In my previous fan-survey article, we dug into the idea that being flashy often matters more than being statistically great. Leagues lean into that narrative—but the results don’t always match the hype. Just look at the NBA decline. And now, when we shift the focus to what actually drives the most popular sports, the story changes again. According to 500+ fans, it’s not the sports stars pulling the strings and the leagues, owners, and officials should rethink what really matters.
The May survey pulled in even more respondents than the one in April—581 fans from the US and Europe sharing their thoughts on what really makes the most popular sports tick.
In this article, we’ll dive into seven big questions I asked them:
- Is star power more important than team strength?
- Can one athlete shift an entire league’s or sport’s popularity?
- Are sports influencers and content creators starting to shape sports too much?
- Does more money in sports actually make it better?
- What makes you follow a team or league more closely? (Sports stars; Gritty, intense competition; cultural/community feel; media and highlights; casual interest)
- Which of the following would grow a sport in the best way? (Better media storytelling; more authentic competition; more investment and sponsors; a once-in-a-generation superstar; local fan-driven energy; influencers building hype)
- What drives long-term growth in sports? (PICK ONE: Sports stars; competition; money, media, or fans)
We’ll break down each question, look at the results, and then pull in real-world cases to answer the bigger one: what should the people responsible for growing the sports ecosystem really be focusing on?
And if this topic grabs you, I’d also recommend checking out my earlier deep-dives on sports rivalries, hypegenic athletes, marketable athletes, and the sports ecosystem as a whole.
How Star Power Influences Most Popular Sports?
The survey results show that a strong majority of fans do not believe star power outweighs team strength. Only about 17% of respondents agreed that “star power is more important than team strength,” while 68.6% disagreed (25.7% strongly; 42.9% somewhat). In other words, most fans feel that having a better team is more important than having the biggest-name players.
This sentiment is backed up by research: a University of Kansas study found that people “reliably preferred the ‘built’ teams and slighted the ‘bought’ teams” (Lynch, 2021). In that study, over 1,500 Americans were asked to compare teams that purchased superstar talent versus teams that developed talent organically; the clear preference was for teams built “from the ground up” through hard work and cohesion. Fans appreciate the effort and narrative behind a team coming together more than a team simply stacking stars.
Real-world examples bear this out. In the 2014 NBA Finals, the star-studded Miami Heat (“bought” via free agency by bringing in LeBron James and Chris Bosh) were soundly defeated by the San Antonio Spurs – a team oriented around chemistry and longevity. Many neutral fans (me included) openly rooted against the Miami superteam; as noted in the KU study, during that matchup “many fans expressed their dislike of the ‘bought’ Miami team (Lynch, 2021). Instead, people celebrated the Spurs’ homegrown approach (Duncan, Parker, Ginóbili – star players, yes, but all drafted and developed by the Spurs).
Similarly, in global football, we’ve seen “galáctico” projects like mid-2000s Real Madrid (which assembled superstars but initially fell short of ultimate success) face criticism, whereas a club like Leicester City capturing the Premier League title in 2016 with a motley crew of underdogs won over the world. That Leicester triumph – a 5,000-to-1 underdog story – was heralded as “one of soccer’s most astonishing underdog stories” and “the biggest miracle in sports history” (Hill, 2021), precisely because it wasn’t fueled by buying up megastars. Fans love these stories because they highlight teamwork, resilience, and the idea that any club can rise if run the right way.
Leagues that focus too heavily on marketing individual stars can run into problems if the on-court or on-field product suffers. The NBA, for instance, has spent decades building up star personas and turning basketball into one of the most popular sports globally, yet recent trends suggest that emphasizing glitz over grit may be contributing to fan discontent. And for my personal taste, NBA, even the Finals, have become unwatchable.
Longtime coach George Karl agrees and argued that the league had become “unwatchable” in parts – “the entertainment has surpassed the sport” in his words (Levine, 2024) – implying that flashy individual play and highlight reels were being placed above fundamental team competition. That’s a harsh critique, but it resonated with many fans who see things like lackadaisical defense or constant roster turnover (in pursuit of superstar combinations) as eroding the competitive integrity of the game. In response, those fans are voicing what the survey confirms: they primarily want a quality team product.
Star power alone isn’t enough. As Omri Gillath (lead author of the KU study) put it, everyone loves a winner, “but even more so when the backstory is based on perspiration and determination” (Lynch, 2021). In short, stars are best when they’re the heroes of a greater team story in most popular sports – not a substitute for it.
Can a Single Athlete Shift an Entire League’s or Sport’s Popularity?
On this question, fans were more divided – but a strong majority still said yes, one transcendent athlete can indeed shift a whole league’s popularity. About 71.4% agreed (31.4% strongly) that a single athlete can move the needle for an entire sport. History shows plenty of evidence to back this up. And this is also closely related to our previous fan-driven survey.
Perhaps the most famous example is the Magic Johnson vs. Larry Bird rivalry in the 1980s. The NBA of the late 1970s was struggling – plagued by poor attendance and a lack of broad appeal – but Magic and Bird “saved the league,” reviving the NBA with their star power and rivalry (David, 2022). As David (2022) noted, the NBA “was in deep trouble in the 1970s… the league was saved just in time by two legends in Magic Johnson and Larry Bird”.
Their individual brilliance and the dynamic between them (East Coast vs. West Coast, Celtics vs. Lakers, flashy vs. fundamental) captured fans’ imaginations and put pro basketball back on the map. The arrival of those two superstars “changed the game forever. The league wouldn’t be what it is today without those two players” (David, 2022). At the same time, let’s not forget that it wasn’t their single talent alone, but also their rivalry that attracted the audiences and we will get to this point in the the upcoming sections.
Also, if Magic and Bird saved the NBA, Michael Jordan took it to another stratosphere in the 1990s—turning basketball into a global phenomenon and one of the most popular sports in countries beyond USA. Jordan’s on-court heroics, fused with corporate marketing, transformed the NBA into a worldwide entertainment brand; he became arguably the most famous athlete on Earth and catalyzed surges in international audiences and merchandise during his era (Andrews, 1996; LaFeber, 1999).
Tiger Woods is a prime example of how one athlete can transform golf’s popularity. Television ratings rose markedly when Woods competed or contended, and his presence strongly predicted PGA Tour audiences (Gooding & Stephenson, 2016). During his peak, purses and player earnings escalated alongside this “Tiger effect,” and as his performance waned, the viewership impact attenuated—evidence that much of the boom traced to his superstar pull (Potter & Wethington, 2024).
Recent examples continue the trend. Lionel Messi’s move to Major League Soccer (MLS) in 2023 provides a case study of immediate impact. Dubbed the “Messi Effect,” his arrival at Inter Miami instantly boosted ticket sales, TV subscriptions, social media reach – virtually every metric of interest. Tickets for games sold out within minutes and secondary market prices exploded over 1,000% (Soaring Ticket Prices and a Social Media Boom, the Messi Effect on US Soccer, 2023). Inter Miami’s Instagram following jumped from around 1 million to over 7 million in the days after Messi signed – more than any NFL or MLB team’s account.
Early data showed MLS Season Pass added ~110,000 new subscribers on the day of Lionel Messi’s debut—an unprecedented surge for the package (Toonkel, 2023). That pattern mirrors prior “star shocks” in U.S. soccer: David Beckham’s 2007 arrival lifted MLS attendance with clear novelty/scarcity effects that faded over time unless on-field quality improved (Shapiro, DeSchriver, & Rascher, 2019). The takeaway is simple: superstars can ignite visibility fast, but sustaining “Most Popular Sports” status still depends on the underlying product.
College sports saw a similar surge in 2023–24 with Caitlin Clark in women’s basketball. Clark’s jaw-dropping performances and long-range shots turned her into a must-watch star, and women’s college basketball into one of the most popular sports in USA, drawing record TV audiences. When her Iowa Hawkeyes played LSU for the NCAA championship, the game drew 9.9 million viewers – the most-watched women’s college basketball game ever at the time (McCarthy, 2024). Then, Clark’s Elite Eight game in 2024 smashed even that record with 12.3 million viewers, making it ESPN’s most-watched college basketball telecast (men’s or women’s) ever.
Commentators noted that Clark had become “the biggest story in sports,” able to “supercharge TV audiences” by attracting even casual viewers curious about her (McCarthy, 2024). It’s a testament to how one transcendent athlete – whether through extraordinary skill, charisma, or narrative – can raise the entire profile of a sport. Clark’s popularity has already sparked talk of increased investment in women’s basketball and anticipation for her professional career.
So, fans aren’t wrong to think one athlete can shift regular sports into one of the most popular sports: the right superstar in the right context can create a wave that lifts all boats. That said, it’s worth noting that these superstars usually thrive when they have rivalries or team success as well (Magic had Bird; Messi had Ronaldo; Caitlin Clark kinda has Angel Reese).
Leagues often actively seek these star narratives – like sports icons, new GOATs and hypegenic athletes to draw in broader audiences. The survey’s implication is that while star power isn’t everything (as we saw above), it is a powerful engine for growth when harnessed well. Sports history is essentially a timeline of eras defined by iconic athletes, from Babe Ruth to Diego Maradona, from Muhammad Ali to Serena Williams. Each moved the needle in their arena in ways that went beyond the ordinary, bringing in new fans, advancing their sports to become one of the most popular sports and redefining the sport’s place in culture.
Are Sports Influencers and Content Creators Starting to Shape Sports Too Much?
A significant portion of fans – roughly 65.8% – agreed that influencers and content creators are “starting to shape sports too much.” This points to a concern that the sports narrative is being overly driven by social media personalities, YouTubers, TikTokers, and highlight-centric content, rather than the sports themselves. It’s a relatively new phenomenon: we’ve seen the rise of “influencer athletes” (professional athletes who double as social media stars) and “sports influencers” (non-athlete personalities who comment on or create sports content). Fans seem wary that this trend is oversaturating sports or skewing priorities.
One vivid example is the advent of “influencer boxing.” YouTube stars like Jake Paul and KSI have taken up boxing and drawn huge audiences of young fans who might not otherwise follow the sport. On one hand, they’ve brought new attention to boxing; on the other, traditionalists argue it’s more spectacle than sport. A recent Guardian piece noted that boxing’s recent inroads with younger audiences “seem to be a function of influencer boxing with Jake Paul leading the charge” (Hauser, 2025).
Ask kids today to name a boxer, and many will say Jake Paul before naming a current world champion. That’s astonishing, considering Paul isn’t an organically risen boxing champ but a social media creator-turned-fighter. Promoters like Eddie Hearn, who helped stage some of these influencer fights, admitted “I made money but I hated it… the product wasn’t [good]” (Hauser, 2025). In other words, the hype and numbers were great, but the quality of competition was lacking. This tension – hype vs. substance – is exactly what many fans in the survey are reacting to. They’re essentially saying: we don’t want sports to turn into just another content feed or clout-chasing arena.
Even within mainstream sports, the influence of highlight culture and online content is strong. The NBA, for example, actively courts younger viewers through Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube highlights. Commissioner Adam Silver recently described the NBA as “a highlights-based sport” and suggested fans who can’t afford full games can follow via social media (Helin, 2025). He faced heavy backlash for those remarks, with many fans feeling he was prioritizing bite-sized online engagement over the full-game experience and so damaging one the most popular sports in the world.
As N. Martinez (2025) put it, by leaning into the NBA as a “highlight sport,” Silver risks “cheapening the very product he’s trying to sell”. The league has indeed seen social media metrics soar even while TV ratings dip – a sign that millions are consuming the NBA through viral dunk clips and memeable moments rather than watching entire games. The danger, as fans see it, is that this could incentivize leagues to emphasize style over substance, or individual branding over team result.
We’re also witnessing athletes themselves turning into influencers, which can blur lines. Top players now build personal brands via vlogs, podcasts, and Twitter feuds, and sometimes it can feel like the content they generate off the field competes with the content on the field. Some of this is positive – it humanizes athletes and engages fans – but the survey numbers suggest many fans feel the balance is off. When 65% of fans say influencers are shaping sports “too much,” it implies a desire to dial it back, to refocus on actual competition and sports journalism over influencer narratives.
From my personal experience, I was kinda disappointed when I saw Lithuanian NBA star Domantas Sabonis doing TikTok dances, while our national team was playing in European Basketball Championship.
So, in short, let sports be sports.
Does More Money in Sports Actually Make It Better?
Fans were resoundingly skeptical here: over 85% agreed that “more money in sports doesn’t mean it gets better.” In fact, 60% strongly agreed. This is a striking rebuke to the common assumption among some executives that bigger TV deals, higher salaries, or wealthy owners automatically translate to a better product for fans. The data suggests that fans see diminishing returns to money, or even that money can corrupt the purity of competition.
We have a telling case study in European soccer’s attempted European Super League (ESL) in 2021. A dozen of the richest clubs tried to form a closed, breakaway league largely for financial gain – and the backlash was immediate and ferocious. Fans protested in the streets, calling it “pure greed” and a betrayal of the most popular sports in the world, and within 48 hours the Super League project collapsed (Lewis, 2021).
The Guardian later wrote that the ESL had become “sport’s own Fyre Festival, a byword for overweening greed and misadventure”. In other words, it will be remembered as a cautionary tale of too much money and not enough soul. Even some coaches and players spoke out: Pep Guardiola famously criticized the ESL by saying “it is not a sport when it doesn’t matter whether you lose” – highlighting that a closed league with guaranteed spots (done for profit) undermines the essence of competition (Lewis, 2021).
Liverpool’s owner John Henry issued a contrite apology, admitting the project would “never stand without the support of the fans” (Lewis, 2021). This episode encapsulates fans’ belief that chasing revenue at the expense of tradition and competition will hurt, not help, in the long run.
Fans in many sports also point to how big-money influence can erode competitive balance. When a few rich teams buy up most of the talent, predictability rises and demand can fall. In France’s Ligue 1, state-backed PSG’s dominance has coincided with weakening broadcast appeal abroad, fueling the “1-club-league” critique (Moore, 2024).
The same happened in Lithuania, when my hometown team, Žalgiris Kaunas, dominated the domestic league for over a decade and their arch-rivals from Vilnius had no chance. Interest dropped, and nobody really cared about the finals. But in the past few years, the Vilnius team managed to win the title a few times, and it reignited my interest—and that of many others.
Now let’s take NFL, which has strict revenue sharing and a salary cap to prevent one team from outspending others; it helps to grow american football into one of the most popular sports and to put NFL among the most popular sports leagues in the world, in part because on any given Sunday an underdog can upset a favorite. Fans seem to intuitively grasp that competitive suspense is worth more than just having wealthy owners or marquee signings.
Another dimension is how money affects fan experience. European football fans often lament the commercialization that leads to higher ticket prices, kickoff times set for TV markets, or even relocating games abroad – all moves that increase revenue but potentially alienate core supporters. The survey results show fans are not automatically impressed by “more investment and sponsors” (only 22.9% said that would grow a sport best). In fact, they worry that money can pull a sport away from its community roots. The Super League fiasco again is instructive: billionaire owners assumed global audiences (and big sponsors) were more important than local match-going fans – and they were proven very wrong.
In summary, fans are sending a message: bigger budgets don’t automatically equate to a better fan experience. They’d rather see well-run, fairly contested leagues than just higher salaries or transfer fees. It’s a reminder to decision-makers that chasing short-term profit can undermine the very product they’re selling.
What Makes You Follow a Team or League More Closely?
When asked what factors draw them into following a team or league more, fans in our survey ranked “gritty, intense competition” as the top factor (77.1%) and “cultural/community feel” second (48.6%). “Sports stars” came in third at 37.1%, followed by “casual interest” (25.7%) and “media and highlights” (20%). The takeaway is clear: competitive quality and a sense of community/identity are far more motivating to fans than star power or media hype alone.
This reinforces some earlier points. The fact that nearly double the number of people chose intense competition over sports stars (77% vs 37%) shows that while stars attract attention, it’s the games themselves – especially when there’s something meaningful on the line – that keep fans truly engaged.
For example, think of the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament. It has few household-name players (since they’re mostly college kids), but it’s enormously popular because it delivers drama, upsets, and intensity. Fans are glued to it for the competition and the do-or-die stakes, not because they know the players. Matt Moore of University of Kentucky noted, rivalries and high-stakes games tap into fans’ social identity and emotions – a big game “means so much to the community, it becomes part of the fabric of who you are” (‘Behind the Blue’: The Psychology Behind Sports Rivalries, Why We Love to Loathe the Other Team | UK Research, 2024). That kind of passionate, identity-forming competition is what fans live for.
Consider the great rivalries and derbies: Real Madrid vs. Barcelona, Red Sox vs. Yankees, Partizan vs. Red Star. These are not just contests of skill, but of pride, history, and culture. The players are important, but often it’s the rivalry itself – the decades of context – that amplify interest. Fans from those communities will follow every match, regardless of who the current stars are, because the competition itself carries meaning. Our survey respondents clearly cherish that.
When you’re part of a fan base, a hard-fought win against your rival or a gritty comeback by your team is deeply satisfying in a way that transcends a highlight dunk by a random star. It’s your community’s triumph.
The high ranking of “cultural/community feel” (nearly 49%) proves that. Fans are drawn to leagues and teams that connect with a culture or a community they identify with. That might be local – e.g., the Green Bay Packers have a unique community-owned model and small-town identity that draws in not just locals but fans nationwide who romanticize that tradition. Or it could be more global cultural vibes – e.g., the English Premier League captivates many partly because of its storied clubs, singing supporter sections, and rich traditions (you’ll Never Walk Alone at Anfield, the boisterous crowds at Newcastle – it’s a culture).
Similarly, Euroleague basketball has been steadily growing attendance and viewership across Europe, not because it has bigger stars than the NBA (it doesn’t), but because it offers intense competition and a strong club culture (serious rivalries in Greece, Serbia, Turkey, etc., with passionate fans). In fact, EuroLeague recently reported record-breaking growth in attendance for four straight seasons, averaging over 10,000 fans per game – a testament to the community support and exciting competition driving that league’s appeal.
What about sports stars and media highlights ranking lower? It’s not that those don’t matter – 37% did say star players draw them in, and indeed star-centric marketing is a huge part of modern sports. But when forced to choose, more fans picked competition and culture. This suggests that stars are often the gateway (they grab attention), but staying engaged relies on the competitive stakes and feeling of belonging. You might initially follow Paris Saint-Germain because you love Messi or Mbappé, but you’ll only remain invested long-term if the league’s competition holds your interest and if you develop a fondness for the club and its culture.
The relatively low importance given to “media and highlights” (20%) also aligns with fans’ wariness of hype we discussed. It implies that slick marketing or flashy highlight packages alone aren’t enough to keep fans attached to a league. A viral dunk or a clever social media presence might spark momentary interest, but it’s the substance – real contests and a fan community – that make someone a devoted follower. This also relates to why, for instance, the Champions League knockout rounds draw far more casual fans than regular seasons do: the intensity is higher, every game counts, and the storylines hit harder. Those are “gritty, intense competitions” by definition.
So, leagues trying to grow should note: foster rivalries, competitive balance, and fan communities. Those create the conditions where stars can shine brightest and media can amplify something real. An authentic derby match or playoff series will naturally produce stars and highlights; it doesn’t work so well the other way around.
What Grows Sports in the Best Way?
In a multiple-choice question about the best way to grow a sport, the top answers were “more authentic competition” (57.1%) and “local fan-driven energy” (57.1%) – essentially tied for first. Next came “a once-in-a-generation superstar” (40%), then “better media storytelling” (28.6%), with “more investment and sponsors” (22.9%) and “influencers building hype” (14.3%) trailing behind. This ranking speaks volumes: fans are effectively saying that the fundamentals – the game on the field and the fans in the stands – are what drives the most popular sports, not so much the glitzy extras.
“Authentic competition” being number one reinforces everything we’ve seen. Fans crave fair play, uncertainty, and merit-based outcomes. If a league is perceived as rigged or dominated by a few wealthy teams year after year, it’s hard to grow interest. On the other hand, if you can ensure genuine competitiveness – through rules that promote parity, through formats that give underdogs a chance – fans will be more likely to engage deeply. One need only look at how global interest in Formula 1 spiked when the title fight became close and unpredictable (versus years when one driver ran away with it).
Or consider Adam Silver’s recent initiatives in the NBA: he introduced a new in-season tournament and a play-in for the playoffs partly to inject more competitive meaning into games. The jury is out on those changes, but the intention aligns with what fans want. However, some might argue Silver is focusing on flashy tweaks (like a tournament with prize money) rather than addressing root issues like load management or unbalanced conferences. Me personally, sometimes I even question if Silver is a true “sports fan”.
To me it seems that he approaches the NBA like an entertainment product to innovate with, rather than a focusing on what made NBA and basketball one of the most popular sports in the world – competitive personalities, rivalries, players trying to prove themselves first, rather than trying to earn the most.
For instance, his comment about highlights or the emphasis on things like an All-Star draft show – these come off as gimmicks. And the lesson here from our survey is: gimmicks won’t fool fans. They want the real competition.
Local fan-driven energy tying for first place is also telling. This is basically fans advocating for grassroots growth. It suggests that creating a vibrant fan culture on the ground (in hometowns, schools, local leagues) is what will sustainably grow a sport. It brings to mind the German Bundesliga model, where clubs have heavy fan membership influence (50+1 rule) and some of the best match atmospheres in sports – that league consistently has the highest average attendances in Europe. Why? Because fans feel it’s their club, tickets are affordable, and traditions are respected. It grows because each club is deeply embedded in its community.
Another example: the incredible story of Wrexham A.F.C. – a fifth-tier Welsh football club that actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney bought in 2021. They invested not just money but also a ton of effort into engaging the local community and telling the club’s story (through the documentary series “Welcome to Wrexham”). The result? Promotions, global fans, and a once obscure club now with a booming international following. Importantly, Reynolds and McElhenney emphasized sustaining the club’s community feel – they famously said they have a “no superstars” recruitment policy (Ogden, 2025), focusing instead on hungry players who fit the town’s ethos.
That approach endeared them to traditional fans and created new ones. Wrexham’s rise shows how combining authentic competition (they earned those promotions on the pitch) with local fan energy (the whole town got behind them, and new fans were attracted by the authenticity) can indeed grow a sport entity dramatically.
It’s insightful that “a once-in-a-generation superstar” got 40%. Not low by any means – fans acknowledge the power of superstars (as we discussed in the athlete section). But the fact that it’s below competition and fan energy implies that a superstar alone, without a strong competitive context or fanbase, might not fulfill their potential impact.
We could think of examples: LeBron James is a once-in-generation star, and when he joined the Los Angeles Lakers, it certainly boosted the NBA’s storylines. But the league’s growth also depends on whether the games are compelling and the fans are excited. In my personal opinion, it was the best for the league, when he played for the Cavs, his hometown team, HIS team and that is why his championship-run with the Cavs against Golden State, was THE moment of his career. One or two more titles with Cavs would’ve solidified his claim to the GOAT title.
“Better media storytelling” at ~29% is an interesting one. It’s actually a significant chunk, showing that fans do value how the sport is presented and narrated. Great storytelling can definitely grow interest – for example, the Netflix series “Drive to Survive” (for F1) or “Full Swing” (for golf) have been credited with bringing new fans by humanizing athletes and creating drama through narrative.
And within traditional media, shows like TNT’s Inside the NBA or the Champions League studio shows have passionate followings because they add insight, humor, and storylines that enhance the sports. Fans in our survey likely recognize that – but still rank it below the core product. It’s like saying: the story is easier to tell when the substance is there. When there’s authentic competition and fan passion, the media can amplify it through great storytelling. Without those, all the storytelling in the world feels hollow. One might nod to how beloved broadcasters or analysts (like Shaq/Chuck/Ernie on Inside the NBA) enrich the fan experience and indeed help growth by engaging viewers.
For me, Champions League studio with Kate Abdo, Thierry Henry, Micah Richards and Jamie Carragher definitely reignited my love for football, and after a very long time, I have started watching Champions League and even bought a pass for the playodds.
They succeed, however, because they respect the game’s integrity and the fans’ intelligence.
“More investment and sponsors” at only 22.9% further underscores that fans aren’t overly impressed by just throwing money at a sport (consistent with the money question above). And dead last, “influencers building hype” (14.3%) reinforces the skepticism we saw regarding influencers. Fans clearly think influencer hype is the least important factor in sustainable growth (hype might cause a flash in the pan, but not long-term health).
All this points to a kind of back-to-basics formula for sports growth: make sure the competition is real and exciting, cultivate real fan communities, and the rest will largely follow. Leagues often spend a lot of time chasing the next big revenue stream or global expansion or digital innovation. The survey suggests fans feel some of those efforts miss the mark. A pointed example: the NBA has experimented with things like international regular-season games, advanced stats broadcasts, even ideas like an midseason tournament (for a cash prize) – initiatives arguably driven by revenue or novelty.
Meanwhile, fans might prefer the league focus on competitive issues (like reducing tanking, preventing player rest on marquee nights, etc.). Or take FIFA expanding the World Cup to 48 teams – more games, more money, but some argue it could dilute quality. Fans generally champion quality over quantity.
In summary, the fans’ message here is something every sports commissioner and owner should heed: If you prioritize competitive integrity and fan engagement at the grassroots, growth will happen organically. Chase only money or hype, and you might get short-term gains but long-term disillusionment. It’s striking how aligned these top answers are in emphasizing authenticity – authentic competition and authentic fan support. That’s the magic combo for enduring popularity.
Competition Is the Ultimate Driver in the Most Popular Sports
Finally, when forced to pick a single ultimate driver of long-term sports growth, a plurality of fans (46.7%) chose competition. In a list that included stars, money, media, and fans, competition came out on top. The second choice was fans (31.4%), and everything else lagged far behind (stars only 8.6%, money 11.4%, media a mere 1%). This essentially cements what we’ve been hearing: fans believe that the sport itself – the quality and fairness of the competition – is the number one factor in sustained success. And closely following that, it’s the fans themselves (their passion and involvement) that keep the ecosystem alive.
It’s a reassuringly old-school conclusion. In an era of billion-dollar TV deals and celebrity athletes, the fundamental appeal of sports is still the game and the crowd. As an analogy: you can have the fanciest theater, the most famous actors, and huge ticket sales, but if the play is bad, eventually people stop coming. Competition is the play – the narrative that unfolds unpredictably on the field. Fans are effectively saying: that’s the heart of it all. If you get that right, the rest (including stars, money, etc.) will follow. If you get that wrong, no amount of glitz can cover it up.
Looking at some of the most popular sports properties in the world underscores this point. The English Premier League is wildly successful globally not just because it has rich clubs (it does) or famous players (sure), but because week in, week out it delivers high-tempo, compelling competition in packed stadiums. There’s a title race, a fight for European spots, a relegation battle – multiple competitive storylines. It’s interesting.
Likewise, the NFL has made “any given Sunday” parity a selling point; fans know that smart management and effort can turn a losing team into a contender within a few years, which keeps hope and interest high in every market. The NFL’s popularity in the U.S. dwarfs that of the more star-driven NBA in part because fans perceive the NFL as more purely competitive (every game matters, team success is paramount, and one superstar can’t dominate a whole game the way a basketball player can).
Competition also builds legacies. Think of the sports moments that resonate through time – they are competitive achievements: Ali-Frazier fights, Federer vs. Nadal epics, etc. Those moments grow the sport because they captivate even casual observers with the drama of competition.
Fans, of course, are the ones who carry those stories forward – telling their kids, forming communities, creating demand for more. It’s fitting fans ranked themselves second; a sport without fans isn’t really a sport, it’s just exercise. The passion of fans – their willingness to invest emotionally and financially – is what makes sports a thriving ecosystem rather than just a game. But why do fans invest? Because of the competition that enthralls them.
A great example combining these is the European football fandom culture. In countries like England, Germany, Italy, week after week fans pour into stadiums (or tune in religiously) because the competition in their leagues is meaningful to them. Even a mid-table clash can be life-or-death in context (a local derby, or a fight to avoid relegation).
The survey result of “media (1%)” as a long-term driver is telling. It implies that no matter how much technology or coverage improves, if the product on the field is dull or unfair, people won’t stick around. It’s almost a humbling reminder to media folks (like me!) that we are in a supporting role: we can amplify the greatness of a sport, but we can’t create it out of thin air.
One can also argue fans indirectly chose competition as top because it’s what produces the stars and stories they love. Most sports icons became icons by winning or by excelling in big competitive moments (Jordan’s rings, Pelé’s World Cups, Serena’s Grand Slams). Money can fuel training and exposure, and media can hype, but without competitive excellence those would ring hollow.
Interestingly, 31.4% chose fans. That suggests many fans recognize their own importance: things like supporter culture, attendance, word-of-mouth, community building – essentially, demand – drives growth. Look at something like the resurgence of Japanese baseball or the growth of UFC – largely fan-driven enthusiasm. Or even niche sports that broke into the mainstream (e.g., skateboarding (Tony Hawk, baby) in the 2000s) often did so because a passionate subculture of fans and participants grew it to critical mass. So one could say competition is the product, fans are the consumers, and when that dynamic is healthy and reciprocal, you get virtuous growth.
Bringing it back to concrete terms: The survey underscores that sports leagues and organizations should prioritize competitive integrity above all. That means fair rules, balanced schedules, anti-corruption measures, etc. – anything that ensures the players/teams determine the outcome through skill and effort. That’s what keeps fans coming.
EuroLeague basketball was mentioned earlier; it might not have NBA-level money, but it has extremely intense competition (every game matters in a shorter season) and incredible fans (flares, chants, sold-out arenas). As a result, it’s growing in audience and even attracting more American players and viewers than before.
Similarly, the Premier League overtook other richer leagues by being unpredictable in the 1990s and 2000s (Blackburn could win, Leicester could win in 2016 – miracles can happen, which keeps everyone watching).
To conclude, fans see competition as the engine and fans themselves as the fuel of the sports world. Everything else – stars, money, media – are like the car’s body, paint job, and chrome. They can make it look cool and go faster, but without the engine and fuel, you’re not going anywhere. It’s a poetic result that in the end, the game and the crowd – the oldest elements of sports – are still paramount.
Cases Analysis
To illustrate these findings in practice, let’s examine a few real-world cases. Each case highlights a different aspect of what drives (or doesn’t drive) sports popularity, echoing the themes from the survey. We’ll see how theory meets reality:
- Case 1: The NBA’s All-Star Game and Regular Season – Flash vs. Competition.
- Case 2: Lionel Messi’s Impact on MLS – The Superstar Effect.
- Case 3: The European Super League Fiasco – Money vs. Fans.
These cases were picked because they each spotlight a key dynamic discussed above: balancing entertainment with intensity, the power of an individual star, the limits of cash without culture, and the draw of a genuine rivalry. Let’s dive in.
Case 1: The NBA Decline in All-Star & Regular Season – Flash vs. Competition
Why this case: The NBA provides a cautionary tale of what happens when a league leans too far into star-driven entertainment at the expense of competitive intensity. It highlights fans’ appetite for real competition over exhibition fluff.
What happened: In recent years, the NBA All-Star Game – traditionally a showcase of star talent – descended into a defense-less dunk fest, essentially a glorified pickup game. The lack of competitiveness led to record-low TV ratings. The 2023 All-Star Game drew only about 4.6 million viewers, the least-watched in history (Salao, 2025). Even a format change in 2024 (a “tournament-style” mini-game setup) failed to win back fans, with the All-Star Game averaging 4.7 million (second-lowest ever).
Fans loudly criticized the game’s effort level; players themselves weren’t thrilled either, with Draymond Green rated the new format “0 out of 10” (Salao, 2025). In short, the All-Star spectacle had plenty of star power and highlights, but almost zero grit – and fans tuned out in droves, reinforcing the survey’s point that without real competition, interest wanes.
I remember waking up at 3 AM, 11 years old, to watch the last ASG with Michael Jordan—and to this day I love the fact that Kobe wasn’t going to let MJ win it with his final shot in overtime. Back then, the ASG was more than just a show. It was a real East vs. West battle, with players taking pride in proving their conference was better.
Now in the NBA only playoffs matter. Regular season faces “load management”, tanking and perceived player apathy at times. Marquee players often sit out games for rest, and some teams appear to coast through stretches, saving energy for the playoffs. This has had a tangible impact: both TV ratings and in-person attendance dips have been noted on nights where stars rest or effort is low.
The NBA introduced a new In-Season Tournament in 2023–24 to inject competitive meaning into early-season games, essentially acknowledging that they needed to amp up the intensity to keep fans engaged. It’s too early to tell if that will succeed, but the league also implemented rules limiting star rest (teams can be fined if they sit multiple stars in certain games) – a direct response to fans complaining that they’re paying to see competition, not a casual shootaround among bench players.
Lessons: The NBA’s struggles here validate the survey’s implications. Packing an event with superstars doesn’t guarantee fan satisfaction if the competitive element is missing. Fans would rather watch a hard-fought game between unknowns than a listless game between All-Stars. This case underscores why 77% of fans said intense competition makes them follow more closely, whereas only 20% cited highlights/media.
The NBA is learning the hard way that it must make even its star showcases feel competitive (there’s talk of bringing back an East-vs-West format or adding cash incentives for the winning All-Star team to boost effort). Likewise, for the regular season, promoting team rivalries and urgency seems key. The league has started scheduling rivals more often and hyping historic matchups (like Celtics-Lakers) to tap into that energy.
As the survey predicted, focusing on competitive quality is the route to win back fans. The All-Star Game might never be a defensive slugfest – it is an exhibition after all – but even a modicum of competitiveness (as seen in 2020’s thrilling Elam-ending All-Star finish) draws praise. The NBA case shows that you can’t just trot out stars and assume fans will care; you need stakes, pride, and effort on display. When the NBA struck that balance in the 1980s and 90s (with stars andfierce rivalries like Lakers-Celtics, Bulls-Pistons), it soared in popularity.
It’s no coincidence that recent NBA Finals that featured compelling competition (e.g., the 2016 Cavs-Warriors 7-game epic) had much higher viewership than ones that were one-sided or loaded with stars but low drama. In essence, competition is the product – and even the brightest stars need a competitive canvas to shine on. The NBA is tweaking its approach now in recognition that pure star power hype has limits. This aligns perfectly with our survey fans’ wisdom.
Case 2: Lionel Messi and the “Messi Effect” in MLS
Why this case: Messi’s transfer to Inter Miami in 2023 offers a real-world example of a single superstar moving the needle – showcasing both the tremendous short-term impact of star power and the importance of leveraging that into sustainable fan engagement (competition and culture).
What happened: Lionel Messi, arguably the world’s most famous footballer, joined Major League Soccer’s Inter Miami in mid-2023 after two decades in Europe. The immediate effects were staggering. Ticket demand exploded – games that normally might draw 15,000 were suddenly selling out NFL-sized stadiums. Ticket prices for Messi’s first away match reportedly surged by over 1,000% on resale markets.
Inter Miami’s social media following jumped from around 1 million to over 7 million on Instagram within weeks, surpassing the NFL’s most-followed teams. MLS Season Pass on Apple TV+ saw a huge spike in subscriptions around Messi’s debut (one report noted a jump from ~6,000 to 110,000 daily sign-ups when Messi played his first game). Jersey sales, sponsorship inquiries – every commercial metric went through the roof. Media around the world that never discussed MLS were suddenly covering his every move. This phenomenon was quickly dubbed the “Messi Effect.”
Crucially, Messi delivered on the field too: he led Inter Miami on a fairytale run to win the Leagues Cup (a North America tournament), scoring dazzling goals. In terms of our survey, Messi showed how a once-in-a-generation superstar (40% picked this) can galvanize a sport. He brought global attention to a league that previously had mostly regional appeal. Many observers compared it to David Beckham’s MLS arrival in 2007, but Messi’s impact was even bigger; as one sports finance expert said, “it’s possible that Messi will have a greater influence on soccer in the US than any name that went before him”.
However, will this growth last? Fans in our survey might say: it depends on competition and fan culture. Interestingly, Messi’s presence also elevated the competitive perception of MLS – suddenly MLS teams were testing themselves against a GOAT, and they rose to the challenge (some games were thrillers). Local fan energy surged: cities hosting Messi matches had festival-like atmospheres, with even non-soccer fans turning out. Inter Miami’s previously modest crowd of locals transformed into a vibrant, multicultural fan scene, blending South Florida soccer diehards with new fans drawn by Messi’s star aura.
The challenge ahead is turning the Messi spike into sustained interest. As Kieran Maguire, a sports finance lecturer, pointed out, there’d likely be an initial “sharp spike and then things will return to some form of normality” (Soaring Ticket Prices and a Social Media Boom, the Messi Effect on US Soccer, 2023c), especially if Messi eventually retires or if the team doesn’t keep winning. MLS is trying to capture new fans’ loyalty by improving the product overall – bringing in other stars, improving quality of play, expanding local fan engagement.
Here’s where Messi’s impact intersects with the survey’s top factors: if MLS can use the Messi spotlight to highlight its competition (e.g. intense playoff games, heated rivalries like Seattle-Portland) and its community aspects (MLS fan cultures in places like Seattle, Atlanta, etc., are actually very strong), then the boost can be lasting. If they rely solely on Messi’s presence, interest may fade when he’s gone.
So far, signs are positive: attendance league-wide got a bump, and even non-Miami MLS games saw viewership boosts as Messi drew newcomers into the MLS ecosystem. Inter Miami’s valuation reportedly doubled with Messi’s arrival, reflecting expectations of sustained revenue. The league also smartly integrated Messi content into their media – every game available globally on stream, lots of storytelling around him and the cities he visits. This is where “better media storytelling” (28.6%) plays a role: MLS and media partners are crafting narratives around Messi – the World Cup hero now transforming American soccer – which in turn draw in casual fans to follow the journey.
Lessons: Messi’s case validates that star power can massively accelerate growth, but also underscores the need for competitive and fan infrastructure to capture the gains. If Messi had come and underperformed or seemed disinterested, the effect would have fizzled. Instead, he treated even relatively small MLS matches like World Cup games, playing with passion – which lent authenticity to the whole affair and won skeptics over. Fans are savvy; they can tell when a star is just cashing a check versus elevating the competition. Messi elevated it.
For long-term growth, Messi’s impact will need to be anchored by the league improving (so that after the Messi novelty, fans stick around for the rising quality) and by clubs investing in fan relations. One could cite how Caitlin Clark did something similar for women’s college basketball – drew in people with her stardom, but it’s now on the sport’s organizers to capitalize by showcasing the compelling rivalries and stories in the women’s game to keep those fans engaged beyond Clark.
In summary, the “Messi Effect” case shows one person can ignite unprecedented interest (aligning with the ~71% who agreed one athlete can shift popularity). But it also implicitly supports the idea that for that popularity to persist, it has to transition into love for the sport itself – its competition and culture. If that happens, then Messi’s true legacy will be not just short-term ticket sales, but thousands of new lifelong soccer fans in America. And that is ultimately grown not just by Messi’s name, but by the exciting matches and fan experiences they witness as a result of his presence.
Case 3: The European Super League Fiasco – Money vs. Fans & Competition
Why this case: The attempted European Super League (ESL) in 2021 epitomizes what happens when sports decision-makers prioritize money over the competitive structure and fan sentiment. It’s a perfect real-world test of our survey’s message that money doesn’t necessarily improve sports – and that fans and fair competition are paramount.
What happened: In April 2021, 12 of Europe’s richest football clubs (including Real Madrid, Manchester United, Juventus, etc.) announced a breakaway “Super League” that would be mostly closed to others. It was framed by owners as a way to get more big games (and frankly, more revenue) for top clubs. But it was met with immediate, overwhelming backlash – from fans, players, coaches, media, even governments. The critics argued it was a cash grab that would destroy the principles of open competition and sporting merit (since the founding clubs couldn’t be relegated from the ESL, it broke the “you have to earn it on the pitch” ethos).
Protests erupted in England, Italy, and Spain. Banners read “Football is for the fans” and “Created by the poor, stolen by the rich.” Within 48 hours, club after club pulled out due to the pressure, and the ESL collapsed spectacularly. As we cited earlier, one pundit said the Super League idea will be remembered as “a byword for overweening greed and misadventure” (Hill, 2022). The owners had utterly “misjudged the mood of supporters” – as JPMorgan, the bank financing the deal, later admitted (Cooban, 2021).
In effect, fans revolted en masse to protect authentic competition. They cherished the Champions League and domestic leagues, where even smaller clubs have a shot through performance, more than a closed shop of elites even if the latter promised “bigger” fixtures. Pep Guardiola’s quote captures the competitive argument: a competition with no risk of losing is not sport (Hill, 2021). Fans agreed – they saw ESL as eliminating the risk/reward that makes sports exciting (no relegation for ESL clubs, no Cinderella stories of a small club making the Champions League, etc.). This was a direct conflict between money and competition, and competition (backed by fans) won decisively.
The Super League debacle also underscored how vital fan-driven energy is. Those clubs thought their global fanbases would outweigh local anger. They were wrong. The sight of thousands of supporters rallying outside stadiums (in the middle of a pandemic, no less) and the torrent of online condemnation made it clear: without fan buy-in, even the richest league is dead on arrival. It was really the fans who killed the ESL – their outrage scared broadcasters, politicians, and ultimately the owners themselves into walking away. In our survey, 57.1% said “local fan-driven energy” is key to growing a sport; this was the flip side – local fan-driven fury was key to stopping a move that they felt would hurt the sport.
Lessons: The ESL fiasco validates the survey’s ranking of money and hype as lower priorities. The owners hyped the ESL as “exciting and drama never before seen” (their press release language), but fans didn’t buy it because it rang hollow – manufactured drama for profit, not earned on the pitch. Post-ESL, some positive reforms happened: clubs and leagues have been talking more about consulting fans.
UEFA (European football’s governing body) even added a “fans’ voice” panel and made slight Champions League format tweaks to address some club concerns without resorting to a closed league. The ESL collapse arguably grew football in a different way – it reminded everyone that the soul of the sport is precious and not for sale, which galvanized support for existing competitions. The Champions League semifinals that very week enjoyed a celebratory atmosphere, as if fans were saying, “We saved this.”
This case also indicates that while investment is necessary for sports to thrive, it must be aligned with competitive integrity. Fans don’t mind rich owners per se – many will welcome investment that helps their team – but not at the expense of the broader ecosystem’s health. The fact that 57.1% of our respondents chose “authentic competition” as the best growth driver over “more investment and sponsors” (22.9%) is exactly mirrored in the ESL saga.
The ESL promised more money (reports of a €3.5 billion pot for clubs) and even tried to spin some trickle-down to smaller clubs, but fans (and many neutrals) didn’t care; they preferred the existing meritocratic structure that allows a Leicester City or Atalanta to earn their way into elite competitions. Indeed, after ESL, Leicester’s FA Cup win a few weeks later and Villarreal’s Europa League triumph were celebrated extra fiercely – underdogs seizing glory, the anti-ESL narrative.
In short, Case 3 demonstrates that fans and competition are the bedrock, and if you trample them in pursuit of money, the sport will suffer. Growth must be balanced and inclusive of the fan voice. Those ESL owners learned that no matter how popular they think their brands are, a move that alienates the core fan base and guts the competitive legitimacy will unify virtually everyone against them.
Few things in sports have seen rival fan groups unite like that – it was unprecedented. But it showed that in the end, the fans collectively hold power (something our survey would applaud) and that sports are not just business ventures; they’re cultural institutions with traditions and competitive values that people deeply care about.
Summary: What Drives the Most Popular Sports? 500+ Fans Say It’s Not the Sports Stars
Summarizing across all these sections and cases, a coherent picture emerges about what drives the most popular sports. Fans believe the true engine of sports popularity is the quality of competition and the passion of fan communities. Star players, money, media, and hype can all enhance or support that engine, but they are not substitutes for it. In fact, overreliance on star-centric marketing or cash-driven schemes can backfire if they neglect the fundamentals that fans cherish: fairness, uncertainty, rivalry, effort, and a sense of belonging.
Our survey of 581 fans is a reality check for leagues and marketers. When 69% say team strength matters more than star power, it warns against building a league’s identity solely around a few celebrities at the expense of competitive balance. When 85% say more money doesn’t equal better sport, it’s a call to ensure money is used to bolster the sport (infrastructure, youth development, etc.) rather than just line pockets or concentrate power.
The fact that only 8.6% chose stars as the top long-term growth driver, versus 46.7% for competition, is perhaps the most striking result of all – debunking any notion that fans will watch anything as long as a superstar is present. They won’t. They need meaningful stakes and genuine effort on display.
That said, fans do acknowledge the role of star athletes and storytelling as catalysts. Cases like Messi in MLS or Clark in the NCAA show that a superstar can ignite massive interest – but that spark has to catch on real kindling (i.e., authentic games and receptive fans) to sustain a fire. Influencers and highlights may pepper the experience with fun and accessibility, but if they start to “shape sports too much” (as 65% agreed), fans grow wary, sensing that the tail might be wagging the dog.
From a strategic standpoint, the recipe for growing a sport – according to fans – isn’t flashy gimmicks or endless promotion of individuals. It’s investing in the game itself and in the supporter experience. Make the games competitive (through rules or formats that prevent dynasties or tanking). Celebrate rivalries and underdog stories. Involve fans in the process (through transparency, maybe even governance like some soccer clubs do). Use media to tell the deeper stories, not just surface highlights. And when you do get that generational superstar, integrate them into the fabric of the league’s story rather than making everything revolve around them.
In a way, these insights bring sports back to its roots: a community gathered to watch a contest of skill with uncertain outcome. Whether it’s 50 people at a local park or 50 million watching a World Cup final, that core thrill is the same. Leagues that honor that essence tend to thrive. Those that stray too far – by becoming overly corporate, scripted, or player-centric – risk losing the plot (and the fans).
Thus, the verdict from our 500+ fan jury is clear. What drives the most popular sports is not the glitz or the stars alone – it’s the competitive drama and the devoted fans who amplify it. Star athletes are part of that drama, money can enhance it, media can narrate it, but the drama is the key. The multi-billion dollar sports industry ultimately still runs on the primal excitement of play – the suspense, the rivalry, the victory and defeat – and on the tribal unity of fandom. As one might say: take care of the competition and the fans, and the rest will take care of itself.
CITATION
Bakanauskas, P. (2025, September 16). What Drives the Most Popular Sports? 500+ Fans Say It’s Not the Sports Stars. https://playofvalues.com/what-drives-most-popular-sports/
IN-TEXT CITATION: (Bakanauskas, 2025)
Questions related to Most Popular Sports
What are the top 10 Most Popular Sports?
Most popular sports lists usually include soccer, cricket, basketball, field hockey, tennis, volleyball, table tennis, baseball, badminton, and American football. Rankings vary by how you measure (fans, TV, participation, revenue).
What are the big 5 sports in the US?
Most popular sports in the US are led by the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL—with MLS rapidly becoming the fifth.
What are the big 4 sports in the world?
Globally, the most popular sports “big four” are commonly soccer, cricket, basketball, and field hockey by total followers.
Is NBA or NFL more popular?
In the US, the NFL is more popular; globally, the NBA travels better and reaches more non-US fans among the most popular sports.
Which is world no. 1 sports?
Association football (soccer) is the world’s no. 1 among the most popular sports.
What is the oldest sport?
Wrestling is widely cited as the oldest organized contest among the most popular sports.
What are the five oldest Olympic sports?
In the ancient Games: the stadion race (running), wrestling, boxing, pankration, and the pentathlon—foundational to the most popular sports tradition.
How Most Popular Sports are decided?
Most popular sports are ranked by a mix of global followers, TV/streaming audiences, participation, social media reach, search interest, and revenue.
Who makes more money, NBA or NFL?
The NFL generates more total league revenue than the NBA among the most popular sports.
What’s bigger, soccer or NFL?
Soccer is far bigger globally; the NFL dominates only in the US among the most popular sports.
What’s more popular, Premier League or NFL?
Worldwide, the Premier League draws broader interest; in the US, the NFL leads the most popular sports conversation.
Is basketball among the Most Popular Sports in the world?
Yes—basketball typically ranks top 3–4 globally among the most popular sports.
What is “best of 5” in sports?
“Best of five” means the first team or athlete to win three games/matches takes the series—common across the most popular sports.
What is the most famous number in sport?
Globally #10 is iconic in soccer; in basketball, #23 is legendary—both central to the culture of the most popular sports.
Why are sports popular?
Because stakes, rivalries, and community rituals create habit and meaning—core drivers across the most popular sports.
Do fans think star power beats team strength?
No—among 581 fans, 68.6% disagreed that star power is more important than team strength in the most popular sports.
Can one athlete shift an entire league’s popularity?
Short term, yes: 71.4% agreed a single icon can move the needle; long term, fans say structure matters more in the most popular sports.
Are influencers shaping most popular sports too much?
Yes—65.8% agreed influencers/content creators are starting to shape sports too much.
Does more money make the most popular sports better?
Not necessarily—85.7% agreed that more money doesn’t automatically improve sport quality.
What makes fans follow a league more closely?
Gritty, intense competition (77.1%) and cultural/community feel (48.6%) outranked sports stars (37.1%) in the most popular sports.
What grows a sport best?
Fans chose more authentic competition (57.1%) and local fan-driven energy (57.1%) over a once-in-a-generation superstar (40%) to grow the most popular sports.
What drives long-term growth in the most popular sports?
Fans picked competition (46.7%) and fans/community (31.4%) over sports stars (8.6%), money (11.4%), or media (1.0%).
List of references
- Andrews, D. L. (1996). Jordanscapes: A preliminary analysis of the global popularity of Michael Jordan. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(4), 428–457.
- ‘Behind the Blue’: The psychology behind sports rivalries, why we love to loathe the other team | UK Research. (2024, December 13). UK Research | University of Kentucky. Link.
- Cooban, A. (2021, April 23). JP Morgan says it regrets backing the failed European Super League with $4 billion of financing: “We clearly misjudged.” Business Insider. Link.
- David, J. P. (2022, November 8). “It was great to have a great white player playing for the Celtics” – Rob Parker outlines how Larry Bird and Magic Johnson saved the NBA in the 1980s. Sportskeeda. Link.
- Gooding, C., & Stephenson, E. F. (2016). Superstars, uncertainty of outcome, and PGA Tour television ratings. Journal of Sports Economics, 18(8), 867–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002516637649
- Hauser, T. (2025, June 17). From Tyson to TikTok: the boxing fan generational gap is widening. The Guardian. Link.
- Helin, K. (2025, September 12). Adam Silver gets heat for saying NBA “a highlights-based sport” fans can see on Instagram, TikTok – NBC Sports. NBC Sports. Link.
- Hill, T. (2022, October 19). Leicester City and the greatest underdog story ever told: a primer for Americans. The Guardian. Link.
- LaFeber, W. (1999). Michael Jordan and the new global capitalism. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Levine, M. (2024, November 23). NBA Ratings Continue to Drop, Former Players and Fans Give Eye-Opening Reasons Why. Sports Illustrated. Link.
- Lewis, T. (2022, October 19). The week English football fans bit back against the billionaire owners. The Guardian. Link.
- Lynch, B. M. (2021, March 21). Research: Fans prefer teams that built success over time more than teams that bought wins with purchased superstars. KU News. Link.
- Martinez, N. (2025, September 10). NBA Fans Blast Adam Silver After He Calls NBA “Highlight Sport.” Fadeaway World. Link.
- McCarthy, M. (2024, April 5). ‘ABSURD’ Caitlin Clark draws absurd TV numbers for Iowa-LSU. Front Office Sports. Link.
- Moore, C. (2024, August 20). Ligue 1 needs parity to boost global broadcasting interest. World Soccer Talk. Link.
- Ogden, M. (2025, April 26). Wrexham promotion is a miracle. The next will be even harder – ESPN. ESPN.com. Link.
- Potter, J., & Wethington, W. (2024). The economics of an aging superstar’s popularity: The case of Tiger Woods. American Behavioral Scientist.
- Salao, C. (2025, February 19). NBA All-Star Game ratings: Second-Least-Watched ever, down 13%. Front Office Sports. Link.
- Shapiro, S. L., DeSchriver, T. D., & Rascher, D. A. (2019). The Beckham effect: Examining the longitudinal impact of a star performer on league marketing, novelty, and scarcity. SSRN. Link.
- Soaring ticket prices and a social media boom, the Messi effect on US Soccer. (2023b, June 14). CBS News. Link.
- Toonkel, J. (2023, September 5). Messi Drives Jump in Apple TV+ and MLS Subscriptions. The Wallstreet Journal. Link.
[…] What Drives the Most Popular Sports in the World? 500+ Fans Say It’s Not the Sports Stars Flash Over Stats? Fan Survey Says Marketable Athletes Now Matter More Than Winning […]