Sports Ecosystem v0.1: Key Sports Entities Uncovered

Notes: Sports Ecosystem v0.1: Uncovering the Key Sports Entities is derived from my original research conducted for my PhD thesis, titled Impact of Media on the Value of Entities within the Sports Ecosystem. This article represents the first phase of my theoretical analysis.
It’s a streamlined version of the material that will be included in my PhD thesis and the scholarly article intended for future publication in an academic journal.
This is version 0.1 of the final model, so it’s still a work in progress and open to refinement. I welcome any feedback you may have, and the ecosystem model will be updated based on ongoing research, interviews, and further analysis.

Information on this page is basis for Wiki Pages: Sports Ecosystem and Sports Entities.

TL;DR
The article analyzes a number of different researches from different authors in order to map out the Sports Ecosystem and uncover the main Sports Entities. When understanding the sports ecosystem you need to identify: Keystone Entity, Other Entities, the Goals of sports entities and the goal of the ecosystem (micro, macro, meso goals) and: Activities, Positions, Links, Interdependencies, Boundaries, Value Creation and Capture.

The keystone sports entity is fans. Other sports entities are Media, Sports clubs; Players; Sponsors; Leagues; Agents; Athletes’ support groups; Goods and service providers; Facilities; Governing bodies; Philanthropic foundations; Betting platforms.

For final results—proceed to Conclusions.

Embarking on a PhD journey is no easy feat, and with my goal of eventually interviewing high-profile individuals from the sports ecosystem in four years, I realized I need to move quickly to get to the questionnaire stage. So, less than two months into my PhD, I’ve already established the foundation for about one-third of my theoretical analysis. While it’s far from complete by PhD standards, it’s more than enough to present some initial findings on the Play of Values blog and continue exploring other topics.

Looking at the topic of my PhD thesis, The Impact of Media on the Value of Entities within the Sports Ecosystem, it’s clear that our theoretical section will need to cover:

1. Defining what a sports ecosystem is and identifying the sports entities it consists of;
2. Understanding how value is co-created within the sports ecosystem among these entities (this will include analyzing sports rivalries, hype, hypegenic features, making the hypegenic meter a real scientific tool); and
3. Analyzing how media influences the growth of this value.

So, in this first part, I’m starting with understanding of what an ecosystem is, the principles that govern it, how to analyze it, and ultimately defining the sports entities that form this ecosystem.

Ecosystem 101: Applying Core Concepts to the Sports World

The idea of an ecosystem started in biology, describing a network of living things interacting with each other and their environment (Oxford English Dictionary). This concept now helps explain how businesses operate in networks. In 1993, James F. Moore introduced the term business ecosystem, highlighting how companies work together (and sometimes compete) within a broader economic community to create value.

Since its introduction, the business ecosystem concept has become a focus in management research (Guittard et al., 2015). Initially, it referred to companies working together, but it now includes a range of actors like suppliers, distributors, and tech providers, all of whom impact each other’s success (Iansiti and Levien, 2004).

Business ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing, involving both companies and people in a global web of relationships (Basole et al., 2015). They’re essential in fields like innovation and strategy (Adner, 2006; Jacobides et al., 2018).

In sports, ecosystems bring together competing and collaborating stakeholders, creating value at different levels (Morgan, 2024). This “coopetition”—where businesses compete and collaborate—is key for co-creating value across the sports ecosystem (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2011). However, sports ecosystem research often misses the bigger picture, focusing on individual actors without fully connecting them. This gap leaves room for a more integrated sports ecosystem model, uniting these interactions into a comprehensive framework.

Literature on Sports Ecosystems: Critical Gaps and Overlooked Limitations

Research on sports ecosystems has identified and categorized key actors. For example, Rundh and Gottfridsson (2015) highlight the roles of clubs, players, arenas, sponsors, and media, all crucial to the ecosystem’s function (Picture 1).

Similarly, Da Silva and Las Casas (2017) break down the ecosystem into 22 entities, including athletes, fans, institutions, and media (Picture 2). However, these studies lack a fully integrated understanding of how these actors interrelate within the overall ecosystem.

Maltese and Danglade (2014) view the sports ecosystem through the lens of entertainment, putting the organiser in the middle and focusing on athletes, fans, institutions, and media (Picture 3). While valuable, this framework overlooks the economic ties between sponsors, teams, and media, as well as the broader systemic effects of media’s role.

Centre for Sport and Human Rights (n.d.) presents an athlete-centered ecosystem, placing the athlete at the center, supported by stakeholders like family, coaches, fans, media, and community members (Picture 4).

These models don’t capture the full complexity of interactions or how value is generated and shared across the ecosystem.

Buser et al. (2022) describe the sports ecosystem as a complex network influenced by economic, political, ecological, technological, and social dynamics. Although Bailey et al. (2014) provide a comprehensive model (Picture 5), it still doesn’t address the media’s influence or the interconnectedness of entities.

Existing studies often treat sports entities as isolated actors, focusing on specific dimensions without considering aspects like financial and social value generation. For instance, Wenner (1989) discusses the reach of sports broadcasts, and Crawford and Niendorf (1999) examine Michael Jordan’s impact on the NBA and its sponsors. Studies like Li and Huang (2014) and Josselyn (2019) look at the media’s influence on player value, while Stango and Knittel (2014) explore the effects of scandals on sponsors. However, none specifically addresses how media influences the overall value of entities within the sports ecosystem. Collignon and Sultan’s (2014) model (Picture 6) the sports ecosystem around money flow, they fail to illustrate how these relationships foster ecosystem growth.

Euler (2020) provides an ecosystem model, where consisting of six entities: professional athletes; sponsors and advertisers; sports media; clubs and teams; leagues and puts fans in the middle of his ecosystem model (Picture 7).

Deloitte (2018) introduced a model for sports ecosystem in Spain (Picture 8). It presents the main stakeholders in the Spanish sport sector, explaining the sport ecosystem in Spain and role on athlete development. This model is athlete-based, and does not analyze the value creation and media use.

Li et al. (2021) also introduced an athlete-based sports ecosystem model (Picture 9), which does not introduce any use of media in order to reach the fans. It is stated that athlete’s IP is created by sports activities and sports events as the core. Which is true, but this view is limited, as there are much more activities that create athlete’s value.

Jalonen (2019) provided a multi-level e-sports ecosystem (Picture 10), which puts the sports at the core. Author analyzes value creation in e-sports. This analysis, for the purpose of this thesis, lacks showing of connections between the sports entities, how they interact and co-create value.

While analyzing the available sports ecosystem models, we can state, that media’s role in shaping fan behavior, sponsorship dynamics, and global reach has yet to be fully integrated into ecosystem models, limiting their comprehensiveness.

The concept of coopetition (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2011)—the simultaneous competition and cooperation among actors—is often overlooked in sports ecosystem literature, despite being crucial for understanding these complex relationships. Ignoring the interplay between collaboration and competition limits the effectiveness of ecosystem models.

Additionally, as Tsujimoto et al. (2018) highlight, ecosystems are not static. They evolve with new actors, technological advancements, and shifts in market conditions. Many models fail to account for this fluidity, treating ecosystems as stable. Yet, the sports ecosystem is continuously adapting to changes in media, global reach, and fan engagement, making it essential to consider these dynamic factors when building a comprehensive sports ecosystem model.

A Unified Sports Ecosystem Model: Enhancing and Building on Existing Theories

To build a comprehensive and unified model for the sports ecosystem, we draw on several key pieces of literature that provide foundational theories, concepts, and frameworks essential for understanding the complex interrelationships between actors, activities, and value creation within the ecosystem.

The primary authors whose works are synthesized to create this model include:

• Iansiti and Levien (2004) – These authors characterize business ecosystems as revolving around a central keystone entity, which is the central force around which the ecosystem functions. They emphasize the role of this keystone actor in managing the relationships among loosely connected participants, ensuring the mutual success and survival of all actors involved. In business context, the keystone sector is the one that plays a unique and essential role, and without it, the community would be significantly and negatively affected (Kilkenny & Nalbarte, 2002).
• Tsujimoto et al. (2018) – This work emphasizes the organic and dynamic nature of ecosystems, highlighting not only the positive aspects of their functioning but also the competitive and sometimes destructive elements, such as ecosystem-level competition, predation, and parasitism. Their work stresses the evolutionary nature of ecosystems and the importance of understanding how actors’ unique attributes, decision-making approaches, and objectives can lead to unintended consequences at the ecosystem level.
• Adner (2006, 2017) – Adner makes a significant contribution by distinguishing between two perspectives on ecosystems: the ecosystem-as-structure and the ecosystem-as-affiliation. He outlines how activities, actors, positions, and links form the structural elements of ecosystems, while the ecosystem-as-affiliation perspective focuses on the relationships and interconnections between actors. Adner also emphasizes that no single organization can create value greater than the ecosystem as a whole, making the interconnectedness of actors critical for achieving the desired value.
• Cobben et al. (2022) – Cobben et al. provide a comprehensive review of ecosystem boundaries, goals, and types, offering valuable insights into the evolution of ecosystems and their goals over time. They introduce seven dimensions of ecosystems—competitive advantage, geographical scope, ecosystem development, orchestration, actor types and roles, structure, and value creation and capture—which are critical for mapping the boundaries of a sports ecosystem and understanding how value flows between actors.
• Brandenburger and Nalebuff (2011) – Their concept of coopetition (competition and cooperation) is crucial for understanding the dynamics of interdependence in ecosystems. In sports ecosystems, actors such as teams, media, sponsors, and fans may simultaneously compete and cooperate, driving both value creation and innovation.
• Moore (1993, 1996) – Moore provides foundational ideas about business ecosystems as economic communities, that are supported by a network of interacting organizations and individuals. His work emphasizes the importance of alignment between actors and the evolving roles of ecosystem leaders, which guide the ecosystem toward shared goals.
• Senyo et al. (2019) – This research highlights the importance of interconnectivity among organizations within an ecosystem, suggesting that the success of any individual actor is intrinsically linked to the success of others. This is especially important in sports ecosystems, where value creation is often dependent on collaborative and cooperative relationships among multiple stakeholders.

By synthesizing these diverse contributions, we gain a richer understanding of how to map the sports ecosystem, identify the key actors and their relationships, and understand the broader dynamics of value creation and capture.

Defining Sports Entities and Their Roles in the Sports Ecosystem

To map the sports ecosystem and its entities effectively, the process should follow a structured sequence:

1. Keystone Entity: The central actor around which the sports ecosystem revolves, ensuring alignment, growth, and value generation (Iansiti & Levien, 2004).
2. Other Actors/Entities: This includes teams, players, sponsors, media, fans, and event organizers. These actors depend on the keystone entity for structural alignment within the ecosystem, cooperating and competing based on its guidance (Iansiti & Levien, 2004).
3. Ecosystem Goals: Goals operate across three levels:
   • Micro level: Focuses on individual players or teams. Meso level: Pertains to sports leagues or event organizers. Macro level: Encompasses the global sports industry, fan bases, and media networks. These interconnected goals contribute to the ecosystem’s overall value creation (Cobben et al., 2022). The keystone entity is essential in setting and evolving these goals, directing the ecosystem toward a unified purpose.

After identifying the keystone entity, other entities, and ecosystem goals, the analysis should include:

1. Activities: Actions or processes undertaken by actors to create value (Adner, 2017). The keystone entity ensures these activities align with ecosystem goals.
2. Positions: The roles or places that entities occupy within the ecosystem based on their activities and relationships (Adner, 2017). The keystone entity influences these positions to maximize each actor’s contribution.
3. Links: The exchanges and interactions between entities (Adner, 2017). The keystone entity facilitates these links, promoting value flow and ensuring interactions support ecosystem goals.
4. Interdependencies: The relationships between entities, marked by cooperation, competition (coopetition), predation, and parasitism, which enable value co-creation and sustain the ecosystem (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2011; Tsujimoto et al., 2018). The keystone entity manages these interdependencies to balance cooperation and competition, maintaining ecosystem sustainability.
5. Boundaries: The geographical, organizational, or competitive limits that define the ecosystem’s scope (Cobben et al., 2022). The keystone entity shapes these boundaries, determining the ecosystem’s reach and the types of entities involved.
6. Value Creation & Capture: The generation, distribution, and retention of value within the ecosystem (Cobben et al., 2022). The keystone entity guides this process, ensuring that value is equitably distributed and the ecosystem remains sustainable.

Existing Literature on Sports Entities

Numerous studies have attempted to define the entities within the sports ecosystem, each contributing valuable insights into the diverse roles and stakeholders involved. By synthesizing these works, we can better appreciate the complex, interdependent relationships that sustain the sports ecosystem.

• Rundh & Gottfridson (2015) examined the arena concept from a network perspective, identifying key entities such as spectators, sponsors, media, leagues, players, agents, and sports clubs. They propose spectators as a keystone entity, acting not only as consumers but also as active participants who enhance the experience for others, positioning them as value creators in the ecosystem.
• Shilbury (2009) focused on a club-centered model, including media, government agencies, leagues, fans, and sponsors as core entities. In this model, fans play a central role by generating demand, contributing financially, and adding cultural value through engagement in ticket purchases, merchandise, and media consumption.
• Collignon & Sultan (2014) explored the ecosystem from a financial perspective, highlighting fans, leagues, brands (sponsors), media, clubs, players, and agents as core stakeholders. Here, fans emerge as essential in maintaining value flows, while leagues and clubs manage organizational roles, with winning as a critical driver of revenue.
• Maltese & Danglade (2014) examined sports as entertainment, expanding the ecosystem to include athletes, private partners, sports institutions, media, suppliers, and public partners. Fans are again placed at the center as keystone entities whose engagement sustains the ecosystem, driving revenue through media consumption, ticket sales, and merchandise.
• Silva & Las Casas (2017) introduced a sports marketing model where sports clubs propose value to fans, identified as the keystone entity. Other entities include politicians, facilities, sponsors, media, and the market environment, all influenced by public policy, facilities, and market conditions. This model places fans as both recipients of and contributors to the ecosystem’s sustainability.
• Silva & Las Casas (2018) later refined their model from a club perspective, emphasizing leagues, goods suppliers, fan engagement, club management, sponsorships, and media. Although fans are not explicitly listed, they are implicit as central to the ecosystem, with clubs working to engage and provide offerings centered on fan interest.
• Centre for Sport and Human Rights (n.d.) presents an athlete-centered ecosystem, placing the athlete at the center, supported by stakeholders like family, coaches, fans, media, and community members. Here, all entities revolve around supporting athletes’ performance and career, illustrating a more athlete-centric ecosystem model.
• Bailey et al. (2014) offer a comprehensive model, describing fans as the “sun in the ecosystem,” central to its function. Their model divides stakeholders into distribution channels, content providers, and service providers, with fans’ engagement fueling demand and continuity. They also outline a B2B sector within the ecosystem, highlighting relationships with broadcasters, sponsors, and other providers to sustain the ecosystem.
• Euler (2020) provides an ecosystem model, where consisting of six entities: professional athletes; sponsors and advertisers; sports media; clubs and teams; leagues and puts fans in the middle of his ecosystem model.
• In Lithuanian literature, entities within the sports ecosystem are discussed in various contexts. Komskienė et al. (2015) analyzed sports funding’s impact, emphasizing national and international benefits that enhance the country’s position within the ecosystem. Tamulis (2021) examined brand development in sports, identifying the state, leagues, sports clubs, partners, and fans as key players. State funding was noted as a crucial enabler, helping teams expand, improving service quality, and, in turn, boosting attendance and revenue.

Together, these studies present a nuanced view of the sports ecosystem, where fans frequently emerge as the keystone entity, but other stakeholders—clubs, leagues, athletes, media, and state entities—each play significant roles. This synthesis highlights the ecosystem’s intricate web of financial, cultural, and social interactions that collectively sustain the sports industry.

Sports Entities in Sports Stakeholders Literature

Analyzing the sports ecosystem through stakeholder theory provides a framework for identifying and understanding the roles of various entities within this network.

According to Sheehy (2005), a “stakeholder” is anyone directly impacted by a corporation’s actions, while Freeman (2004) broadens this to include anyone who can affect or is affected by the organization’s objectives. This concept aligns well with sports ecosystems, where diverse entities are both influenced by and contribute to the system.

• Leopkey and Parent (2015) highlight that stakeholders in sports events often have differing interests, which can lead to conflicts, especially when aiming for sustainable event outcomes. Stakeholders in these contexts include sponsors, local communities, event organizers, and government bodies, each motivated by unique goals.
• Brumbeloe (2022) further categorizes stakeholders into internal and external groups. Fans, as external stakeholders, are central to the sports ecosystem and essential to its existence, reinforcing their role as the keystone entity. Other external stakeholders include media providers, venues, vendors, sponsors, and, increasingly, sports betting platforms. On the internal side, Brumbeloe identifies athletes, team owners, executives, and personnel as essential actors who drive operational and strategic success.
• Pittz et al. (2020) suggest that teams benefit by clearly identifying their stakeholders, which can help maximize both economic and social returns. They classify stakeholders into primary (e.g., leagues, ownership, players) and secondary (e.g., local communities, fans), noting that primary stakeholders often derive economic benefits, while secondary stakeholders benefit socially through engagement with sports events (Inoue & Havard, 2014).
• Mendizabal et al. (2020) provide a broad view of the sports ecosystem’s stakeholders, listing fans, volunteers, shareholders, sponsors, communities, public administrations, and media organizations as key players.

Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive view of the diverse stakeholders within the sports ecosystem. By applying stakeholder theory, we can better understand the roles and relationships of these entities, which is critical for assessing their significance in value creation across the ecosystem.

Sports Ecosystem v0.1

In this part, we will finish off with identifying all of the entities of the sports ecosystem, and leave the remaining parts as setting goals, and seeing their connections in value-co-creation for the other articles.

Currently, we aim to retain as many entities identified by other scholars as possible. Each entity has the potential to contribute to value creation, and their inclusion may uncover new ways to maximize value, particularly through the strategic use of media.

Since our model emphasizes media as a driver of value enhancement, we will treat media as a distinct entity, examining its impact on the ecosystem separately. Later, we will explore how various media channels can be effectively applied to other entities in the sports ecosystem to enhance value creation.

Our first priority is to define the keystone entity and other critical entities. The keystone entity, as described by Iansiti and Levien (2004), is the central actor around which all other stakeholders revolve, forming the foundation for value creation and sustainability in the ecosystem. Identifying this central entity is crucial, as it will clarify the roles of other entities and show how their actions align with the overarching goals of the ecosystem.

Keystone Entity: Sports Fans

Based on the literature, fans clearly emerge as the keystone entity within the sports ecosystem. They are the central figure around which all other entities align, providing the demand and engagement essential for the ecosystem’s functioning. Scholars like Rundh & Gottfridson (2015), Bailey et al. (2014), and Maltese & Danglade (2014) consistently identify fans as the ecosystem’s primary driver, fueling revenue, engagement, and the success of leagues and teams.

Through their actions—whether attending events, purchasing merchandise, or consuming media—fans play a direct role in the value creation process, thus sustaining and growing the entire ecosystem. Tamulis (2021) further underscores this point, noting that fans are the main object of competition for sports clubs, which highlights their central role in the sports ecosystem.

The importance of fans is further emphasized by Horbel et al. (2016) and Kennelly (2017), who argue that fans not only consume sports products but also actively participate in co-creating the experience. Which is evident when, for example, we’re analyzing sports rivalries, and how Belgrade’s derby is even a bigger attraction than the actual game.

By engaging with media, supporting teams, and interacting with sponsors, fans play a fundamental role in the health and development of the ecosystem. Their collective contributions, such as generating billions in revenue for the global sports tourism sector (UNWTO, 2016), and their role as co-creators of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2008) demonstrate the depth of their impact.

Remaining Sports Entities

While sports fans are the central driving force in the sports ecosystem, each of the following entities plays a crucial role in supporting its sustainability and growth. The order reflects the prominence and frequency of each entity in the literature:

1. Sports Clubs: Beyond fielding teams, clubs manage athletes, coaches, youth programs, and operational staff. Owners are viewed as important entities in the sports ecosystem. They are the core structures that organize sports, create competitions, and provide experiences for fans. According to Rundh & Gottfridson (2015) and Silva & Las Casas (2017), clubs are essential to delivering the sports product, with staff contributing to organizational success through effective management, finance, and strategy. Note: In individual sports, clubs are not as important, but they’re existing.
2. Players: Athletes provide the competitive and entertainment value that drives fan engagement. As noted by Collignon & Sultan (2014), players are at the heart of the sports experience, attracting fans, generating media content, and securing sponsorships. Their performance directly impacts fan loyalty and media coverage, central to value creation.
3. Media: Media entities, including television networks, streaming services, and social media channels, broadcast events to a global audience. They create narratives and increase engagement, which enhances fan loyalty and expands the sport’s reach (Collignon & Sultan, 2014; Rundh & Gottfridson, 2015; Bailey et al., 2014).
4. Sponsors: Sponsors provide financial support that enables sports clubs, players, and events to thrive. Collignon & Sultan (2014) and Silva & Las Casas (2017) highlight sponsors’ role in sustaining the ecosystem by funding operations, salaries, and infrastructure, and benefiting from association with teams and athletes.
5. Leagues: Responsible for organizing and governing competitions, leagues establish the framework within which clubs, players, and other entities operate. As described by Shilbury (2009) and Collignon & Sultan (2014), leagues play a key role in structuring the sports ecosystem.
6. Agents: Agents connect players, clubs, and sponsors by negotiating contracts, transfers, and endorsements. According to Rundh & Gottfridson (2015) and Collignon & Sultan (2014), agents are key facilitators within the sports industry, helping manage talent and secure opportunities for players.
7. Athletes’ Support Groups: Family, friends, and personal coaches provide vital support for athletes, contributing to their physical, emotional, and professional well-being. The Centre for Sport and Human Rights (n.d.) emphasizes these groups as essential for maintaining athletes’ performance and longevity.
8. Goods & Service Providers: Merchandise producers and video game developers expand the ecosystem’s revenue and engagement opportunities. Video gaming attracts younger fans, while merchandise sales (jerseys, trading cards, collectibles) drive revenue and build brand value.
9. Facilities (Stadiums, Arenas): These venues host live events that generate revenue and enhance the fan experience. Stadiums and arenas provide the infrastructure for large-scale events, creating spaces for fan engagement and supporting the ecosystem (Rundh & Gottfridson, 2015; Silva & Las Casas, 2018).
10. Governing Bodies: Government agencies regulate the sports ecosystem and support infrastructure, policies, and public relations, especially in regions where sports are not self-sustaining. Government funding helps teams expand and improves service quality, which in turn drives revenue and attendance (Tamulis, 2021; Komskienė et al., 2015). For example, Kaunas City Municipality is the main sponsor of Žalgiris Kaunas team, and through this, Kaunas became a popular attraction spot in the Baltic region for Žalgiris games, this attracted Euroleague’s Final Four, and Kaunas is represented by basketball in many ways.
11. Philanthropic Foundations: Non-profit organizations support community programs, youth initiatives, and other charitable activities within the sports ecosystem. As Bailey et al. (2014) note, these foundations promote social responsibility and ensure positive community impact.
12. Betting Platforms: Sports betting, a rapidly growing industry with a global market size of over $200 billion (Ibisworld, 2020), represents an emerging stakeholder. Betting platforms, casinos, and sports wagering apps have increasing influence within the sports ecosystem (Brumbeloe, 2022).

Each of these entities contributes uniquely to the sports ecosystem, enabling growth and sustainability through their interdependent roles. Retaining a wide array of entities in the model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding value creation across the ecosystem, especially in how media can enhance engagement and impact.

Conclusion and Initial Sports Ecosystem Model

In this phase of the research, we concentrated on constructing an initial map of the sports ecosystem, beginning with the identification of the keystone entity—fans—and other critical sports entities.

Since our model emphasizes the role of media in value enhancement, we will treat media as a distinct entity. This approach allows us to later analyze how different types of media (distribution channels) can be leveraged strategically to maximize value across the various entities within the sports ecosystem.

With the foundational sports ecosystem map established, the next step is to define the ecosystem’s goals across the micro, meso, and macro levels. These goals will shape interactions among entities, establishing a framework for achieving long-term sustainability and growth within the ecosystem.

After defining these goals, we will shift focus to the value co-creation process, examining how each entity collaborates and competes to generate and capture value. This analysis will reveal the specific mechanisms that drive the ecosystem’s success, including the strategic role of media in enhancing value creation. By exploring these dynamics, we aim to understand how the ecosystem’s entities work together to sustain and amplify their collective impact.

Key Questions That Were Answered

What is an ecosystem in sports? Sports ecosystem meaning.

A sports ecosystem is a network of interdependent entities—such as fans, clubs, players, media, sponsors, and leagues—that interact to create and sustain value within the sports ecosystem.

How Ecosystems are different from Industries?

What is the role of sport fans in the sports ecosystem?

Fans are the keystone entity, providing the demand, engagement, and financial support that drive the ecosystem’s success, while also co-creating value through their active participation and loyalty.

CITATION
Bakanauskas, P. (2024, November 11). Sports Ecosystem v0.1: Key Sports Entities Uncovered. Play of Values. https://playofvalues.com/sports-ecosystem-v01-key-sports-entities/

IN-TEXT CITATION: (Bakanauskas, 2024)

List of References

1. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard business review, 84(4), 98. Article.
2. Bailey, J., Smith, C., Michener, G., Footz, N., Barrett, B., & Lau, G. (2014, December). The Global Sport Ecosystem. Global Sport Leadership Practice. Link.
3. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition. Random House LLC.
4. Brumbeloe, S. (2022). Who really runs sports?: The power of stakeholders and benefits of stakeholder theory in sports. Florida Entertainment & Sports Law Review, 1, 47.
5. Buser, M., Woratschek, H., Dickson, G., & Schönberner, J. (2022). Toward a sport ecosystem logic. Journal of Sport Management, 1–14. Link.
6. Centre for Sport and Human Rights. (n.d.). Sports ecosystem. Link.
7. Collignon, H., & Sultan, N. (2014). Winning in business sports. ATKeaney Report. Link.
8. Crawford, A. J., & Niendorf, B. (1999). The Michael Jordan effect. American Business Review, 17(2), 5.
9. Danglade, J. P., & Maltese, L. (2014). Marketing du sport et événementiel sportif. Dunod.
10. Da Silva, E. C., ir Casas, A. L. (2017). Sports ecosystems: Assumptions for incorporating marketing strategies in sports clubs. The Marketing Review, 17(4), 409-426. Link.
11. Da Silva, E., & Las Casas, A. (2018). Sports ecosystem of the “Triad of São Paulo”: Sports marketing management according to fans. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 10, 41–56.
12. Deloitte (2018). International comparative study on high level sport models. Link.
13. ecosystem, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Link.
14. Euler, T. (2020, February 3). Why the Professional Sports Ecosystem will Benefit from Tokenization. Link.
15. Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228–241. 
16. Guittard, C., Schenk, E., & Burger-Helmchen, T. (2015). Crowdsourcing and the evolution of a business ecosystem. In Advances in Crowdsourcing (pp. 49–62). Springer International Publishing.
17. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review.
18. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. Link.
19. Jalonen, H. (2019) The Value of E-Sports Is in the Eye of the Beholder, But Can E-Sports Operators Influence What the Spectators See? Advances in Applied Sociology, 9, 306-329.
20. Josselyn, C. (2019). The LeBron Effect: Is a Superstar Worth the Money? In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 379.
21. Kilkenny, M., & Nalbarte, L. (2002). Keystone sector identification. In Trade, Networks and Hierarchies: Modeling Regional and Interregional Economies (pp. 289–314). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
22. Knittel, C. R., ir Stango, V. (2014). Celebrity endorsements, firm value, and reputation risk: Evidence from the Tiger Woods scandal. Management Science, 60(1), 21-37. Link.
23. Komskienė, D., Garastaitė, L., Bradūnas, A. (2015). Sporto paramos įtaka šalies sporto industrijos ekonomikai. 1-14 Laisvalaikio tyrimai: elektroninis mokslo žurnalas, 2 (6).
24. Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2015). Stakeholder perspectives regarding the governance of legacy at the Olympic Games. Annals of Leisure Research, 5398, 1–21. Link.
25. Li, Y., Kim, K., & Ding, Y. (2021). Research on optimization of blockchain network and data communication in the ecological structure of sports industry. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2021(1), 3523681.
26. Li, Z., Huang K. (2014). The Monetary Value of Twitter Followers: Evidences from NBA Players. Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland.
27. Mendizabal, X., San-Jose, L., & Garcia-Merino, J. D. (2020). Understanding and mapping stakeholders of sport clubs: Particularities. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 359–378.
28. Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
29. Morgan, S. (2024). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Sport Ecosystem: Development of a New Theoretical Framework and Organisational Model. Loughborough University. Link.
30. Pittz, T., Bendickson, J. S., Cowden, B. J., & Davis, P. E. (2021). Sport business models: A stakeholder optimization approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 28(1), 134–147.
31. Rundh, B., & Gottfridsson, P. (2015). Delivering sports events: The arena concept in sports from a network perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(7), 785–794. Link.
32. Senyo, P. K., Liu, K., & Effah, J. (2019). Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and a framework for future research. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 52–64.
33. Sheehy, B. (2005). Scrooge-the reluctant stakeholder: theoretical problems in the shareholder-stakeholder debate. U. Miami Bus. L. Rev., 14, 193.
34. Shilbury, D. (2009). Sport Management Series (3rd ed.). Allen & Unwin.
35. Tamulis, E. (2021). Prekės ženklo vystymo vertė sporto organizacijoje : LKL klubų atvejis. Mykolo Riomerio universitetas.
36. Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., & Matsumoto, Y. (2015, August). Designing the coherent ecosystem: Review of the ecosystem concept in strategic management. In 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 53-63). IEEE.
37. Wenner, L. A. (1989). Media, sports, and society. Sage.
38. World Tourism Organization, UNWTO (2016). World Tourism Barometer, 14. Link.