European Sport Management Quarterly
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan
Dwyer]
On: 08 April 2013, At: 13:23
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Sport Management Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resm20
Examining the impact of league
entry fees on online fantasy sport
participation and league consumption
a b c
Joris Drayer , Brendan Dwyer & Stephen L. Shapiro
a
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple
University, 367 Speakman Hall, 1810 N. 13th Street, Philadelphia,
19122, USA
b
Center for Sport Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, USA
c
Old Dominion University, Human Movement Sciences, Student
Recreation Center, Norfolk, 23529, USA
Version of record first published: 04 Apr 2013.
To cite this article: Joris Drayer , Brendan Dwyer & Stephen L. Shapiro (2013): Examining the
impact of league entry fees on online fantasy sport participation and league consumption,
European Sport Management Quarterly, DOI:10.1080/16184742.2013.783605
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.783605
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.European Sport Management Quarterly, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.783605
Examining the impact of league entry fees on online fantasy
sport participation and league consumption
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Joris Drayera*, Brendan Dwyerb and Stephen L. Shapiroc
a
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, 367 Speakman Hall, 1810
N. 13th Street, Philadelphia, 19122 USA; bCenter for Sport Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond, USA; cOld Dominion University, Human Movement Sciences, Student
Recreation Center, Norfolk, 23529 USA
(Received 15 August 2011; accepted 14 January 2013)
After American legislators explicitly exempted fantasy sports from online
gambling laws, legal theorists have debated whether or not playing fantasy sports
for money warranted such an exemption. However, there is currently no survey-
based research which has examined the relationship between gambling and
the attitudes and behaviours of fantasy players. The current study surveyed
253 fantasy participants and separated respondents into groups based on whether
or not they play fantasy baseball for money. Results indicate that those who
play for money are increasingly motivated by the social benefits associated with
participation and are not motivated by the opportunity to win money. This
finding runs counter to research on traditional forms of gambling, which often
reports strong anti-social tendencies associated with increased gambling along
with a strong motivation for financial gain. Further, from the league and team
perspective, those who play fantasy baseball for money actually exhibited higher
levels of team-related consumption.
Keywords: fantasy sports; gambling; consumer behavior; internet gambling
Introduction
In 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed,
making many online games illegal in the United States. However, while sports betting
and online poker games were included in this legislation, fantasy sports were
specifically given an exemption which has sparked significant debate within the
gambling literature (Boswell, 2008; Cabot & Csoka, 2007; Holleman, 2006; Leonard,
2009). This exemption is significant given the rapid and precipitous growth of
fantasy sports in recent years and the increasing presence of gambling pools, where
prizes are given to top performers in a given fantasy league. These pool payments are
more commonly known as league entry fees (LEF). According to the Fantasy Sports
Trade Association (FSTA, 2011), fantasy sports has grown into a multi-billion dollar
industry and is played by more than 32 million people within the United States and
Canada alone, with 91% of those participating in fantasy football (American
football, hereafter: football) and 56% of those participating in fantasy baseball.
Further, in 2008, the FSTA reported that 84.6% of fantasy football participants
*Corresponding author. Email: jdrayer@temple.edu
# 2013 European Association for Sport Management2 J. Drayer et al.
allocated LEFs averaging $1731 in their most preferred league. For baseball, 73% of
participants paid LEFs with an average LEF of $163. Internationally, fantasy sports
are increasing in popularity in other countries such as New Zealand and Australia
where 19% of Australian Rules Football (AFL) fans participate in some form of the
activity (Deakin Research, 2011). Further, 22% of British survey respondents
indicated they played fantasy sports with fantasy soccer being the most popular
activity with an estimated 5.57.5 million participants (Fisher, 2009).
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
While many authors have debated the legal issues surrounding fantasy sports,
there are currently no consumer-focused investigations into the impact of playing
fantasy sports for money. Previous examinations of fantasy sports consumers have
focused on various attitudes and behaviours associated with the activity (Drayer,
Shapiro, Dwyer, Morse, & White, 2010; Dwyer, 2011; Dwyer & Drayer, 2010).
However, despite the fact that gambling is cited as a possible motivation for fantasy
football participation (Dwyer & Kim, 2011), these studies have not emphasized the
influence of fee-based participation and potential financial gain for participants on
attitudes and consumption behaviour.
Understanding these similarities and/or differences based on financial gain
through fantasy participation may help researchers, lawyers, and politicians better
understand the role that money has within the activity. Additionally, while state and
federal governments continue to debate the merits of fantasy sports, sport marketers
must understand how the activity influences sport fans as the popularity of fantasy
sports continues to grow. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine
how attitudes and behaviours differ based on whether or not participants play in
fantasy leagues that require a LEF. The results will provide sport marketers with a
better understanding of the role LEFs play in fantasy participation while informing
the debate on whether or not fantasy sports should be considered an illegal form of
online gambling.
Review of literature
Background of fantasy sports
While it began as a hobby for statistically-inclined sport fans, the popularity of
fantasy sports grew exponentially in the late 1990s due to technological advances and
increased Internet usage. The Internet has made it easier to compute statistics,
communicate with league members, and conduct necessary player research. By
premise, fantasy sport allows participants to act as general managers or owners of
their own sport team. Typically, participants compete weekly or yearly against other
fantasy team owners in a league-style format. Despite the inclusion of the term
‘fantasy’, the game is associated with real-world professional sport and fantasy
results rely solely on the statistical output of players on the field. Fantasy sport
leagues are typically made up of friends, family members, and co-workers, but they
may also consist of unaffiliated groups of players formed via web-based fantasy
sports providers such as Yahoo! or ESPN (FSTA, 2008).
While the current trend among providers is to offer the game for free, many
fantasy sport participants pay a service fee, and the price can vary depending on the
fantasy league provider. Fantasy sport providers charge between $14.95 and $500.00
to participate in fantasy leagues (Pells, 2006), and rewards to the winner range from aEuropean Sport Management Quarterly 3
trophy to the World Championship of Fantasy Football’s $300,000.00 grand prize.
For most fantasy participants, however, the majority of money is exchanged among
prize pools created and managed by fantasy players. To do this, each player agrees to
pay a LEF before the season and the pool is then divided among the top finishers at
the end of the season. The rules governing LEFs and the subsequent payout(s) are
determined among the league participants. The fantasy provider has no influence
over this process although several sites, such as CBSSports.com, include a page where
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
league members can track information related to LEFs and league finances.
Fantasy sports and the law
Gambling remains a highly regulated or illegal activity in most of the United States
largely because of the ‘social ills it creates’ and its ‘anti-social effects’ (Holleman,
2006, p. 74). For example, Pietrzak and Petry (2005) determined that over 16% of
pathological gamblers were diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder which was
associated with higher divorce rates, lower education, drug addiction, and other
anxiety disorders. Further, Grinols and Mustard (2006) concluded that 8% of crime
was attributable to casinos (in counties with legalized gambling) which cost the
average adult $75 annually. While the evidence seems conclusive on the potential
negative effects of legalized gambling, the definition of which activities are
considered gambling remains murky, at best. The categorization of an activity as a
game of luck or a game of skill is often the critical distinction (Chantal & Vallerand,
1996; Holleman, 2006). For many traditional casino games and lotteries, this
distinction is relatively straightforward; however, for several activities, such as poker,
sports gambling, and fantasy sports, this distinction is much less clear.
The discussion around fantasy sports and whether or not it should be considered
gambling grew as United States’ Congress debated UIGEA. Around the same time,
Charles E. Humphrey unsuccessfully filed a complaint in New Jersey that argued
pay-to-play fantasy sports leagues should be considered a form of illegal Internet
gambling (Holleman, 2006). The critical point in this debate is whether or not
fantasy sports are considered games of luck or skill. Holleman stated ‘the only games
that fall under the gambling statutes are those classified as games of chance rather
than games of skill’ (p. 68). Those who consider fantasy sport to be a gambling
activity contend that it is a game of chance where, similar to online poker (which was
included in UIGEA), players pay money into a pot which is split among the winning
players and the outcome is determined primarily by chance (i.e., unpredictable player
performance) (Davidson, 2002). Bernhard and Eade (2005) stated: ‘If we broadly
define gambling as an activity that risks something of value (substantial amounts of
money) on an event whose outcome is undetermined (such as the whims of a
professional baseball season), fantasy baseball clearly qualifies’ (p. 29). Davidson
further argued that fantasy sports providers should be prosecuted according to the
Travel Act, which states that merely promoting or facilitating this illegal gambling
makes them subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
On the other hand, those who believe fantasy sports should not be considered a
form of gambling argue that the elements of skill (including the selection of players
and setting daily or weekly line-ups) are more influential to the outcome than the
chance components (Boswell, 2008; Holleman, 2006). Holleman argued that fantasy
sports involves both chance and skill components, but ‘through research, intelligence,4 J. Drayer et al.
and skill, the participants can control the outcome of the contests’ (p. 79). Thus, the
issue of whether it is a game of skill or luck is dependent upon the controllability of
outcomes. Congress ultimately passed UIGEA and included a specific exemption for
fantasy sports which stated that fantasy sports would remain legal provided that the
‘winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants’ (as
cited in Holleman, 2006, p. 77). In other words, Congress considered fantasy sports to
be a game of skill in which the players control the outcomes.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Fantasy sports’ impact on attitudes and behaviours
For sport marketers, understanding how participation in fantasy sports influences
fans’ attitudes and behaviours is becoming critically important. In addition to the
growth of fantasy sports revenue and participation reported by the FSTA (2008),
Dwyer and Drayer (2010) found that fantasy players represent an extremely valuable
segment of the sport marketplace. Further, Fisher (2008) reported that fantasy
players have an annual household income of approximately $94,000 and are much
stronger consumers of many of the leading product categories compared to non-
players. Given the demographic profile of fantasy participants, it seems this group
may not be a part of the ‘vulnerable segment of society that the anti-gambling laws
have sought to protect’ according to Holleman (2006, p. 76) referring specifically to
the ‘economically disadvantaged’ (p.75). However, the presence of LEFs may still
affect the attitudes and behaviours of fantasy players.
Although there is currently no research which has examined the effect of LEFs on
fantasy players’ attitudes and perceptions, there have been several studies which have
examined how participating in fantasy sports is changing the traditional sports fan.
Drayer et al. (2010) suggested that participation in fantasy sports altered fans’
attitudes towards the sport which resulted in increased levels of consumption,
particularly mediated consumption. Specifically, the authors found that an increased
attraction to individual players along with an emphasis on team and player outcomes
resulted in increased levels of consumption. These qualitative findings were largely
supported through a large quantitative study conducted by Karg and McDonald
(2011) in Australia. These authors found that AFL fantasy sport players scored
higher on virtually all attitudinal measures (points of attachment, team identifica-
tion, and loyalty) as well as behavioural measures (game attendance, television
viewing, secondary spending) than non-fantasy players.
Other studies have examined the impact of fantasy sport participation on
consumption with largely similar results. For example, Comeau (2007) and
Woodward (2005) suggested that fantasy sport participation could result in an
increased reliance on mediated sport. This suggestion is critical as media dominant
fans are ‘more likely to purchase team-related merchandise, view media advertising
and promotions, and are equally involved with the sport’ (Pritchard & Funk, 2006,
p. 316). Using a survey-based approach, Nesbit and King (2010a, 2010b) found that
not only did fantasy sport participation result in higher levels of media consumption
but it also increased fan attendance. Dwyer and Drayer (2010) found that even
among fantasy players, there were different levels of consumption based on varying
levels of interest in an individual’s favourite team or fantasy team.
Several studies have examined motives for playing fantasy sports. Farquhar and
Meeds (2007) sought to identify a fantasy sport typology of participants andEuropean Sport Management Quarterly 5
identified a set of common underlying motivational dimensions for participation.
Employing a Q-Methodology, the study uncovered the following five primary
motives for fantasy sport participation: surveillance, arousal, entertainment, escape,
and social interaction. According to the authors, the perceived gratifications of
arousal and surveillance led to the most substantial differences between fantasy sport
users. Specifically, the difference boiled down to the element of chance in fantasy
sports. Those driven by arousal saw fantasy sports as games of chance while those
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
driven by surveillance believed fantasy sports were games of skill. Moreover,
Farquhar and Meeds (2007) found that highly-involved participants believed they
‘get more out of fantasy sports when they put in more time and money’ (p. 1217).
Spinda and Haridakis (2008) also sought to explore the motives of fantasy
participants, and discovered the following motivational dimensions: ownership,
achievement/self-esteem, escape/pass time, socialization, bragging rights, and amuse-
ment. In all, the authors suggested the activity of fantasy sports is ‘a purposive,
instrumental, and active media-use endeavour’ (p. 196). Lastly, Dwyer and Kim
(2011) developed a three-dimensional Motivational Scale for Fantasy Football
Participation (MSFFP). The scale was developed following Churchill’s (1979) five-
step method for developing quality marketing measures. The study utilized a multi-
sample method and was grounded in Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch’s (1973) Uses and
Gratifications (U&G) theory which assumes individuals are actively involved in their
media selection and usage to fulfil unique needs and wants. A number of studies have
utilized the U&G perspective to investigate audience motivation and decision making
with regard to certain types of media (Elliott & Rosenberg, 1987). The primary
objectives of the audience-centred approach are to explain the social and psycholo-
gical needs that motivate individuals to use media, and to uncover the origins of the
needs leading to different patterns of media consumption for gratification (Katz et al.,
1973; Rubin, 1994). The U&G paradigm is audience-centred, and given the
interactive components of fantasy sport participation, it provided a sound theoretical
approach for examining the participants’ psychological processes within the domain
of fantasy football (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Ruggiero, 2000).
Dwyer and Kim’s (2011) final instrument included the motives of social
interaction, entertainment/escape, and competition. However, the researchers were
the first to explore a gambling motive, and while it was found to be a noteworthy
motive for some participants with high eigenvalues and factor scores that were
deemed reliable and valid (convergent and discriminant), it resulted in poor
predictive validity factor scores with respect to consumption, participation level,
and competitiveness. That is, those with high scores on the gambling scale also had
lower levels of fantasy sport related consumption, owned less teams, spent less time
participating, and considered themselves less competitive. Clearly, a gambling motive
did exist for the samples surveyed; however, the factor was dropped from the final
motivational scale. In all, the authors recommended further inquiry surrounding the
relationship between gambling and fantasy participation, and suggested usage of the
factor in studies looking to classify and/or segment fantasy participants.
Taken together, the emergence of a few specific motives are of particular note
given the debate surrounding fantasy sports participation and gambling. First,
despite the large body of research condemning gambling for its social costs (Collins
& Lapsley, 2003), fantasy sports participation appears to provide camaraderie, group
affiliation, and social status similar to other forms of gambling without the conflicts6 J. Drayer et al.
with greater society generated by gambling institutions (Ocean & Smith, 1993). That
is, socialization, social interaction, and the pursuit of gaining and retaining social
networks have been found to be influential motives for fantasy participants, yet the
activity lacks the strictures of associated drug use, alcoholism, and loss of outside
non-participating networks common with many more traditional forms of gambling
(Ocean & Smith, 1993). Indeed, in their small qualitative study, Bernhard and Eade
(2005) concluded that ‘for many players one of the positive consequences of fantasy
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
baseball play appears to be its capacity to encourage social connectedness among
(an increasing number of) fellow players’ (p. 33). However, given their methodology,
the authors were not able to address how LEFs altered the social aspects of fantasy
baseball participation.
Second, within the gambling literature, Chantal and Vallerand (1996) identified
motivational differences based on whether the gambler was playing a game of chance
or a game of skill. Specifically, those who preferred games of skill (horserace
gambling) ‘gambled for the pleasure of acquiring game knowledge, for the satisfaction
of accomplishing themselves as efficient gamblers, and the pleasure of being
stimulated’ (Chantal & Vallerand, 1996, p. 415). These motivations would appear
to run parallel to Dwyer and Kim’s (2011) entertainment/escape and competition
motives. However, Chantal and Vallerand (1996) also stated that those who engaged
in games of luck (lottery) ‘gambled mainly for the sake of money’ (p. 415) which may
be similar to Dwyer and Kim’s gambling factor. Bernhard and Eade (2005) stated:
‘Whatever the cultural components of fantasy baseball play may be, it is clear that this
has become, for many, a gambling culture. As is the case with more conventional
forms of sports wagering, many claim to find the game more interesting when money
is risked and awarded to the winners’ (p. 36). Indeed, the authors also stated that the
largest category of expenditures in the fantasy sports industry is LEFs. However,
given the passage of UIGEA, the government does not consider the effects of this
gambling culture to be too severe. Even the National Football League (NFL) does not
have any rules preventing players from participating in fantasy sports where other
sports betting activities are strictly forbidden (Holleman, 2006).
Ultimately, none of these studies empirically examined the attitudinal and
behaviour differences of fantasy players based on whether or not they play for
money. Since gambling has indeed been identified as an important driver in dictating
fantasy sport participation for a portion of the population (Dwyer & Kim, 2011), the
relationship between gambling and various attitudes and behaviors becomes
considerably more important. Therefore, the current study is driven by the following
research questions.
Research questions
RQ1: What attitudinal differences exist between participants with respect to fantasy
baseball motives, perception of skill or chance, and anticipated fantasy baseball finish
based on whether or not a LEF was allocated?
RQ2: What behavioural intention differences exist between participants with respect to
fantasy baseball participation and forms of MLB consumption based on whether or not
a LEF was allocated?
RQ3: What descriptive behaviour differences exist between participants with respect to
fantasy baseball participation and forms of MLB consumption based on whether or not
a LEF was allocated?European Sport Management Quarterly 7
Method
Sample
The majority of research on fantasy sports focuses on fantasy football (American
football). However, the nature of fantasy sports is different based on the chosen sport.
For example, the football season is comprised of 17 sets of games meaning that
participants can spend as little as a few minutes per week on their fantasy team.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
However, as baseball is played almost every day of the season, more careful attention is
required by invested fantasy baseball participants. Given the dearth of research in this
activity and the daily nature of the sport, the target population for this study was
fantasy baseball participants over the age of 18 who currently participate in the activity.
A sample of 1500 potential respondents was randomly selected from a sampling
frame of 3400 FSTA fantasy members. The FSTA represents more than 125 member
companies in the fantasy sport industry, and has an estimated five to seven million
unique participants. As part of a multi-study partnership, the FSTA provided
the researchers with 5000 randomly selected email addresses from their overall
population of participants. Previous studies used 1600 of those email addresses
leaving the current study with a base of 3400 to sample. Simple random sampling was
conducted in order to maximize representativeness within the population of fantasy
baseball participants. Table 1 provides the sample demographics. A total of 249
usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 16.6%. This response rate was
within the typical range for social science research using a web-based survey protocol
(1560%; Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004; Krantz & Dalal, 2000).
Instrumentation
The questionnaire used for the current study consisted of three sections with a total
of 38 items. The first section contained 18 items focused on attitudes and perceptions
of fantasy participants. For the purposes of this study, an attitude was defined as ‘an
association between a given object and a given evaluation’ (Fazio, Powell, & Herr,
1983, p. 724). Questions regarding fantasy baseball motivations were adapted from
Dwyer and Kim’s (2011) 12 item MSFFP. The scale consisted of the following three
motives: Social Interaction, Competition, and Entertainment/Escape. Dwyer and
Kim’s (2011) scale development study also uncovered a four-item gambling factor
with scores that showed evidence of strong reliability and convergent validity, yet
poor predictive validity within the MSFFP. However, due to the nature of this study,
the gambling factor was included as part of the MSFFP and examined for validity
and reliability-related evidence. Therefore, a 16 item, four factor measure of fantasy
motives was used in the current investigation (see Table 2).
The motivation items were measured on seven point Likert-type scales, ranging
from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. One item was also created to measure
participants’ perceptions of the amount of skill associated with fantasy sports.
Research suggests that more emphasis should be placed on gambler’s perceptions of
the skill and luck features pertaining to gambling games in which they are currently
involved (Chantal & Vallerand, 1996; Wagenaar and Keren 1988). Therefore, this
item was measured on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘No Skill, All
Luck’ to ‘No Luck, All Skill’. The last question in the attitudes section of the survey
asked participants to estimate what place they will finish in their respective league.8 J. Drayer et al.
Table 1. Sample demographics (n 249).
Age
Mean 31.752
SD 10.906
Median 30
Range 1869
Ethnicity (%)
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Caucasian 89.2
Asian/Islander 3.6
Hispanic 2.4
Other 4.8
Gender (%)
Male 96.8
Female 3.2
Household Income (%)
Less than $25K 11.6
$25K$49K 18.9
$50K$99K 34.5
$100K$149K 14.1
More than $150K 7.6
Rather not say 13.3
Relationship Status (%)
Married 41.7
Single 50.3
Other 8.0
Education (%)
High School 19.3
Bachelors 46.2
Graduate 18.1
Associates 13.3
Other 3.1
The item was worded as ‘In your most preferred league, where do you expect to finish
this year?’ Four options were provided: (1) top quarter of the league, (2) second
quarter of the league, (3) third quarter of the league, and (4) bottom quarter of the
league. This question was included to measure a participant’s winning expectancy.
Winning expectancy or an overestimation of winning confidence has been previously
examined as a function of illusion of control which is viewed as an important
mechanism related to chance-based gaming behaviours (Kwak, Lim, Lee, & Mahan,
2010; Presson & Benassi, 1996). In a 2010 study, researchers Kwak et al. determined
that winning expectancy is directly and positively related to the amount of time and
money spent engaged with fantasy sport.
The second section of the survey was comprised of ten items related to various
descriptive behaviours and behavioural intentions. The first question in this section
asked participants how much money they contributed to fantasy baseball LEFs for
the purposes of creating a prize pool. This question represented our grouping
variable as responses were broken into two categories (non-entry fee participants
[NoEFP] allocated no fees and entry fee participants [EFP] allocated money in
order to participate in a league). The next four items in this section measuredEuropean Sport Management Quarterly 9
Table 2. Motivation items, factor loadings (CFA), reliability, and convergent validity results.
Social interaction (Cronbach’s a .812; AVE .549)
Playing fantasy baseball provides an excellent opportunity to get together with or
stay in contact with my family and friends. (Loading .81)
One of the main reasons I play fantasy baseball is that doing so allows me to belong
to a group of my peers. (Loading .61)
An important reason for playing fantasy baseball is the ability it gives me to interact
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
my co-workers, friends, family, and/or my significant other. (Loading .87)
Interacting with other fantasy baseball participants is important to me. (Loading
.64)
Competition (Cronbach’s a .801; AVE .562)
I like to play fantasy baseball to prove to my fellow competitors that I am the best.
(Loading .80)
When playing fantasy baseball, it is important to me to compare my skills with my
opponents. (Loading .80)
It is important to me to win my fantasy baseball league(s). (Loading .67)
An important reason for playing fantasy baseball is the opportunity it provides to
compare my unique knowledge about MLB players and teams with my competitors.
(Loading .72)
Entertainment (Cronbach’s a .778; AVE .657)
I play fantasy baseball because it makes watching MLB more enjoyable. (Loading
.78)
Playing fantasy baseball has provided an excellent opportunity to enjoy the
performance of MLB players that are not on the [favorite team]. (Loading .84)
Escape (Cronbach’s a .780; AVE .693)
I play fantasy baseball because it is a fun way to spend my time. (Loading .89)
I play fantasy baseball because it provides an entertaining escape from my day-to-day
activities. (Loading .77)
Gambling (Cronbach’s a .750; AVE .540)
The amount of money wagered determines how much I follow fantasy baseball team.
(Loading .62)
To me, fantasy baseball is just another way to bet on professional baseball.
(Loading .68)
I play fantasy baseball to win money. (Loading .79)
Playing fantasy baseball is only enjoyable if there is money at stake. (Loading .83)
descriptive behaviours associated with fantasy participation. These open-ended
response questions included number of years participating in fantasy baseball,
number of teams owned, hours per week spent following the activity and the MLB,
and money spent on fantasy related products and services, not LEFs. The last five
items in this section measured MLB consumption intentions on a five point Likert-
type scale ‘Not at all likely’ to ‘Very likely’. These items included likelihood of
attending MLB games, purchasing merchandise, and consuming MLB mediated
content. The third and final section of the survey consisted of six demographic items
in order to profile the typical fantasy participant in the current study.
Procedure and data analysis
Questionnaires were administered through an online format. Each potential
participant received an introductory email explaining the purpose of the study10 J. Drayer et al.
along with a link to the web-based survey. A follow up email was sent to all potential
participants two weeks later in an effort to increase response rate.
A preliminary analysis was conducted on the MSFFP, including the gambling
factor. To verify the factorial validity of the scale, a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was conducted on the MSFFP. The following fit indices and their cut-off
criteria were used to assess the overall fit of the model: the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-
square statistic (X2), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), the Comparative Fit Index
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
(CFI), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). In addition, average variance extracted
(AVE) was assessed for convergent validity-related evidence and Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficients were examined within each factor of the scale in order to assess
reliability-related evidence. Average factor scores for each respondent, as opposed to
total factor scores, for the sub-dimensions of the MSFFP and the gambling factor
were utilized in the following analyses.
In order to examine potential attitude differences based on whether or not the
respondent contributed a LEF (RQ1) a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted. Dependent variables in the model included the four fantasy
motivational factors, skill/luck perceptions, and winning expectancy. Similarly, in
order to examine potential behavioural differences based on LEF activities two
additional MANOVA was conducted. The first model (RQ2) examined the five MLB
consumption intentions as dependent variables and the second (RQ3) examined the
four fantasy participation behaviours. Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of
variance/co-variance matrices, and independence were considered when conducting
the MANOVA test. In addition, MANOVA assumes that there is a linear relation-
ship (linearity) between the dependent variables in the model (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). There were no violations of multivariate normality, independence, or linearity
found with the current data. However, a Box’s M test showed a violation of
homogeneity of variance/co-variance matrices. Therefore, a Pillai’s Trace statistic was
used to determine main effects because it is a more conservative statistic and is robust
to violations of equal variance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A significance level of
.05 was set for the MANOVA procedures. In order to examine effect size, the partial
h2 score was also reported. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes of .06.015 are
considered moderate and .16 or greater are considered large.
Results
A CFA was conducted to verify Dwyer and Kim’s (2011) four factor MSFFP. The
model fit for this initial analysis was deemed inadequate as the factor loading scores
for the Entertainment/Escape motive suggested the factor be split. After reviewing
the Entertainment/Escape items (see appendix), it was determined conceptually that
a four factor solution with 16 items was an appropriate solution (Table 3). The two
underlying Escape items were related to how fantasy participation interacts with a
participant’s free time, while the Entertainment items were related to enjoyment
derived from professional baseball as a result of fantasy participation. The remaining
four-item motives of Social Interaction, Competition, and Gambling were verified
with the current sample. The resulting five-factor scale showed adequate to good
global and component fit (Bentler, 1990). The model was found to be significant
X2(94) 185.91, p B.001, however the X2/degrees of freedom ratio (1.98) was closeEuropean Sport Management Quarterly 11
Table 3. Group descriptive contrasts (n 249).
NoEFP (n 106) EFP (n 143)
a
Gambling factor
Scale Mean 1.972 3.184
Age
Mean 31.317 32.055
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Median 28 30
Range 1869 1868
Income
Less than $25K 18.6% 12.0%
$25K $49K 21.6% 17.2%
$50K $99K 20.6% 24.8%
$100K $149K 15.7% 24.8%
More than $150K 10.0% 12.2%
Rather not say 13.5% 9.0%
Education
High School 21.2% 17.9%
Bachelors 46.1% 46.3%
Graduate 17.3% 18.6%
Associates 12.5% 13.8%
Other 2.9% 3.4%
Relationship
Married 37.3% 45.2%
Single 56.9% 47.9%
Other 5.8% 6.9%
a
On a seven-point Likert Scale.
to 2, which indicates a moderate fit. In addition, the fit indices for NNFI (.95) and
RMSEA (.063), CFI (.96) and SRMR (.071) provide evidence of an adequate fit
(Bentler, 1990). The factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha scores, and AVE scores for the
MSFFP are also available in Table 2. Overall, the sample scores suggest satisfactory
reliability and convergent validity for the MSFFP items.
Based on the participants’ response to the LEF allocation question, the two groups
were formed: 106 NoEFPs (X $0 allocated; 42.6% of the sample), 143 EFPs (X
$135.38; range $10$765; 57.4%). The descriptive differences between in group are
available in Table 3. An ANOVA of the Gambling factor mean scores for both groups
was conducted as a manipulation check for the grouping. A statistically significant
difference was found, F(247) 61.18, pB.001 (Partial h2 .191), as those who did not
contribute a LEF scored 1.972 on a seven-point Likert type scale and those who did
contribute scored a 3.184. It is interesting to note, however, that the Gambling factor
means for both groups are below the scale’s midpoint. This result suggests that even
those contributing LEFs were not overtly driven by the chance to win money. This
underscores the insignificance of gambling as a motive for this sample.
With regard to RQ1, the MANOVA results suggested significant differences
between the two groups with respect to the attitudinal contrasts F (6242) 3.99, p B
.001, Partial h2 .129. Table 4 illustrates the differences between the groups for each
attitudinal item. The average scale score for each MSFFP dimension was contrasted
in addition to a skill/luck comparison and the predicted finish for the upcoming12 J. Drayer et al.
Table 4. Attitudinal contrasts (n 249).
Attitudinal Item (7-point scale) NoEFP (n 106) EFP (n 143) F p Partial h2
Social Interaction 4.462 5.094 17.779 .001 .067
Entertainment 5.335 5.598 2.494 .116 .010
Escape 5.844 6.087 4.886 .028 .039
Competition 5.073 5.313 2.811 .095 .011
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Skill/Lucka 3.330 3.469 1.721 .191 .011
Expected Finish this Seasonb 1.292 1.189 2.688 .102 .007
a
On a five-point Likert-type scale.
b
On a four-point Likert-type scale.
fantasy baseball season. With regard to the motives, only the Social Interaction and
the Escape motives showed a statistically significant difference between the groups.
Further examination of effect sizes indicated that Social Interaction had a moderate
effect and Escape had a moderate to low effect providing evidence of practical
meaningfulness. In addition, statistically significant differences did not exist with
regard to the Skill/Luck continuum and the winning expectancy variable, as both
groups believed the activity is slightly more skill-based and expected to finish in the
top quarter of their most preferred league, respectively.
With regard to RQ2, the MANOVA results also indicated significant differences
between the groups with respect to the behavioural intention items F(5243) 4.62, p
B.001, Partial h2 .143. Table 5 provides the differences between the groups for each
behavioural intention item. Specifically, the results suggest a significant difference
between the two groups for the likelihood of attending a MLB game, the likelihood
of purchasing MLB merchandise, the likelihood of purchasing MLB Extra Innings,
and the likelihood of purchasing favourite team merchandise. No significant
difference resulted for the likelihood of purchasing MLB.TV. Further examination
of effect sizes indicated likelihood of attending a MLB game was the only variable
with a moderate level of explained variance. Purchasing MLB merchandise and
favourite team merchandise had low explained variance and purchasing MLB Extra
Inning was not found to be meaningful.
With regard to RQ3, the MANOVA results also indicated significant differences
between the groups with respect to the descriptive behavioural items F(4244) 5.35,
p B.001, Partial h2 .098. Table 6 provides the differences between the groups for
Table 5. Behavioral intention contrasts (n 249).
NoEFP (n EFP (n Partial
Behavioral Item (5-point scale) 106) 143) F p h2
Likelihood of attending a MLB game 3.915 4.503 16.168 .001 .061
Likelihood of purchasing MLB 2.802 3.385 11.534 .001 .035
merchandise
Likelihood of purchasing favorite team 3.028 3.462 6.129 .014 .031
merchandise
Likelihood of purchasing MLB Extra 1.425 1.776 5.909 .016 .023
Innings
Likelihood of purchasing MLB.TV 1.594 1.867 2.840 .093 .011European Sport Management Quarterly 13
Table 6. Behavioral outcome contrasts (n 249).
Gambling NoEFP EFP
Behavioral Item factor r (n 106) (n 143) F p Partial h2
Money spent of products .117 7.019 24.629 14.488 .001 .055
& services
Hours per week spent .069 12.297 14.587 3.255 .072 .013
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
following MLB
Total number of teams owned .136a 3.698 3.895 .133 .716 .001
Total number of years played .009 5.915 7.587 8.405 .004 .053
a
Significant at .05.
each descriptive behavioural item. Statistically significant differences resulted for the
amount of money spent on fantasy-related products and services and the total
number of years of participation. Meanwhile, the number of hours per week spent
following fantasy baseball and the MLB and the total number of teams owned did
not result in a statistically significant difference between the groups. Further
examination of effect sizes showed that the amount of money spent on fantasy-
related products and services and the total number of years of participation each
explained a moderate portion of variance and therefore provided practical mean-
ingfulness.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to explore the attitudinal and behavioural
differences of fantasy baseball participants based on whether or not a LEF was
allocated. Results revealed interesting similarities and differences among fantasy
baseball participants based on whether or not they played for money. Specifically,
there were several differences (both attitudinally and behaviourally) between those
who paid a LEF and those who did not. The following section will present theoretical
and practical implications which can help academics drive research, marketers drive
strategy, and legislators drive policy.
Motives
There were several interesting motivational differences between groups. Of particular
significance was the difference in the social interaction motive. Specifically, those
who made a LEF contribution were, on average, more highly motivated by the social
benefits associated with fantasy baseball. While the literature suggests one of the
primary reasons many forms of gambling remain illegal is due to their ‘anti-social
effects’ (Holleman, 2006, p. 74), these findings suggest fantasy baseball has just the
opposite effect on its participants. In this case, it could be argued that fantasy
baseball is, in fact, a pro-social activity. As such, it may not be associated with many
of the same negative consequences as traditional forms of gambling.
However, it should also be noted that the items related to social interaction refer
to the social interaction with other fantasy players. Those who engage in fantasy
sports are famously passionate about the activity and devote many hours to studying14 J. Drayer et al.
players and watching games (Drayer et al., 2010; Dwyer & Drayer, 2010). This kind
of devotion may create stronger bonds among participants but may have negative
effects on relationships outside of the fantasy context. Future research is necessary to
further examine the effects of fantasy participation on marriages and other
important relationships.
The behavioural outcome results provide a moderate indication that those who
allocate a LEF consume more than those who do not with regard to fantasy baseball.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
While not every outcome resulted in a significant difference, the mean scores for
EFPs outpaced the mean scores of the NoEFPs, most notably, money spent on
fantasy baseball products and services. Interestingly, this consumption was not
limited to fantasy as the behavioural intention results also suggest that EFPs intend
to consume more MLB products and services than NoEFPs, including important
non-media consumption intentions such as attending MLB games and purchasing
licensed merchandise.
If one was to view a LEF as a form of gambling, these findings contradict the
results of Dwyer and Kim’s (2011) study that found little predictive validity for those
who played fantasy football to win money and their subsequent fantasy-related
consumption. That is, Dwyer and Kim found that the higher one scored on the
gambling motive, the less he/she consumed and participated in the activity. However,
the results from the current study may suggest that this sample does not view the
usage of LEFs as a gambling activity. While statistically significant behavioural
differences existed between the two groups, the correlation results between the
Gambling factor and behavioural outcomes (Table 6) support the notion that playing
for money is not positively related to fantasy-related behaviours. More research
regarding the connection between LEFs, gambling perceptions, and consumption is
strongly suggested.
Consumption
The current study also yielded several interesting results related the impact of LEFs
on consumption behaviour. For example, in addition to higher fantasy participation
scores, EFPs scored higher on most traditional MLB consumption items including
merchandise, attendance, and premium media formats. Further, this group scored
higher on likelihood to purchase favourite team merchandise which perhaps supports
the notion presented by Dwyer and Drayer (2010), Karg and McDonald (2011), and
Nesbitt and King (2010a, 2010b) that fantasy participation is a complementary
activity that does not compromise traditional fan behaviours.
Results also indicated a difference between NoEFPs and EFPs on the number of
years played. While this relationship is not causal, it yields several interesting
possibilities for future inquiry. For example, does playing fantasy baseball for more
years lead to a higher probability of playing fantasy for larger amounts of money?
Or, does playing for money lead to higher retention from year to year for fantasy
baseball participants? Logical explanations exist for both circumstances. On one
hand, it is possible that participants gain confidence in their ability with enhanced
experience over time and are therefore more willing to play in leagues requiring a
LEF in anticipation of a favourable outcome. On the other hand, the increased
involvement and engagement in the activity spurred by the allocation of a LEF may
have created a stronger, longer lasting bond among participants. With regard toEuropean Sport Management Quarterly 15
expected finish, both groups (NoEFPs and EFPs) in the current study felt equally
confident that they would finish in the top 25% of their league. Indeed, further
exploration into these phenomena is necessary, likely in the form of a longitudinal
study. It’s possible that expected success, particularly when real financial gains are
possible, may lead to enhanced consumption.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Skill vs. Luck
Interestingly, there was no difference between perceptions of skill/luck over outcomes
among the groups. Overall, participants viewed fantasy baseball as a predominantly
skill-based activity. As mentioned above, the distinction between a game of skill and
a game of chance is crucial in determining the legality of the activity (Chantal &
Vallerand, 1996; Holleman, 2006). From a consumer perception point of view, this
finding parallels UIGEA’s assessment of the amount of skill to be successful in the
fantasy sports (Boswell, 2008). Similarly, in a series of studies on fantasy football,
Dwyer (2011) found the more skill perceived to win a fantasy football league the
higher the fantasy football involvement level of the participant, yet Dwyer and Kim
(2011) determined individuals primarily motivated by the opportunity to win money
were less involved with the activity. Again, taken with the results of the current study,
fantasy participant sentiment clearly suggests that the tie between gambling and
fantasy sports is incongruent.
Practical implications
Opportunities exist for fantasy sport providers and media companies looking to
capitalize on those who play in fantasy leagues that require a LEF. The current
study’s results suggest EFPs spend more money and time affiliated with fantasy
sports products and services, yet the most significant attitudinal difference between
this group and the other less financially invested groups was the motive of social
interaction. Thus, marketers and content providers should look for ways to use
innovative social media platforms and/or develop additional connection points in the
form of products and services that support and foster participant connections. For
instance, providing in-game and post-game communication outlets and promoting
services that satisfy this group’s need to interact with other fantasy players will
continue to spur enhanced consumption.
Legal implications
UIGEA was passed in 2006 and the legal debate has revolved around two primary
issues: (1) Is gambling on fantasy sports associated with the same anti-social
behaviours often associated with traditional forms of gambling; and (2) is fantasy
sports a game of skill or a game of chance? While legal experts have debated these
points using previous gambling research and existing legislation, the current study is
the first to provide hard evidence in support of the US Congress’ decision to grant an
exemption for fantasy sports.
First, given that a financial investment in fantasy sports appears to have pro-
social orientations, legislators may be incorrect when comparing fantasy sports to
traditional forms of gambling. Given the divergent motivations for participation, it16 J. Drayer et al.
may be possible that some of the negative outcomes associated with participation
may be mitigated. Subsequently, the ability of fantasy players to play for money may
be unlikely to incur the financial costs to taxpayers of other forms of legalized
gambling as reported by Collins and Lapsley (2003), Grinols and Mustard (2006),
and Ocean and Smith (1993).
Second, Chantal and Vallerand (1996) stated that those who preferred games of
skill were motivated to play primarily by entertainment and accomplishment while
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
those who preferred games of chance were motivated primarily by financial gain. In
the current study, fantasy players scored the same on the competition and
entertainment motives, regardless of LEF, which may suggest that motives for
fantasy players are similar to those motives reported for players of other skill-based
games. Further, both groups scored relatively low on the gambling motive providing
further evidence of fantasy sports as a skill-based game as Chantal and Vallerand
(1996) also reported that players of games of chance were more strongly motivated
by the possibility of financial gain. Finally, the perception of whether or not fantasy
sport is a game of skill or luck did not differ across the groups. Moore and Ohtsuka
(1999) found that heavy, problem gamblers held a stronger belief that they controlled
the outcome of the activity. EFPs displayed no such tendency.
Based on these results, the implications for US-based fantasy sport providers is
positive. If the US Congress were to lift the exempt status of fantasy sport, the
activity would become tightly regulated, heavily taxed, and/or even outright
restricted. In that case, offshore sport betting organizations would most likely pick
up the slack. For the most part, the offshore betting industry has been cornered by
European and Caribbean companies, and while these companies have recently been
targeted by US lawmakers, the addition of fantasy sport services would be amiably
welcomed given the size and scope of the market.
Conclusion
This study was not without limitation. First, while scores of attitudes and behaviours
ranged within this sample, this study only examined a cross-section of fantasy
baseball participants. Thus, the extension of a similar investigation to larger baseball
samples is recommended. In addition, an examination of other fantasy sports is
strongly suggested in order to better generalize the findings to all fantasy sport
players, both within the United States as well as internationally as the activity has
grown substantially in Australia and the UK in recent years. Further, this study
adopted a fantasy football motivational scale to fantasy baseball. Other fantasy
sport motivation scales have been developed more recently and may provide varying
perspectives on motivations based on the nature of each individual activity (Lee, Seo,
& Green, 2013). In the current study, while the resulting fantasy football instrument
was logically trimmed due to the unique differences between the activities and more
importantly, the scale scores were reliable and valid, creating and validating a
motivational scale for fantasy baseball participation is advised.
Fantasy sport participation is a highly-popular and evolving form of sport
fandom in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe. The ramifications of gambling
legislation with regard to the activity in the United States would send shockwaves
through a formidable industry and, more importantly, limit sport fans from fully-
enjoying professional sport through this pastime. Thus, this study’s findings withEuropean Sport Management Quarterly 17
respect to the social interactive benefits to participation as opposed to the social
degradation tied to traditional forms of gambling should lend to support to the
activity’s current federal exemption. In addition, the attitudinal and behavioural
differences identified should help sport content providers, professional teams, and
leagues more effectively communicate with this lucrative and highly-engaged group
of sport consumers.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries], [Brendan Dwyer] at 13:23 08 April 2013
Note
1. All monetary references in this paper refer to the United States’ dollar.
References
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bernhard, B. J., & Eade, V. H. (2005). Gambling in a fantasy world: An exploratory study of
rotisserie baseball games. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, 9, 2942. Retrieved
from http://www.gamblib.org/catalogue/publication/682/
Boswell, J. (2008). Fantasy sports: A game of skill that is implicitly legal under state law, and
now explicitly legal under federal law. Cardoza Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 25, 1257
1278.
Cabot, A. N., & Csoka, L. (2007). Gaming law symposium: Fantasy sports: One form of
mainstream wagering in the United States. The John Marshall Law Review, 40(1195), 1195
1219.
Chantal, Y., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Skill versus luck: A motivational analysis of gambling
involvement. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(4), 407418. doi:10.1007/BF01539185
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6473. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/action/
showPublication?journalCode jmarkrese
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collins, D., & Lapsley, H. (2003). The social costs and benefits of gambling: An introduction
to the economic issues. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 123148. doi:10.1023/
A:1023677214999
Comeau, T. O. (2007). Fantasy football participation and media usage (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Missouri, Columbia. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/
Davidson, N. (2002). Internet gambling: Should fantasy sports leagues be prohibited? San
Diego Law Review, 39, 201231. Retrieved from http://www.sandiego.edu/law/news/blogs_
publications/publications/journals/law_review/
Deakin Research. (2011). Fantasy football fans backbone of the code. Retrieved from http://www.
deakin.edu.au/research/stories/2011/02/07/fantasy-football-fans-backbone-of-the-code
Drayer, J., Shapiro, S. L., Dwyer, B., Morse, A. L., & White, J. (2010). The effects of fantasy
football participation on NFL consumption: A qualitative analysis. Sport Management
Review, 13(2), 129141. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.02.001
Dwyer, B. (2011). Divided loyalty? An analysis of fantasy football involvement and fan loyalty
to individual National Football League (NFL) teams. Journal of Sport Management, 25,
445457.
Dwyer, B., & Drayer, J. (2010). Fantasy sport consumer segmentation: An investigation into
the differing consumption modes of fantasy football participants. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 19, 207216.
Dwyer, B., & Kim, Y. (2011). For love or money: Developing and validating a motivational
scale for fantasy football participation. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 7083.
Elliott, W. R., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). The 1985 Philadelphia newspaper strike: A uses and
gratifications study. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 679687.
doi:10.1177/107769908706400401You can also read
