Public Perceptions on Elite Sport’s Societal Outcomes: A Validated Scale in a European Context

  • Lynn Praet 
  • Veerle De Bosscher 
  • Sofie Smismans 
  • Inge Derom 


Abstract Views
132

Downloads
41

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jul 3, 2024
Published Sep 6, 2024
10.24018/ejsport.2024.3.4.174

Abstract viewed = 132 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Studies have demonstrated the potential positive (e.g., inclusion) and negative (e.g., pollution) outcomes that elite sport has on society. Over the years, the interest in measuring these societal outcomes has grown. This research extends previous studies that emphasize the need for a validated scale to accurately measure public perceptions of elite sport’s outcomes on society. The purpose of this study was to validate the Mapping Elite Sport’s potential Societal Impact (MESSI) scale in a European context. Using a quantitative research design, the MESSI scale was administered to 10,400 European citizens from seven countries (i.e., Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, The Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument. Results indicated a psychometrically acceptable 68-item 10-dimension MESSI scale. The European population perceived more positive than negative potential societal outcomes of elite sport. The study confirms that the MESSI scale is a valid, reliable, and robust instrument for measuring the perceptions of the potential positive and negative societal outcomes of elite sport. The use of this scale might provide valuable insights for sport policymakers.

Keywords: High performance sport Population Public perceptions Societal outcomes

Introduction

Across nations, policymakers are required to legitimise their increasing investments in elite sport (De Bosscheret al., 2021). It is argued that elite sport can trigger a wide range of positive societal outcomes, such as inclusion (Næss, 2023), national pride (Mutz & Gerke, 2024), and sports participation (Eatheret al., 2023). Nonetheless, research also shed light on the negative societal outcomes elite sport can spawn, such as increased alcohol consumption (Banduraet al., 2024) or stimulation of unethical conduct (Heerdt & Roorda, 2023). However, the evidence base mapping the potential positive and negative societal outcomes is still scarce and fragmented (De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2021; Funahashiet al., 2015). Nevertheless, since the tax-paying population is the primary sponsor of elite sport, these investments should yield additional societal values and benefits for the public (De Ryckeet al., 2019; Van der Roest & Dijk, 2021). In an attempt to facilitate these societal outcomes of elite sport, Van der Roest and Dijk (2021) argue that taking into account the public’s perception of elite sport’s societal outcomes is essential.

Despite increasing research, the body of evidence regarding societal outcomes primarily includes mixed and contradictory findings (De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2019). This is often the result of a lack of methodological clarity, as there are a wide range of concepts and definitions used to describe the phenomenon (e.g., societal outcomes, societal impact, public values, societal values, etc.). Several researchers (e.g., Leeet al., 2013; Van Bottenburget al., 2012) have attempted to research this complex phenomenon. For example, Leeet al. (2013) aimed to capture sport’s societal outcomes in five dimensions, including social capital, collective identities, health literacy, well-being, and human capital. However, the employed assessments vary in format and only investigate part of the (perceived) societal outcomes. The most comprehensive framework is the Mapping Elite Sport’s potential Societal Impact’ (MESSI) framework, proposed by De Rycke and De Bosscher (2019). An extensive literature review resulted in 391 studies that showed evidence of 79 distinct societal outcome areas of elite sport (47 positive; 32 negative) clustered in 10 dimensions: (i) social equality and inclusion; (ii) collective identity, connection and pride; (iii) ethics and fair play; (iv) feelgood and passion; (v) fans and (media) attraction; (vi) prestige and image; (vii) athletes ability and quality of life; (viii) sport participation and health; (ix) sponsors and commercial activity; and (x) local consumption and living conditions. The authors assume that ‘intrinsically, elite sport is neither beneficial nor harmful’ (De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2019, p. 486), meaning that every dimension includes both positive and negative outcomes. For instance, elite sports’ capacity to boost national pride, but chauvinism, when this sentiment becomes excessive, is encapsulated in the dimension of collective identity, connection, and pride.

Subsequently, the authors developed two MESSI scales (De Ryckeet al., 2019; De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2021). In developing their 32-item scale (De Ryckeet al., 2019), the authors reduced the initial pool of 79 items to 32 items after checking content validity and performing factor analysis. Although the scale explained 71.9% of the variance in the constructed model, it failed to adequately capture all societal outcomes. For instance, the scale missed important information, such as items related to sports participation, a frequently investigated societal outcome (De Cocqet al., 2021). Therefore, De Rycke and De Bosscher (2021) used the 73 items (i.e., remaining items after content validity, but before factor analysis) in their follow-up study. The scales were developed for the specific Flemish context1 1 Belgium consists of two parts: (i) Flanders which is the Dutch-speaking northern part, and (ii) Wallonia which is the French-speaking southern part. . Besides, the researchers used five-point Likert scales, which are often debated in the literature because they might not accurately measure participant responses (Finstad, 2010).

It remains necessary to validate the measurement instrument further to ensure its applicability across studies and cultural contexts (De Cocqet al., 2021; De Ryckeet al., 2019). Therefore, this study aims to validate the Mapping Elite Sport’s potential Societal Impact (MESSI) scale in a European population. Building on the extensive 73-item MESSI scale, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive, validated, and reliable instrument that has the potential to enhance our understanding of perceived positive and negative societal outcomes of elite sport. Furthermore, this study offers a valuable instrument for policymakers to legitimise elite sport investments (De Ryckeet al., 2019). Additionally, understanding public perceptions of elite sport’s societal outcomes is crucial, as the public is the main sponsor of elite sport (De Bosscheret al., 2021).

Method

Data Collection and Procedure

This study was part of an Erasmus+ Sport project: ‘Athletes 4 Society: Empowering The Public Value Of Sport Through Athletes As Role Models’. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Vrije Universiteit Brussel (i.e., coordinator of the project). Data were collected in August 2021 in seven European countries (i.e., Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, The Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal). A research service company was appointed to obtain a representative sample. Participants were recruited based on age, language, gender, and social class. In total, 10,400 participants were invited to participate in the study. The questionnaire was back-to-back translated into six languages (i.e., Czech, Dutch, Finish, French, Polish, and Portuguese) by native speakers in the project’s consortium.

After removing unreliable response patterns, the final sample of the study consisted of 10,155 European citizens: Belgium (n = 1,937), Czech Republic (n = 1,374), Finland (n = 1,361), France (n = 1,344), The Netherlands (n = 1,370), Poland (n = 1,375), and Portugal (n = 1,394). A slight majority of the participants identified as male (51%). Ages varied between 18 and 79 years old (M = 47; SD = 15,98). Most of the participants had no migration background (88%), were full-time employed (50%), and were married or in a relationship (62%).

Instrument

This study adopted a scale validation procedure as described in previous literature (e.g., Yamaguchiet al., 2022). As mentioned, the study builds upon prior research that seeks to measure public perceptions of the societal outcomes of elite sport through the application of the MESSI scale (De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2021; De Ryckeet al., 2019). Scale items were constructed based on the 73-item MESSI scale. Similar to the study of De Rycke and De Bosscher (2021), bipolar statements were used for each item to measure the perceptions of individuals regarding the potential positive and negative societal outcomes of elite sport. For example: “In general, I perceive that elite sport… (positive statement) encourages young people to do sport themselves versus (negative statement) discourages young people to do sport themselves”. In contrast, this study used a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) instead of a five-point Likert scale. Research indicates that a using seven-point rating scale is more suitable as this (a) improves validity (Taherdoost, 2019), (b) enables participants to express their feelings more adequately (Finstad, 2010), (c) conveys more useful information (Bendig, 1954), and (d) is most accurate and easier to use (Diefenbachet al., 1993). Scores with a critical value of 4.5 or higher (cut-off value as used by Hirschfeld and Thielsch (2015)) were considered as a perceived positive outcome of elite sport.

In order to make the scale applicable to an international context, focus group discussions with international experts (N = 14) and academics (N = 5) in the field of elite sport’s societal outcomes were carried out to ensure content validity. These focus group discussions led to a number of adaptations: (a) five items were removed due to their close resemblance to other remaining items, thereby measuring identical societal outcomes (‘promotes/obstructs human justice’; ‘provides athletes with a profound/minimal role model function’; ‘enhances/declines health awareness’; ‘awards sport organisations through ticketing and licensing a profitable/losing source of income’; ‘offers sponsors financial profits/losses’), (b) one item regarding the connecting effect of elite sport was added (‘produces athletes and teams with whom people feel connected or identify/dis-like or don’t want to be associated with’), (c) to establish a clear distinction between adults and youth, the original item regarding sports participation was divided into two items (‘encourages/discourages young people to do sport themselves’; ‘encourages/discourages the adult population to do sport themselves’), (d) three items were reclassified under a different dimension as they were found to be incongruent with their initially designated dimension. The item ‘preserves/ruins nostalgia and traditions’ was transferred from ethics and fair play to happiness and experiences; the item ‘boosts/deteriorates the image of sport in general’ was transferred from international prestige and political power to fans and media; and the item ‘discourages/encourages the use of performance-enhancing drugs among elite athletes’ was transferred from athletes’ quality of life and competences to ethics and fair play, and (e) enhancement of the formulation of statements and refining linguistic expressions (e.g., the rather vague item ‘provides athletes/teams where people can relate to in a positive/negative way’ was clarified by explicitly stating the, whether or not important, inspirational effect of role models: ‘is important/unimportant for providing inspiring role models for young people’).

The final instrument that is used in the current study consisted of 70 items divided over ten MESSI dimensions: social equality and inclusion (6 items); collective identity, connection, and pride (6 items); ethics and fair play (9 items); happiness and experiences (6 items); fans and media (7 items); international image and political power (6 items); athletes’ quality of life and competences (7 items); sports participation and inspiration (8 items); economic development and partnerships (7 items); and local consumption and environment (8 items).

Data Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was performed. It was deemed appropriate to conduct CFA rather than exploratory factor analysis since a priori expectations of the factor structure already existed (Funahashiet al., 2015). Prior to data analysis, assumptions were checked, revealing no violations and confirming the dataset’s appropriateness. Analysis was completed using the statistical software R. Before performing the CFA, the sample was randomly split into two subsamples. One sample was used as a calibration sample (n = 5,077) to construct the measurement model, while the other sample was used as a validation sample (n = 5,058) to validate the measurement model. Six common indices were used to assess the goodness-of-fit: (1) chi-square value (χ2), (2) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), (3) Comparative Fit Index (CFI), (4) Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), (5) Standardized Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and (6) the Normed Fit Index (NFI). The acceptable goodness-of-fit threshold for each index was set on χ2 as non-significant, CFI, TLI, and NFI greater than 0.9, RMSEA less than 0.08, and SRMR less than 0.09 (Hooperet al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005; Wheatonet al., 1977). Three tests were employed to assess convergent validity: (1) construct reliability (CR) must exceed the threshold of 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), (2) average variance extracted (AVE) must exceed the threshold of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and (3) factor loadings must be significant (p < .05) and greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As the software R did not provide CR and AVE values, those values were calculated using procedures outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s α, with a cut-off of 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Discriminant validity was investigated using two methods as outlined by previous research (Algesheimeret al., 2005; Yamaguchiet al., 2022). First, correlations between latent constructs must be significantly less than one. Second, significant chi-square differences must be found between the correlation-constrained model and the unconstrained baseline model.

Results

Assessment of the MESSI Scale

Construction of the Measurement Model

Results of the CFA on the calibration sample showed an acceptable fit to the data: χ2 (2300) = 23532.26, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.043 (90% CI [0.042, 0.043]), CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.39, NFI = 0.93 (see Table I). The χ2 is known to be sensitive to sample size (i.e., the Chi-Square statistic nearly always rejects the model when large samples are used; Hooperet al., 2008). Therefore, considering the other goodness-of-fit indices was important. Results showed low factor loadings for two variables (i.e., ‘induces/counteracts gambling addictions’ and ‘exposes/safeguards elite athletes to transgressive behaviour’), resulting in the removal of those two items from the measurement model. Subsequently, the remaining 68 items were again subjected to CFA and revealed the following results: χ2 (2165) = 21994.96, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI [0.042, 0.043]), CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.38, NFI = 0.93 (Table I). With the exception of the χ2, all goodness-of-fit measures met their recommended thresholds. Moreover, factor loadings were significant and ranged from 0.51 to 0.90. Hence, the measurement model on the calibration sample revealed a reasonable fit.

Model fit index Computed index for calibration sample Computed index for calibration sample revised Computed index for validation sample
X 2 X2 (2300) = 23532.26; p < .001 X2 (2165) = 21995; p < .001 X2 (2165) = 23027.37; p < .001
RMSEA 0.043 0.042 0.044
RMSEA 90% CI 0.042–0.043 0.042–0.043 0.043–0.044
CFI 0.931 0.935 0.932
TLI 0.928 0.932 0.929
SRMR 0.039 0.038 0.037
NFI 0.924 0.929 0.926
Table I. Goodness-of-Fit Indices of the CFA

Validation of the Measurement Model

Results of the goodness-of-fit indices revealed that the 68-item 10-dimension measurement model fit the data of the validation sample well: χ2 (2165) = 23027.37, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.044 (90% CI [0.043, 0.044]), CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.04, NFI = 0.93 (Table I). Apart from χ2, the other fit indices reached an acceptable level. Convergent validity was established: (1) CR values of all constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), (2) AVE values of all constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and (3) as shown in Table II, factor loadings were significant (p < .05) and ranged from 0.51 to 0.89 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The Cronbach’s α indices exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 for all latent constructs, indicating reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The evidence for discriminant validity was provided in two stages. First, correlations (± two standard deviations) amongst the latent constructs were significantly less than one, with the exception of the correlation between the constructs of happiness and experiences, and fans and media (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). As previous studies indicated that the dimensions of elite sport outcomes are highly interrelated (e.g., De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2019), the high correlations observed between constructs were considered acceptable. Second, chi-square difference tests between the correlation-constrained model and the unconstrained baseline model were conducted for each pair of latent constructs (a total of 45 tests) and resulted in significant differences for each test (Algesheimeret al., 2005). In conclusion, the measurement model of the 68-item MESSI scale was accepted. Results of the CFA can be found in Table II.

Constructs and items Mean SD β CR AVE α
Social equality and inclusion 4.7 1.6 0.91 0.62 0.91
Item 1 Brings people of different religions, cultures, and origins closer together versus pushes people of different cultures and origins further apart 4.9 1.6 0.83
Item 2 Increases social equality versus increases social inequality 4.7 1.5 0.82
Item 3 Stimulates the inclusion of people with disabilities versus stimulates the exclusion of people with disabilities 4.9 1.6 0.79
Item 4 Narrows the gap between poor and rich people versus widens the gap between poor and rich people 4.2 1.6 0.69
Item 5 Promotes gender equality versus promotes gender inequality 4.6 1.6 0.77
Item 6 Combats racism versus triggers racism 4.8 1.6 0.80
Collective identity, connection, and pride 5.1 1.5 0.94 0.72 0.94
Item 7 Creates a sense of national identity and belonging versus counteracts a sense of national identity and belonging 5.1 1.5 0.86
Item 8 Makes people feel proud of their country versus makes people ashamed of their country 5.3 1.5 0.87
Item 9 Increases the chance of social contact versus reduces the chance of social contact 5.1 1.4 0.85
Item 10 Creates more togetherness versus creates less togetherness 5.1 1.5 0.88
Item 11 Leads to a certain form of love for your country versus leads to extreme chauvinism/nationalism 4.9 1.6 0.74
Item 12 Produces athletes and teams with whom people feel connected/identify versus produces athletes and teams with whom people dis-like/don’t want to be associated with 5.1 1.4 0.88
Ethics and fair play 4.8 1.5 0.95 0.66 0.95
Item 13 Encourages behaviour that is ethically sound versus encourages behaviour that is unethical 4.9 1.5 0.86
Item 14 Encourages people to play fair versus encourages people to cheat 5.0 1.5 0.86
Item 15 Provides an opportunity for peaceful expression/protest versus provides an opportunity for insurrection/rebellion 4.8 1.4 0.82
Item 16 Promotes integer/honest behaviour outside sport versus promotes corrupt/dishonest behaviour outside sport 4.9 1.5 0.87
Item 17 Encourages a form of competitiveness that is desirable versus encourages a form of competitiveness that is undesirable 5.0 1.5 0.85
Item 18 Counteracts aggression/violence versus initiates aggression/violence 4.7 1.6 0.80
Item 19 Promotes a lifestyle among young people that is decent (as it should be) versus promotes a lifestyle among young people that is offensive 5.0 1.5 0.86
Item 20 Discourages the amateur use of performance-enhancing drugs versus encourages the amateur use of performance-enhancing drugs 4.5 1.7 0.69
Item 21 Discourages the use of performance-enhancing drugs among elite athletes versus encourages the use of performance-enhancing drugs among elite athletes 4.4 1.7 0.69
Happiness and experiences 5.1 1.5 0.95 0.76 0.95
Item 22 Provides pleasure/joy versus provides disappointment/sorrow 5.2 1.5 0.88
Item 23 Provides experiences that are unique versus provides experiences that are common 5.1 1.5 0.86
Item 24 Increases overall happiness/well-being versus decreases overall happiness/well-being 5.1 1.4 0.88
Item 25 Creates passion/enthusiasm versus creates dullness/boredom 5.2 1.5 0.89
Item 26 Provides a sense of success versus provides a sense of failure 5.1 1.5 0.88
Item 27 Preserves nostalgia/traditions versus ruins nostalgia/traditions 5.1 1.4 0.85
Fans and media 5.1 1.5 0.90 0.70 0.93
Item 28 Makes society more attractive versus makes society more unattractive 5.0 1.4 0.88
Item 29 Is something to love versus is something to hate 5.2 1.4 0.87
Item 30 Spawns positive sport heroes versus spawns negative/wrong sport individuals 5.3 1.5 0.89
Item 31 Provides interesting news versus provides uninteresting news 5.1 1.5 0.86
Item 32 Increases the general knowledge of what sport is versus decreases the general knowledge of what sport is 5.2 1.4 0.87
Item 33 Boosts the image of sport in general versus deteriorates the image of sport in general 5.0 1.6 0.63
International image and political power 4.8 1.4 0.87 0.59 0.90
Item 34 Stimulates globalization versus hinders globalization 4.9 1.4 0.73
Item 35 Strengthens international prestige of a country versus diminishes international prestige of a country 5.2 1.4 0.87
Item 36 Enhances the popularity of politicians versus lessens the popularity of politicians 4.2 1.4 0.51
Item 37 Initiates peace versus initiates war 5.0 1.4 0.81
Item 38 Positively affects the image of a country city or neighbourhood versus negatively affects the image of a country city or neighbourhood 5.2 1.4 0.87
Item 39 Makes political leaders gain power versus makes political leaders lose power 4.3 1.4 0.51
Athletes’ quality of life and competences 4.8 1.5 0.86 0.59 0.90
Item 40 Leads for most athletes to a life in the spotlights versus leads for most athletes to a life in anonymity 5.1 1.4 0.74
Item 41 Provides athletes with a high quality of life (well-being) versus provides athletes with a low quality of life (well-being) 4.9 1.4 0.76
Item 42 Provides elite athletes with valuable knowledge and skills versus provides elite athletes with invaluable/useless knowledge and skills 5.0 1.4 0.85
Item 43 Puts pressure on elite athletes to perform in that is desirable versus puts pressure on elite athletes to perform in that is undesirable 4.7 1.6 0.73
Item 44 Provides elite athletes with good health versus provides elite athletes with severe health issues (e.g., through injuries/overexertion) 4.5 1.6 0.73
Item 45 Ensures that elite athletes are happy after their sporting careers versus ensures that elite athletes are unhappy after their sporting careers 4.7 1.5 0.78
Sports participation and inspiration 5.0 1.4 0.95 0.69 0.95
Item 46 Is important to provide inspiring role models for young people versus is unimportant to provide inspiring role models for young people 5.2 1.5 0.85
Item 47 Makes the public more physically active versus makes the public less physically active 5.1 1.3 0.85
Item 48 Encourages young people to do sport themselves versus discourages young people to do sport themselves 5.3 1.4 0.86
Item 49 Encourages the adult population to do sport themselves versus discourages the adult population to do sport themselves 5.0 1.4 0.86
Item 50 Urges people to adopt a healthier lifestyle versus urges people to adopt an unhealthier lifestyle 5.1 1.5 0.87
Item 51 Motivates people to project a realistic body image versus motivates people to project an unrealistic body image 4.6 1.4 0.75
Item 52 Inspires people to volunteer versus prevents people from volunteering 4.7 1.4 0.76
Item 53 Encourages people to adopt the positive skills and behaviours of elite athletes versus encourages people to adopt the negative skills and behaviours of elite athletes 4.9 1.4 0.85
Economic development and partnerships 5.0 1.4 0.93 0.65 0.93
Item 54 Gives our economy a positive boost versus gives our economy the negative impulse 4.9 1.4 0.83
Item 55 Provides the business world a strong form of advertising versus provides the business world a weak form of advertising 5.0 1.4 0.80
Item 56 Gives the media a profitable source of income versus gives the media a loss-making source of income 5.3 1.4 0.76
Item 57 Boosts the sports industry versus hinders the sports industry 5.2 1.4 0.82
Item 58 Sparks scientific research and innovative projects versus dampens scientific research and innovative projects 4.9 1.4 0.80
Item 59 Encourages companies and people to commit to charity versus discourages companies and people to commit to charity 4.8 1.4 0.81
Item 60 Regularly portrays sponsors in a positive way versus regularly portrays sponsors in a negative way 5.0 1.4 0.83
Local consumption and environment 4.6 1.5 0.92 0.58 0.92
Item 61 Increases general consumption versus decreases general consumption 4.9 1.3 0.65
Item 62 Provides good quality job opportunities versus provides bad quality job opportunities 4.7 1.4 0.64
Item 63 Leads to more tourism versus leads to less tourism 5.0 1.4 0.73
Item 64 Leads to new (sports) infrastructure that is valuable for the population versus leads to new (sports) infrastructures that is of no use to the population 4.8 1.5 0.82
Item 65 Has an impact on the environment that is positive/beneficial versus has an impact on the environment that is negative/harmful 4.4 1.6 0.79
Item 66 Leads to (years of) investments that are justifiable versus leads to (years of) investments that are irresponsibly high 4.5 1.6 0.83
Item 67 Positively affects the living conditions of residents in the neighbourhood of an elite sporting event/infrastructure versus negatively affects the living conditions of residents in the neighbourhood of an elite sporting event/infrastructure 4.5 1.5 0.81
Item 68 Leads to costs in organising elite sporting events that are justifiable versus leads to costs in organising elite sporting events that are unjustifiable/irresponsibly high 4.2 1.6 0.79
Table II. Factor Loadings, Construct Reliability, Average Variance Extracted, Cronbach’s Alpha, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Validation Sample (n = 5,058)

Public Perceptions of Elite Sport’s Societal Outcomes

European citizens generally perceived more positive than negative outcomes of elite sport. The most positive outcomes were perceived on ‘happiness and experiences’ (M = 5.2, SD = 1.5), ‘fans and media’ (M = 5.1, SD = 1.5), and ‘collective identity, connection and pride’ (M = 5.1, SD = 1.5). On an item level, the most positive perceptions were perceived on ‘spawns positive sports heroes’ (item 30; M = 5.3, SD = 1.5), ‘encourages young people to do sport themselves’ (item 48; M = 5.3, SD = 1.4), and ‘makes people feel proud of their country’ (item 8; M = 5.3, SD = 1.5). The most negative outcomes were perceived on the dimensions ‘local consumption and environment’ (M = 4.6, SD = 1.5), ‘social equality and inclusion’ (M = 4.7, SD = 1.6); and ‘ethics and fair play’ (M = 4.8, SD = 1.5).

Discussion and Conclusion

Given the scarce and fragmented evidence base regarding public perceptions of the societal outcomes of elite sport (De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2021; Funahashiet al., 2015), this study aimed to provide a validated and reliable instrument to assess public perceptions of the societal outcomes of elite sport. Accordingly, this paper advances the limited knowledge and extends the existing evidence base regarding the potential positive and negative societal outcomes of elite sport. Previous studies (De Rycke & De Bosscher, 2021; De Ryckeet al., 2019) lacked validation, were constrained to a specific context (i.e., Flanders), and investigated partial societal outcomes, omitting crucial details concerning specific societal outcomes (e.g., sports participation).

This 68-item MESSI scale represents the ten dimensions of the MESSI framework proposed by De Rycke and De Bosscher (2019), emphasizing that a holistic (i.e., all potential outcomes) perspective on elite sport’s outcomes on society is appropriate. Moreover, this scale adopted a multidimensional approach wherein both positive and negative tendencies related to the same construct were measured simultaneously (Leeet al., 2013). Such a multidimensional approach is essential and highly valuable, as recent research indicates that elite sport does not exclusively yield positive outcomes (Balk & Veldman, 2023). Furthermore, this study provided a representation of Northern (e.g., Finland), Southern (e.g., Portugal), Eastern (e.g., Poland), and Western (e.g., Belgium) Europe, making the instrument suitable for cross-country comparison and generalisability.

From a practical perspective, the study provides a tool for policymakers to effectively assess public perceptions of elite sport’s societal outcomes. This is essential, as there is still a lack of understanding regarding the societal values and outcomes of elite sport and their potential benefits for the population (Maennig & Vierhaus, 2016). Accordingly, policymakers can proactively address the values of the population to enhance positive and reduce negative societal outcomes while simultaneously justifying their elite sport investments to taxpayers (De Bosscheret al., 2021) and evaluate the public support of enacted policies (De Ryckeet al., 2019; Ohmannet al., 2006).

This study also has limitations. First and foremost, perceptions can be subjective, biased, and potentially inaccurate (Sant & Mason, 2015; Takset al., 2020). Hence, caution is advised when interpreting perceptions. Second, the study employed a cross-sectional research design. However, research showed that perceptions can be influenced by momentums in sport, such as the Olympic Games or scandals (e.g., Calciopoli Scandal in Italian football; Buraimoet al., 2016). Ellinget al. (2014) demonstrated that elite sport only triggers short-term changes, such as increased pride, while Helsen

References

  1. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing Research, 69(3), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363.
     Google Scholar
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
     Google Scholar
  3. Balk, L., & Veldman, S. (2023). De maatschappelijke waarde van topsport is onvoldoende aantoonbaar: Kennis- en innovatiescan WP4. https://www.mulierinstituut.nl/publicaties/27442/de-maatschappelijke-waarde-van-topsport-is-onvoldoendebewezen/.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, C. T., Giulianotti, R., Martin, J. G., Bancroft, A., Morrow, S., Hunt, K., & Purves, R. I. (2024). Alcohol consumption among UK football supporters: Investigating the contested field of the football carnivalesque. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 31(4), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2023.2219370.
     Google Scholar
  5. Bendig, A. W. (1954). Transmitted information and the length of rating scales. Journal of Experimental Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47(5), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055679.
     Google Scholar
  6. Buraimo, B., Migali, G., & Simmons, R. (2016). An analysis of consumer response to corruption: Italy’s calciopoli scandal. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12094.
     Google Scholar
  7. De Bosscher, V., Shibli, S., & De Rycke, J. (2021). The societal impact of elite sport: Positives and negatives: Introduction to ESMQ special issue. European Sport Management Quarterly, 21(5), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1955944.
     Google Scholar
  8. De Cocq, S., Derom, I., & Bosscher, V. (2021). Conceptualising the inspirational effect of elite sport: A case study of field hockey in Belgium. European Sport Management Quarterly, 21(5), 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1950794.
     Google Scholar
  9. De Rycke, J., & De Bosscher, V. (2019). Mapping the potential societal impacts triggered by elite sport: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(3), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2019.1581649.
     Google Scholar
  10. De Rycke, J., & De Bosscher, V. (2021). The cure or the cause? Public opinions of elite sports’ societal benefits and harms. Sport in Society, 24(7), 1070–1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1724962.
     Google Scholar
  11. De Rycke, J., De Bosscher, V., Funahashi, H., & Sotiriadou, P. (2019). Public perceptions of the societal impact of elite sport: Scale development and testing. Journal of Sport Management, 33(6), 560–571. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0295.
     Google Scholar
  12. Diefenbach, M. A., Weinstein, N. D., & O’Reilly, J. (1993). Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Health Education Research, 8(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/8.2.181.
     Google Scholar
  13. Eather, N., Wade, L., Pankowiak, A., & Eime, R. (2023). The impact of sports participation on mental health and social outcomes in adults: A systematic review and the ‘Mental Health through Sport’ conceptual model. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02264-8.
     Google Scholar
  14. Elling, A., Van Hilvoorde, I., & Van Den Dool, R. (2014). Creating or awakening national pride through sporting success: A longitudinal study on macro effects in The Netherlands. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212455961.
     Google Scholar
  15. Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104–110.
     Google Scholar
  16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
     Google Scholar
  17. Funahashi, H., De Bosscher, V., & Mano, Y. (2015). Understanding public acceptance of elite sport policy in Japan: A structural equation modelling approach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(4), 478–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1056200.
     Google Scholar
  18. Hallmann, K., Breuer, C., & Kühnreich, B. (2013). Happiness, pride and elite sporting success: What population segments gain most from national athletic achievements? Sport Management Review, 16(2), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.07.001.
     Google Scholar
  19. Hallmann, K., Rossi, L., Breuer, C., & Ilgner, M. (2020). Determinants of public perception of elite sport. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 12(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2020.1794930.
     Google Scholar
  20. Heerdt, D., & Roorda, L. (2023). Lessons learned in Qatar: The role of the Netherlands and its businesses in addressing human rights abuses in mega-sporting events. Netherlands International Law Review, 70, 19–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00234-4.
     Google Scholar
  21. Helsen, K., Taks, M., & Scheerder, J. (2022). Involvement, social impact experiences, and event support of host residents before, during, and after the 2021 UCI Road World Championships. Sustainability in the Sports Market and Sports Events, 14(15), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159509.
     Google Scholar
  22. Hirschfeld, G., & Thielsch, M. T. (2015). Establishing meaningful cut points for online user ratings. Ergonomics, 58(2), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.965228.
     Google Scholar
  23. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
     Google Scholar
  24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, B. (1999). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
     Google Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.
     Google Scholar
  26. Lee, S. P., Cornwell, T. B., & Babiak, K. (2013). Developing an instrument to measure the social impact of sport: Social capital, collective identities, health literacy, well-being and human capital. Journal of Sport Management, 27(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.27.1.24.
     Google Scholar
  27. Maennig, W., & Vierhaus, C. (2016). Which countries bid for the Olympic Games? Economic, political, and social factors and chances of winning. Hamburg Contemporary Economic Discussions, 55, 26. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973282.
     Google Scholar
  28. Mutz, M., & Gerke, M. (2024). National pride effects of major sporting events. In: Research handbook on major sporting events, pp. 485–497. Elgar, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800885653.00047.
     Google Scholar
  29. Næss, H. E. (2023). Diversity and inclusion management in sport organizations: An integrative literature review. Managing Sport and Leisure, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2023.2213707.
     Google Scholar
  30. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill.
     Google Scholar
  31. Ohmann, S., Jones, I., & Wilkes, K. (2006). The perceived social impacts of the 2006 Football World Cup on Munich residents. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080601155167.
     Google Scholar
  32. Sant, S.-L., & Mason, D. S. (2015). Framing event legacy in a prospective host city: Managing Vancouver’s Olympic bid. Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSM.2013-0294.
     Google Scholar
  33. Taherdoost, H. (2019). What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design: Review of different Lengths of rating scale, attitude scale, likert scale. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 8(1), 1–12.
     Google Scholar
  34. Taks, M., Oshimi, D., & Agha, N. (2020). Other-versus self-referenced social impacts of events: Validating a new scale. Sustainability, 12(24), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410281.
     Google Scholar
  35. Van Bottenburg, M., Elling, A., Hover, P., Brinkhof, S., & Romijn, D. (2012). De maatschappelijke betekenis van topsport [The social significance of top-level sport]. Arko Sports Media.
     Google Scholar
  36. Van der Roest, J.-W., & Dijk, B. (2021). Developing an elite sports’ public value proposition in Northern Netherlands. European Sport Management Quarterly, 21(5), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1915354.
     Google Scholar
  37. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/270754.
     Google Scholar
  38. Yamaguchi, S., Yamaguchi, Y., & Nogawa, H. (2022). The perceived impacts of non-mega sporting events among host residents: A pre-post analysis of the kobe marathon. Event Management, 26(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599521X16192004803476.
     Google Scholar