Despite the pervasive attention given to rivalry games or derby matches, a uniform definition or consistent research operationalization remains elusive. Based on the theoretical foundations of social identification and categorization, we conceptualize a rival group as a highly salient outgroup that poses an acute threat to the identity of the ingroup or to ingroup members’ ability to make positive comparisons between their group and the outgroup. Utilizing a mixed method design, we survey fans about their favorite team’s rival and identify 11 recurring elements: frequency of competition, defining moment, recent parity, historical parity, star factor, geography, relative dominance, competition for personnel, cultural similarity, cultural difference, and unfairness. Next, we measure the importance of the rivalry elements across a broader sampling of rivalries and employ an exploratory factor analysis to gauge our interpretation of the three dimensions underlying rivalry: Conflict, Peer, and Bias.

1. Rival Conceptions of Rivalry:
Why some competitions mean more
than others
European Sport Management Quarterly, 2015, v. 15(2), 227-248.
Joe B. Cobbs, PhD
Northern Kentucky University
B. David Tyler, PhD
Western Carolina University

2. Introduction
 Relevance
 Applied perspective
 Research perspective
 Purpose of the research
 Exploratory
 Antecedents

3. Presentation Overview
 Literature review
 Research efforts
 Qualitative
 Quantitative survey
 Factor analysis
 Conclusion
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

4. Theoretical foundation
 Social Identity Theory
 Group-based categorizations to develop self-concept
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Hogg, 1992, 2003;
Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1982)
 Social categorization theory: similar to self are ‘ingroup;’
different comprise ‘outgroup’ (Stets & Burke, 2000)
 Metacontrast principle: maximize differences between
categories; minimize differences within categories (Hogg & Terry,
2000; Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1998)
 Definition of rival:
“a highly salient outgroup that poses an acute threat to the identity
of the ingroup or to ingroup members’ ability to make positive
comparisons between their group and the outgroup”
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

5. Existing use of rivalry
 Popular use
 Sport entities, media, fans
 Rivalry in strategic management
 Competitive interaction
 Presence of rival firms reduces margins
 Also benefits to rivalry
 Different reaction in sport…
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

6.  Short-run demand estimation models
 A = β0+BX+e
 Inconsistent application
 Use rivalry proxies
 Divisional affiliation
 Distance – radius, border, mileage
 Subjective rivalries
 Panel of judges
 Authors’ own beliefs
 Missing: Clear understanding of what makes a rivalry
Rivalry in sport research
•Bruggink & Eaton, 1996
•McDonald & Rascher, 2000
•Paul, 2003
•Welki & Zlatoper, 1999
•Baimbridge et al., 1995
•Falter et al., 2008
•Morley & Thomas, 2007
•Peel & Thomas, 1988; 1992
•Boyd & Krehbiel, 2003
•Pacey & Wickham, 1985
•Benz et al., 2006
•Buraimo, 2007
•Forrest et al., 2005
•Garcia & Rodriguez, 2002
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

7. Qualitative inquiry
 Description of sample
 Purposeful convenience sample
 38 respondents
 81% response rate
 75 rivalries
 53 unique
Football
(NCAA)
25%
Football
(pro)
23%
Baseball
(MLB)
23%
Basketball
(NCAA)
9%
Basketball
(pro)
4%
Hockey
4% Other
12%
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion
 Questions
Characteristics of rivalry (open-ended)
 Think of your favorite team & that team’s rival
 What characteristics make it a rivalry?

8. Emergent antecedents to rivalry
Defining moment Geography Star factors
Frequency of competition Competition for personnel Relative dominance
Parity (historical) Cultural similarity Unfairness
Parity (recent) Cultural difference
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

9.  Why is this a rivalry? (antecedents)
Initial qualitative inquiry – Results
“They are two best
currently, but also have
the most championships
in the history of the sport.
There is some national
pride as well. Ferrari for
Italy, but also McLaren
(English).”
Coded as:
•Parity
•Cultural difference
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

10.  Why is this a rivalry? (antecedents)
Initial qualitative inquiry – Results
“Proximity. Fan Base that overlaps.
Long standing programs. Jim
Brown versus the always stellar
Pittsburgh Defense”
Coded as:
•Geography
•Cultural similarity
•Fan dedication/loyalty
•History
•Star factors
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

11. Questionnaire
 Sample
 Undergraduate students at three
large, public universities
 429 usable responses
 Choose rival of favorite team
 Think about rival compared to
other competitors
 Evaluate antecedents to rivalry
 Rate importance of each factor
(Likert scale)
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

12. Descriptive stats: Importance to rivalry
Rivalry elements Mean SD
Frequency of competition 5.12 1.03
Defining moment 4.72 1.22
Recent parity 4.72 1.23
Historical parity 4.70 1.22
Star factor 4.70 1.25
Geography 4.61 1.41
Relative dominance 4.52 1.35
Competition for personnel 4.38 1.34
Cultural similarity 4.12 1.38
Cultural difference 3.51 1.49
Unfairness 3.37 1.51
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

13. EFA pattern matrix
Rivalry elements Conflict Peer Bias
Recent parity 0.73 0.04 -0.06
Frequency of competition 0.69 -0.18 -0.07
Historical parity 0.64 0.02 -0.02
Star factor 0.56 -0.01 0.20
Defining moment 0.47 0.03 0.23
Competition for personnel 0.33 -0.23 0.23
Geography 0.01 -0.85 -0.04
Cultural similarity 0.07 -0.38 0.30
Unfairness 0.01 0.07 0.72
Cultural difference -0.03 -0.08 0.62
Relative dominance 0.18 -0.06 0.43Note: Extraction via principal axis factoring; oblimin rotation.
Loadings > |0.3| in bold
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

14. Contribution
 First attempt: empirical exploration of sports rivalries
 Qualitative inquiry and analysis
 Factor development
 Benefits
 Academic
 Demand estimation accuracy
 Practitioner
 Efforts to develop rivalry
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

15. Challenges/Limitations & Future directions
 Concept of rivalries
 Heterogeneity of rivalry factors
 Potential bi-directionality of rival intensity
 Measuring rivalry intensity
 Advance understanding of sport rivalries
 Predictive model
 Quantifiable outcomes
 Expand to corporate rivalry
 Beyond Porter’s 5-forces
Lit Review Qualitative Survey Analysis Conclusion

16. Thank you for your time and feedback
Any questions?