy, S. (2011), “In the absence of achievement: the formation of new team
identification”,European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 171-192.
Lock, D., Funk, D.C., Doyle, J.P. and McDonald, H. (2014), “Examining the longitudinal structure,
stability, and dimensional interrelationships of team identification”,Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 119-135.
Mahony, D.F., Nakazawa, M., Funk, D.C., James, J.D. and Gladden, J.M. (2002), “Motivational factors
influencing the behaviour of J. League spectators”,Sport Management Review,Vol.5No.1,pp.1-24.
Marketing Society (2013), “The British and Irish tour to Australia sponsorship evaluation overview”,
available at: www.marketingsociety.com/sites/default/files/thelibrary/HSBC%20The%20
British%20%26%20Irish%20Lions%20Tour%20Australia.pdf (accessed January 10, 2015).
Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P. and Harada, M. (2003), “Direct and interaction effects of team
identification and satisfaction on intention to attend games”,Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 244-253.
Mott, S. (2012), “Andy Murray: will we ever learn to love him?”,The Telegraph , July 8, available at:
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/9383361/Andy-Murray-will-we-ever-learn-to-
love-him.html (accessed January 10, 2015).
New Zealand Tourism Research Institute (2007), “National identityand sport: an annotated bibliography”,
available at: www.scribd.com/doc/194458043/National-Identity-Annotated-Bibliography (accessed
January 10, 2015).
NOS (2010), “Record aantal kijkers voor Oranje 2010”, available at: http://nos.nl/wk2010/artikel/170407-
recordaantal-kijkers-voor-oranje.html (accessed January 10, 2015).
Office for National Statistics (2005), Focus on Ethnicity & Identity, available at: http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20151014015826/; www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ethnicity/focus-on-ethnicity-
and-identity/focus-on-ethnicity-and-identity-summary-report/index.html (accessed January 10, 2015).
Pearce, J. (2011), “London 2012: Gareth Bale wears Olympic football shirt”, BBC Sport, October 28,
available at: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/15494228 (accessed January 10, 2015).
Phua, J.J. (2010), “Sports fans and media use: influence on sports fan identification and collective
self-esteem”,International Journal of Sport Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 190-207.
Potter, R.F. and Keene, J.R. (2012), “The effect of sports fan identification on the cognitive processing of
sports news”,International Journal of Sport Communication, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 348-368.
Robinson, M.J., Trail, G.T., Dick, R.J. and Gillentine, A.J. (2005), “Fans vs. spectators: an analysis
of those who attend intercollegiate football games”,Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 43-53.
Ross, S.D., James, J.D. and Vargas, P. (2006), “Development of a scale to measure team brand
associations in professional sport”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 260-279.
288
IJSMS
19,3
Shapiro, S.L., Ridinger, L.L. and Trail, G.T. (2013), “An analysis of multiple spectator consumption
behaviors, identification, and future behavioral intentions within the context of a new college
football program”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 130-146.
Smith, A. and Porter, D. (2004), Sport and National Identity in the Post-War World, Routledge, London.
Sporting Intelligence (2014), “Where the money went: Liverpool top Premier League prize cash in
2013-14”, Sporting Intelligence, May 14, available at: www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/05/14/
where-the-money-went-liverpool-top-premier-league-prize-cash-in-2013-14-140501/ (accessed
January 10, 2015).
Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, Academic, London, pp. 27-60.
Tapper, J. (2005), “The biggest TV audience ever…it is now”,The Daily Mail, May 1, available at:
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-346942/The-biggest-TV-audience–now.html (accessed
January 10, 2015).
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Whan Park, C. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’emotional attachments to brands”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Trail, G.T., Anderson, D.F. and Fink, J.S. (2000), “A theoretical model of sport spectator consumption
behavior”,International Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 154-180.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social
Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, NY.
Wann, D.L. (2006), “Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team
identification: the team identification-social psychological health model”,Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 272-296.
Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1991), “The positive social and self concept consequences of sports
team identification”,Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 115-127.
Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1993), “Sports fans: measuring degree of identification with their
team”,International Journal of Sport Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Wann, D.L. and Polk, J. (2007), “The positive relationship between sport team identification and belief in
the trustworthiness of others”,North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 251-256.
Wann, D.L. and Weaver, S. (2009), “Understanding the relationship between sport team identification and
dimensions of social well-being”,North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 219-230.
Wann, D.L., Tucker, K.B. and Schrader, M.P. (1996), “An exploratory examination of the factors
influencing the origination, continuation, and cessation of identification with sports teams”,
Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 995-1001.
Wasson, E. (2010), A History of Modern Britain: 1714 to the Present, Wiley-Blackwell, London.
Wu, S.H., Tsai, C.Y.D. and Hung, C.C. (2012), “Toward team or player? How trust, vicarious
achievement motive, and identification affect fan loyalty”,Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 177-191.
Further reading
Bradley, I. (2007), Believing in Britain: The Spiritual Identity of “Britishness”, IB Tauris, London.
Burns, W.E. (2009), Brief History: Brief History of Great Britain, Infobase Publishing, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Stephen Hills can be contacted at: s.hills@londonmet.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
289
The British
Olympic
football team
