Keywords

At this time in society, supporters of competing groups, whether that be political parties, religious ideology, racial makeup, and others, seem to be separating from each other at a rapid rate.Footnote 1 When, as a group member, one can consume similar viewpoints and consume differing perspectives with the primary goal of attacking the source, most people choose not to engage in respectable discourse with someone outside of their perceived group (Leetaru, 2018). Further, with the increasing popularity of using online social media and non-face-to-face communication, people don’t have to interact with those they disagree with, and instead can only engage with people who share their characteristics or ideology (Nelson, 2014). As this behavior continues, it becomes increasingly difficult to bring people of diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and ideologies together. To this end, managers like to promote sport as a medium that can bring people together. Therefore, this perspective discusses the issue of sport fans and rivalry, and its potential impact on the sport setting and society.

Sport can do many things for individuals, such as provide feelings of belonging to a group (Festinger, 1954; Wann, 2006a, 2006b), feelings of vicarious achievement through a team’s victory (Bandura, 1977), ability to meet others (Wann, Brame, Clarkson, Brooks, & Waddill, 2008), and opportunities to share characteristics with other group members (Tajfel, 1981). In that, sport possesses the capacity to bring people together, which is a popular sentiment used in popular media and in the public sector. However, sport also has the capacity to highlight differences between groups, real or perceived, which is usually the case between teams that identify as rivals. Because sport brings head-to-head competition, it places two groups of opposing sides in face-to-face comparison.

Rivalry is synonymous with sport, and more attention has been paid to the phenomenon in the past decade. Rivalry is different from mere competition in that the participants (e.g., players, coaches, fans) place higher importance on the relationship and treat outcomes as part of a narrative that includes past and future competitions (Converse & Reinhard, 2016). Because rivalry is a popular phenomenon in sport, managers have used it to promote the sport product.Footnote 2 Additionally, rivalry carries many positive consequences that have been, and should be, used by managers to promote the sport product.Footnote 3 However, much like in politics where two candidates and their supporters compete head to head can lead to group members interacting with each other in negative ways, sport unfortunately has the ability to produce the same outcomes. These group differences are most prominently on display in sport when teams identified as rivals are competing as the symbiotic competitive nature of rival and competing teams does not always spill over to fans.Footnote 4 If sport is in fact an avenue to bring people together, we must analyze and better understand when rivalry rises to a level that could, and sometimes does, result in deviance and fan aggression.

This chapter serves three purposes. First, an overview of the current knowledge on the rivalry phenomenon is presented, including a discussion of what constitutes a rival and a rival competition, so that researchers and managers can better understand fan rivalry and behavior between group members. This understanding is important because it can drive future study and also help managers plan for contests between rival teams and fan groups. Second, a discussion of an organization’s role in developing and promoting rivalry, including examples of responsible and irresponsible promotion of rivalry by sport organizations. The aim of this discussion is to provide readers with guidance regarding how rivalry competitions, and the rivalry phenomenon, should be promoted in an effort to gain the positive consequences of rivalry while working to avoid some of the negative outcomes such as fan deviance and violence. Finally, this perspective serves as a call to action for researchers and practitioners regarding future avenues to better understand rivalry among fans. This is important as researchers and practitioners have to work together to better understand and promote rivalry in sport.

At this time, a note of clarification regarding the use of managers, researchers, and practitioners is offered. Managers are used to describe all working in the sport field, regardless of profession, whereas researchers and practitioners are used to distinguish between those in academia and in the front office. If sport, as many claim, is a catalyst for bringing diverse individuals and groups together, then managers must take a constructive and critical look inward and examine where our field can improve. In that, we must identify the problem and discuss ways to address the issue through both research and practice. One such area is the way that rivalry is used to promote the sport product, as doing so in an irresponsible manner can work to negate much of the positive outcomes sport claims to provide society.

Fandom and Fan Rivalry

A sport fan can be described as someone who feels she/he has a personally important connection to a sports team (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). Individuals identify with sport teams for numerous reasons (Wann, 1995) and typically do so in hope that the team will in some way reflect positively on herself/himself (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).Footnote 5 To this end, fans can adopt and celebrate the characteristics of a chosen group (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990), which in turn can positively impact an individual’s socio-psychological well-being (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Wann, 2006b; Wann et al., 2008). Further, an individual’s affinity for a team fluctuates throughout their life cycle based on personality traits and significant events (Brown-Devlin, Devlin, & Vaughn, 2017; Devlin & Brown, 2017; Funk, 2008; Toma, 2003),Footnote 6 which makes fan engagement all the more important for sport organizations and managers.

The innate human characteristic to believe one is successful (Bandura, 1977; Crocker & Park, 2004; Deci, 1975) not only leads individuals to seek positive attributes of the self that can be used to compare to others (Madrigal, 1995; Turner, 1975), it also influences individuals to highlight successes and failures based on group affiliation (Tajfel, 1978). In short, when members of rival groups interact (Sherif, 1966), they tend to display bias toward the in-group and derogation toward the out-group (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Tajfel, 1978). While it is true that comparison between two groups can be healthy, it is also the case that out-group negativity can turn into aggression and deviant behavior if not properly controlled (Lee, 1985; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961),Footnote 7 leading for calls of responsible promotion of rivalry competitions and relationships (Dalakas & Melancon, 2012; Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, & Schaffer, 2013; King, 2014).

Definitions, Antecedents, and Characteristics of Rivalry

The rivalry phenomenon has commonly been discussed within social identity theory (SIT), or the belief that membership in a group tells something about someone on a private and public level (Tajfel, 1981). SIT helps explain the associative tendencies people display based on perceived success and failure of a team (Cialdini et al., 1976; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986) in an attempt to protect image and self-esteem (Madrigal, 1995; Vohs & Heatherton, 2001). Further, because fans that share a strong bond with a team have a more difficult time after a team’s loss (Wann & Branscombe, 1990), they may try to find ways to derogate an opponent (Cialidni & Richardson, 1980) or focus on attributes in which their team is superior to a competitor (Bernache-Assollant, Chantal, Bouchet, & Kada, 2018).

In sport, when the phenomenon of rivalry is addressed, many different definitions have been used (Table 2.1). Further, there are also several tested characteristics and antecedents of rivalry that have been offered such as competition, proximity, parity, competition for personnel, cultural similarities and differences, and perceived fairness (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010; Tyler & Cobbs, 2015). It is sometimes difficult to tell between a competition and a rivalry competition, in which these characteristics, antecedents, and definitions can be used to help clarify. Within social psychology, rival competitions are discussed as those competitions that are embedded in group members’ psyches (Converse & Reinhard, 2016; Kilduff et al., 2010). Further, three key qualities of rivalry are their subjective nature, dependence on shared history, and that they carry consequences for those engaged, either directly or vicariously with the competition. These qualities thus separate a rival game from others. In short, teams that are rivals share a competitive history in which members of both groups see the relationship being influenced by previous games while looking at how current outcomes will impact the legacy of their favorite teams along with the rivalry.

Table 2.1 Definitions/Descriptions of rivalry, rival groups, and rival competitions
Full size table

It is also important to note that fans play a large role in deciding who to identify as a rival. In fact, in most studies on the subject, fans identify teams they see as biggest rival rather than report on one a priori. Because individuals feel an inherent need to identify a rival (Havard & Eddy, 2013), they often identify multiple teams in which to compare (Wann et al., 2016),Footnote 8 and report differing perceptions of those teams (Havard & Reams, 2018; Tyler & Cobbs, 2017).Footnote 9 For instance, examples of teams identifying, and being identified by multiple rivals, and perceptions and strengths of those rivals are available on sites such as www.SportRivalry.com and www.KnowRivalry.com.Footnote 10

Consequences of Rivalry

Rivalry has been found to influence characteristics like perceived credibility or trust of others (MacDonald, Schug, Chase, & Barth, 2013), and the way people evaluate the actions of in-group and out-group members (Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989; Partridge & Wann, 2015).Footnote 11 In-group stereotyping has been exhibited by college students (Wenger & Brown, 2014),Footnote 12 political party supporters (Westen, Blagov, Harenski, Kilts, & Hamann, 2006)Footnote 13 between US Arab and Israeli citizens (Bruneau & Saxe, 2010),Footnote 14 and people making judgments about group members loyalty and honor in whistle-blowing situations (Hildreth & Anderson, 2018). Examples of positive and negative consequences of rivalry in sport are shown in Table 2.2. For instance, while rivalry in sport can increase participant effort and group cohesion (Leach et al., 2008), it can also lead people to consider unethical behavior (Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo, & Reade, 2016).

Table 2.2 Positive and negative consequences of rivalry on individuals and organizations
Full size table

Reactions to Rival Misfortune

Sport fans can experience similar amounts of joy from a rival team’s failure to that following a favorite team’s victory (Mahony & Howard, 1998). For example, direct competition with a rival influences both fans’ physical reactions (Hilman, Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 2004) and their public display of support (Zillman, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989). However, when direct competition between groups is absent, individuals often have to find other variables that can be used to derogate the rival (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Havard, Ryan, & Workman, 2019).

Heider (1958) discussed the idea of schadenfreude and taking pleasure in the demise of another, which has also been described as counter-empathy (Vanman, 2016). In fact, group members can enjoy and even hope for an out-group, or out-group member’s, failure (Cikara, Botninick, & Fiske, 2011; Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001; Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doojse, 2003; Zillman & Cantor, 1976).Footnote 15 Seeing another person experience failure or misfortune can influence one’s self-esteem and other human needs, even if the out-group misfortune is undeserved (Berndsen, Tiggemann, & Chapman, 2017; Brambilla & Riva, 2017). This was the case with the Cleveland Browns that exhibited schadenfreude online following the death of Art Modell (Dalakas, Melancon, & Sreboth, 2015).Footnote 16 However, it should also be noted that schadenfreude can decrease as the perceived severity of the out-group misfortune increases (Berndsen & Feather, 2016). Similarly, Havard (2014) also described Glory Out of Reflected Failure (GORFing), or the tendency of fans to experience joy when their biggest rival loses to another team as a competitive aspect of schadenfreude where the rivalry phenomenon has to be present in order to be activated (Havard, Wann, & Ryan, 2018).Footnote 17 For example, contemporary investigations in schadenfreude involve the favorite team experiencing failure, whereas evidence suggests that GORFing can exist regardless of favorite team competitive outcomes (Havard, Inoue, & Ryan, 2018). Fans of the Auburn Tigers celebrating when their rival Alabama Crimson Tide lost to Clemson in the 2017 College Football Championship is such an example (Cooper, 2017).

It is important to note that feelings of schadenfreude and GORFing are not necessarily bad in the sport setting. After all, rivalry is something that adds a great deal of excitement to sport. For example, a form of rivalry or lack of fondness can help increase fan engagement as previously discussed. Further, the positive psychological consequences of schadenfreude and GORFing to the fan also should not be overlooked, as the loss of a rival can bring joy, and sometimes help to temper feelings of disappointment from a favorite team’s loss. It is in severe instances, when fans take their derogation too far that significant issues arise. So, this perspective is not meant to label these outcomes as something that should be avoided; rather, these are things managers have to be cognizant of and monitor for the overall benefit of consumers and the organization. In other words, managers and researchers should strive to find a line or cutoff in which they engage fans by raising their interest in the product without encouraging overly negative feelings that lead to deviant or violent behavior.

Fan Deviance and Violence

Fandom allows otherwise rationale people to act and react in irrational ways (Dwyer, Greenhalgh, & LeCrom, 2015). For example, an individual is not likely to cheer seeing someone getting tackled while walking to work; however, fans do so loudly when a player from the favorite team tackles an opponent. This behavior can be enhanced when rivalry is in play as games between rivals are viewed as more violent than non-rivalry games (Raney & Kinally, 2009), and this belief and behavior is on display at many rivalry games, as shown in Table 2.3. Ledgerwood and Chaiken (2007) assert that the salience regarding group boundaries influence conflict toward out-group members. Further, social learning theory (SLT) states that individuals learn behaviors from watching others (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). For example, exposure to aggressive stimuli influenced children to behave aggressively toward an inanimate object. To this end, rivalries in sport, and the way they are promoted by organizations and the media (e.g., showing players and fans interacting in a negative manner), serve to heighten salience of in-groups (i.e., favorite teams), illustrate aggressive behavior, and thereby could encourage greater negativity toward out-groups (i.e., rival teams and supporters). Simple group differentiation and superiority, even imagined, is enough to cause negativity between groups (Bland, 2017), and a group believed to be in charge or of superior standing may treat the minority group in negatives ways (Smith, 2011; Zimbardo, 2008). Contemporary examples include derogatory statements about and deviant conversations between rival group members regarding consumer products on the Internet (Ewing, Wagstaff, & Powell, 2013; Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas, 2014; Tucker, 2017).Footnote 18 Finally, recent findings assert that low self-esteem leads to out-group derogation through the amount of collective narcissism an individual experiences (Golec de Zavala et al., 2019). In other words, as an individual’s self-esteem decreases, collective narcissism (i.e., my group is the best) increases, which also increases derogation toward a targeted out-group.

Table 2.3 Fan deviance/violence examples around rivalry or high-profile games
Full size table

Even as people who follow sport are not significantly different in trait aggression from those that do not follow sport (Wann, Fahl, Erdmann, & Littleton, 1999), a wealth of research suggests that 1–2% of fans report they are Definitely Willing to consider the most heinous act of aggression (e.g., physical harm or murder) toward a rival if the incident were kept completely anonymous (Havard, Wann et al., 2013, 2017; Wann, Haynes, McLean, & Pullen, 2003; Wann, Peterson, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999; Wann & Waddill, 2013). While these percentages may not seem very high or alarming, looking at the conservative figure of 1% sends a stark message regarding rival fan behavior and potential risks to managers and organizations, especially considering some of the largest capacities in sport exceeding 100,000 spectators.Footnote 19 Further, these statistics are important because managers want fans to be excited and bring an extra level of fun and joy to a game against a rival team. However, managers also do not want people engaging in deviant and violent actions as these can have severe repercussions for an organization and its fans.

Summary of Current Knowledge

To this point, the general knowledge and contemporary understanding regarding rivalry in sport have been presented. From SIT and the introduction of an out-group, to the consequences of rivalry and out-group indirect failure, the phenomenon plays an important role in not only the way the sport product is promoted, but also the way sport fans consume and internalize meanings of in-group and out-group membership. The focus of this perspective now moves toward a discussion of what managers, both researchers and practitioners, can do in order to help better understand rivalry and alleviate some of the negative consequences that accompany it.

Organizational Role in Rivalry

The wording used by organizations to promote rivalry can also highlight negative behavior between groups (e.g., Hate, War, Battle, etc.). Two studies focused on the outcomes associated with sport managers and organizations’ promotion of rivalry games. First, in the United States, where teams, organizations, and league commonly try to play up the animosity between rival teams, Havard, Wann, and Grieve (2018) found that using the word “Hate” rather than “Rivalry” to promote a rivalry increased level of out-group animosity. On the international sport stage, Berendt and Uhrich (2017) found that acknowledging rather than downplaying or ignoring the history of rivalry and animosity actually helped to decrease out-group derogation. These findings are interesting as sport managers on the international stage typically try to downplay rivalry matches while those in the United States try to magnify the animosity between teams.

The online activity, and boldness, of fans is further enhanced by messages and promotions such as “Hate Week.” Other media avenues are also responsible for spreading these messages of animosity. For example, a popular radio talk show in an NBA market previously featured a segment labeled “Reasons to Hate (Opposing Team),” where the hosts would use the roster of a visiting team to make derogatory comments about each opponent. For most fans, these types of radio segments and skits performed at live contests are for entertainment purposes only and understand that they do not give fans the right to physically harm rival players or fans. However, the 1% discussed earlier may find justification and even encouragement in these examples as a sign the organization and affiliated groups encourage deviant and dangerous behavior. Because the Internet is so important to group member consumption and perceptions (McClung, Eveland, Sweeney, & James, 2012; Moyer, Pokrywczynski, & Griffin, 2015; Mudrick, Miller, & Atkin, 2016), it is important that organizations are aware of how their behavior toward a rival can influence fans via the online environment. Further, highly identified group members are more likely to engage in verbal and instrumental aggression toward an out-group (Wann, Carlson, & Schrader, 1999; Wann, Waddill, Bono, Scheuchner, & Ruga, 2017), which makes it all the more important that organizations and managers show caution in the way they use online mediums, particularly when rivalry is present.

Another area where organizations have to be cognizant of their influence on fan behavior is the public displays of out-group derogation in the form of skits and promotions. For example, skits that in some way promote negativity between opposing groups, they should be aware that through their actions they are placing out-group fans in negative situations and can be held legally and financially liable for fan behavior.Footnote 20 Further, the finding of the Connecticut Supreme Court that gun maker Remington Outdoor could be held liable for the way they advertise their products (Gershmann & McWhirter, 2019) points to a potential shift in organizations being able to distance from the actions of consumers and bring more scrutiny to the way products and services are promoted. Other examples of organizational messaging potentially encouraging out-group deviance and violence are shown in Table 2.4. It is vitally important that organizations better understand their roles in promoting rivalry in a responsible manner, because aside from a moral obligation to provide fans with a fun and safe environment in which to consume the sport product, failing to do so can expose an organization to outcomes that inhibit consumption of their product.Footnote 21

Table 2.4 Organizational messaging that potentially promotes Fan deviance and violence
Full size table

Organizations must have to be aware of their responsibilities regarding rivalry and fan behavior. For example, if two get into a fight regarding a rivalry game, especially in or around their facility, and one fan suggests the organization promoted this negative behavior, managers are going to try and distance the organization from the behavior (e.g., we don’t condone that behavior). This stance becomes difficult when organizations use skits, phrases, or promotional messages that include negative wording or otherwise increase out-group animosity. The messaging used by organizations play a role in promoting positive or negative fan perceptions and behavior toward a rival team and their supporters. On the other hand, sport organization employing practices meant to illicit positive feelings, and decrease negative feelings, between out-groups would be correct in asserting they do not condone deviant or violent behavior. Replicating the findings of Havard, Wann et al. (2018) regarding promotional messaging and further testing using secondary and primary field data would help validate these practices.