All Brands Are Not Created Equal: Understanding the Role of Athletes in Sport-brand Architecture

Abstract

While previous studies in sport branding have advanced our knowledge about building and managing strong brands, most have focused on sport teams. As an extension of recent attempts to embrace athletes as brands, the paper conceptualizes the role of the athlete in the sport-brand architecture. Applying Aaker and Joachimsthaler's (2000) conceptualization, this study proposes the Athlete Brand Relationship Spectrum (ABRS). The ABRS extends extant literature by highlighting the various roles athletes hold in a sport organization's brand architecture. The authors discuss implications and limitations in terms of their significance for future study.

Headnote

Abstract

While previous studies in sport branding have advanced our knowledge about building and managing strong brands, most have focused on sport teams. As an extension of recent attempts to embrace athletes as brands, the paper conceptualizes the role of the athlete in the sport-brand architecture. Applying Aaker and Joachimsthaler's (2000) conceptualization, this study proposes the Athlete Brand Relationship Spectrum (ABRS). The ABRS extends extant literature by highlighting the various roles athletes hold in a sport organization's brand architecture. The authors discuss implications and limitations in terms of their significance for future study.

Keywords: sport, athlete brand, brand relationship spectrum, brand architecture

Introduction

In today's highly competitive market, branding has become an integral part of marketing and management, as a traditional marketing mix approach alone is no longer sufficient to differentiate the product or service from that of competitors (Kapferer, 2012). As Keller (1998) quoted the famous words of Levitt (I960), "New competition is not between what companies produce, but what they add in the form of things that people value" (p. 4). Managers now strive to understand consumer value to build strong brand equity. This includes sustainable growth drivers, such as brand loyalty, extension opportunity, as well as increasing sales and image enhancement (Aaker, 1996a, 1996b; Berry, 2000; Keller, 1998). This paradigm shift from product marketing to branding has changed our perspective from product-oriented management to customer-oriented (e.g., Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993), and the sport industry is no exception.

Sport managers and scholars realize that winning alone does not equal success for sport organizations (Gladden & Funk, 2001, 2002; Kaynak, Salman, & Tatoglu, 2007). As a result, sport managers and scholars now view and manage teams and organizations as brands and focus on the value consumers for the products and services they provide (e.g., Bauer, Sauer, & Schmitt, 2005; Gladden & Funk, 2002; Gladden, Milne, & Sutton, 1998; Ross, 2006; Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006). Prior studies have advanced our understanding of branding; however, with regard to sport, team sport brands have garnered most of the attention. Keller (2002) argued that branding research has focused exclusively on what he defined as the small "b," whereas the industry has been applying large "B" concepts in various areas. For example, while practitioners across various areas (e.g., religion, politics, education, entertainment, sport) have advanced their application of branding to human beings (Rein, Kotier, & Shields, 2006), scholars have restricted the scope of inquiry to the inanimate targets such as corporations, products, and services (Hughes, 2007). Williams, Kim, Walsh, and Choi (2015) acknowledged this limitation and argued that future branding research should examine the role of the athlete in brand management research.

Although referring to humans as brands is relatively new, in sport there are many examples of successful athletes who have enjoyed benefits from applying branding concepts to their careers (Arai, Ko, & Ross, 2013; Parmentier & Fischer, 2012). Furthermore, leagues, teams, and tournaments also benefit from athletes' high visibility as human brands. Examples include Tiger Woods, David Beckham, and Derek Jeter. Despite the prevalence of athletes using their celebrity status in the greater marketplace, researchers have not investigated this phenomenon (e.g., Arai, Ko, & Kaplanidou, 2013; Arai et ah, 2013; Hughes, 2007; Parmentier & Fischer, 2012; Thomson, 2006). Therefore, we reason that given the scope and utilization of athlete brands in the marketplace, a conceptualization of the various role athletes have in the brand architecture is warranted.

The purpose of this article is to build and provide a foothold for further development of athlete-branding research. Therefore, in the ensuing sections of this article, we evaluate prior literature in order to define appropriately athletes as brands and subsequently present the Athlete Brand Relationship Spectrum (ABRS). The ABRS illustrates the various relationships that athlete brands have within sport-brand architecture.

What Is an Athlete Brand?

Research has suggested that, due to their celebrity status, athletes have the ability to influence consumers' perceptions towards a product, service, or organization (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Jowdy & McDonald, 2002; Ohanian, 1991; Till, 2001). Athletes have an integral role in helping organizations increase awareness and create positive associations for their products and services, all the while building their own personal brand (Erdogan, 1999). For example, Tiger Woods' (professional golfer) ability to differentiate himself from other competitors through his name, appearance, personality, and performance has allowed him to become a coveted endorser for a myriad of companies and one of the strongest brands in sport (Ozanian, 2014). Despite Woods's performance decline, Ozanian (2014) estimated Woods's brand equity to be valued at $36 million. While the types of brand relationships and the brand value athletes hold may vary, it is important to understand that all professional athletes are brands and should be examined according to their role in the brand architecture structure of their teams, leagues and corporate partners.

Defining Athlete Brand

Athlete refers to a trained or talented individual who is fit to compete in a physically demanding sport (Kent, 2006). While athlete brands are prevalent, researchers have yet to clearly define this concept. However, we attempt to provide a clear definition of an athlete brand in order to understanding how athlete brands are built, managed, and evaluated. While Thomson (2006) defined human brand as "any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing and communication efforts," this definition is too abstract and narrow. The narrow subject (i.e., "well-known persona") is not appropriate for athlete brands, as athlete brand are dynamic in nature (Ross, 2006). The definition of athlete brand should open its subject to any athlete, regardless of current fame (see also Arai et al., 2013).

According to the American Marketing Association's definition (AMA, 2015), a brand is "a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or sendee as distinct from those of other sellers." Thus, we should consider athletes as brands - that is, an individual with a unique name, appearance, and other characteristics (e.g., personality, image) that identifies and distinguishes her or him from other competitors in the market. Arguably, this definition may be too marketer-oriented as it excludes other key features of a brand such as consumer benefits and added value (Aaker, 1996b; Wood, 2000).

Consumers are fundamental to building a strong brand, and a brand cannot exist without them. Thus, a brand should deliver various benefits or values to its consumers (Aaker, 1996b; Arai et al., 2013; Ji, 2008; Keller, 1993, 1998). Because fans are the core consumer for professional sports teams and individual athletes, the definition of an athlete brand reflects customer brand perspectives. Accordingly, De Chematony, McDonald, and Wallace (2011) defined brand as "a cluster of functional and emotional values that enables organizations to make a promise about a unique and welcomed experience" (p. 31). We adopt this definition to define the athlete brand for various reasons. First, the definition clearly describes the relationship between athletes and consumers. Second, this definition includes a functional and emotional benefit. Both are unique features of sport (Ciernes, Brush, & Collins, 2011; Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 1993) and the primary drivers behind sport-brand equity (Gladden et ab, 1998). Further, the definition highlights the consumer experience, which is as an important factor in building a strong sport brand (Ross, 2006).

Finally, we merged the previous brand definitions (Aria et al., 2013; De Chematony et al., 2011; Thompson, 2006; Williams, Rhenwrick, & Walsh, 2015). We define the athlete brand as a set of associations (e.g., name, personality) of any particular athlete who identifies and distinguishes themselves in the marketplace, and promises a functional and emotional experience to consumers. Our definition recognizes three key features of an athlete brand (i.e., the unique identifier, the set of associations consumers hold in their minds, and the value creator). For individual athletes, it is important for them to distinguish themselves within their team, league, and marketplace with a favorable and unique image. Doing so will allow them to succeed in person while bringing additional value to their consumers and organizations (Martin, 2009).

Athlete Brand in Brand Architecture

Understanding the structural relationships between sport brands (e.g., athlete and team) is a fundamental step for better understanding the athlete as a brand because it can implicitly show the roles and values of athlete brands in varying statuses that are a continuum (Aaker, 2004; Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000). Additionally, it can depict how athlete brands in different stages create and leverage value through relationships with other brands. In sport-branding literature, however, researchers have yet to explore the relationship between athletes and the organization to which they connect. In sport, athlete brands do not exist in a single, independent form. For example, in regard to the professional basketball, fans have historically associated Michael Jordan with the Chicago Bulls brand, but now they associate him with the Charlotte Hornets brand. He is still one of the major value drivers for the Chicago Bulls. However, Jordan does not serve as a major driver for his current brand relationship as owner of the Charlotte Hornets. By comparison, Jordan's brand is significantly different today as an NBA owner from in the past as an NBA athlete. The two relationships are not the same in terms of the roles and added value. According to Aaker and Joachimsthaler's (2000) framework, Jordan's brand was in a sub-brand relationship, meaning his brand was partially dependent on his relationship with master brand (Chicago Bulls), but possessed the ability to augment consumer perceptions (i.e., value) of the master brand. With the Charlotte Bobcats, however, Jordan serves as an endorsed- brand. This means that his brand has a lesser influence in the overall image of the Charlotte Hornets. However, Jordan's brand architecture role is just one example. Every athlete is diverse and complex in terms of their roles and relationships in the brand hierarchy.

Conceptual Background: Brand Relationship Spectrum (BRS)

Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) conceptualized and organized the concept of brand architecture: "the brand portfolio that specifies brand roles and the nature of relationships between brands" (p. 8). According to their conceptualization, we categorized brand relationships into four dimensions: house-of-brands, endorsed-brands, sub-brands, and branded-house. We categorized the dimensions based on the degree to which the brand drives the purchase decision or brand equity (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000).

Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) divided the four relationship dimensions into nine brand relationships, which they differentiated by driver role and the relevance between brands (i.e., house-of-brands into not connected and shadow endorser; endorsed-brands into token endorser, linked name, and strong engagement; sub-brands into co-driver and master brand as driver; branded-house into different identity and same identity). Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) arranged the brand relationship from house-of-brands, endorsed-brands, and sub-brands to branded-house in the order of the driver role that the master brand has in the relationship. For example, the house-of-brands dimension has the least impact of all brand dimensions on its subbrands. In contrast, the branded-house has the most impact on its sub-brands.

The BRS is a framework intended to help brand managers understand and analyze their complex brand structure for strategic brand management. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) suggested, the following key questions, which they used to determine if strategic movement or adjustment is appropriate for managing the brand:

* Does the master brand contribute to the offering by adding" associations, credibility, visibility, and communication efficiency?

* Can we strengthen the master brand?

* Is there a compelling need for a separate brand; will it enhance positive associations (or avoid negatives), new offerings (or avoid conflict), and customers?

* Will the business support a new brand name? (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, p. 17)

They suggested that positive answers for the first two questions imply the aptness of strategic movement downward (i.e., toward a branded-house) and upward movement (i.e., toward a house-of-brands) when the answers are positive for the last two questions.

Conceptual Framework: Athlete Brand Relationship Spectrum (ABRS)

The authors of the BRS developed the model for managing product-driven organizations, the brand architecture concept may aid sport marketing scholars and practitioners in understanding varying relationships athletes have with their respective teams, leagues, and corporate sponsors. Therefore, we present the Athlete Brand Relationship Spectrum, which details the role of athlete brands with regard to the nature of brand relationships. We used the term "master brand" in reference to teams, leagues, and tournaments, as opposed to relegating athletes to the role of sub-brand in all brand relationships (see Figure 1).

House-of-brands

A house-of-brands is at an extreme of brand architecture for both business and sport. House-ofbrands is a brand that involves an independent set of stand-alone brands under a master brand name. This brand relationship implies that a weak link exists between the master brand and subbrand in consumers' minds due to the perception that the two are not connected. In this case, the relationship between brands has a marginal impact on purchase decisions and brand equity. In sport, this relationship is found when the association consumers hold for an athlete do not connect to or are not congruent with that of the team, league, or corporate partner. For example, foreign ambassadors (i.e., star players who have millions of fans in their home countries; Kerr & Gladden, 2008) and star players on a team, league, or conference that are less-established, may serves as drivers for consumer perceptions of the master brand. This relationship would bring unbalanced and short-term benefits to the brands. For example, this is indicative of a consumer who stops supporting a team because his or her favorite athlete is no longer a member of that team. For instance, the loyalty of National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) fans typically lies with the stock car driver. While the stock car team and sponsoring brands may accrue the benefits from the relationships with the stock car driver, their value is based on the relationship with the stock car driver.

Endorsed-brands

Endorsed-brands are the type commonly found in sports and involve an endorser-brand and an endorsed-brand. In this case, athlete brands are endorser-brands and the sport organization (e.g., team, league) is the endorsed-brands. In this category, the endorser-brand (i.e., athlete brand) is different from the sub-brand in the other ABRS dimensions, in which it is a master brand The degree of link between the athlete brand and, for instance, the athlete's team will vary depending on their shared attributes and perceived fit in the minds' of consumers. While the sport organization can benefit from the athlete's well-established image (e.g., credibility, reputation), endorsements also provide additional associations for the athlete's brand (Aaker & Joachims thaler, 2000; Till, 2001). In this case, endorser-brand is typically a high-profile athlete who lends their name, image, and likeness to a corporate entity in order to promote or sell a product or service (Till, 2001). For example, Roger Federer (a professional tennis player) and Derrick Rose (a professional basketball player) are strong endorser-brands for Nike Tennis and Adidas Basketball, respectively. Athletes' extending their brand in to other businesses is another type of endorsed-brand relationship, which entails the athlete endorsing his or her own product or service.

Subbrands

The sub-brand dimension refers to the relationship between the master brand and the sub-brand to which it connects. The relationship is based on brand image transfer, or the ability of the athlete brand (i.e., sub-brand) to transfer his or her image onto the image of the sport organization (i.e., master brand). In the sub-brand dimension, however, the athlete brand is somewhat dependent on the master brand, and their relationship is closer than those of endorsed-brands. Due to the closeness, a sub-brand has the potential to impact the master brand's image in a positive or negative way. For example, people view Tiger Woods as a subbrand of NIKE Golf due to his impact on the associations consumers have for Nike Golf. Woods' on- and off-field reputation may directly and significantly impact the associations consumers have for NIKE Golf, people regard this relationship as a sub-brand (Le., a co-driver). According to Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), in some cases, we cannot generalize relationships because each situation has a different context. In our conceptualization, we delineate the difference between an endorsed-brand and a sub-brand by adding the representativeness of the sub-brands as a guideline. While an endorsed-brand relationship may include closeness and a considerable effect of the endorser-brand on the associations with the master brand, they may not actually represent the master brand in the relationship, whereas, in fact, a sub-brand does. Therefore, we introduce the degree of representativeness as a guideline that clarifies the differences between endorsedbrands and sub-brands to boost our understanding of athlete-brand relationships. Due to the potential impact on both brands derived from closeness and representativeness, this relationship requires promising roles for both master brands and sub-brands as co-drivers (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000).

Branded-house

The branded-house dimension is where a master brand plays a dominant role as the brand-equity driver, while sub-brands merely play a descriptive role as dependents. Put another way, in the branded house dimension consumers give their loyalty to the master-brand and the sub-brand benefits from its relationship with the master brand. We note the impact that subbrands have on the master brand in the branded-house relationship is much weaker than their impact in the sub-brand relationship. In the branded-house relationship, although sub-brands are necessities for the master brand to produce its products and services, they have little impact on the image of master brand. For instance, athletes who have yet to gain notoriety in the marketplace, and have no equity fit in this dimension of the ABRS. Figure 1 depicts the structure and relationships in sport-brand architecture.

Implications and Limitations

ABRS is the first known attempt at conceptualizing the role of athletes in sport brand architecture. It explains the types of roles athlete brands have in sport-related organizations. Through this conceptualization, we attempt to provide evidential foundation for athletes as brands.

Throughout the ABRS framework, we recognize the unique relationships existing in sport-brand architecture. First, the relationships between athlete brands and other brands are more dynamic than brand architecture relationships in other industries. In sport, the changes in the brand's relationships (e.g., a new endorsement contract, continuation or termination of sponsorship) may vary on the basis of internal and external factors outside of the control of the athlete or the organization. Second, while athlete brands are sub-brands in most cases, they ultimately have more control over their role in the brand architecture spectrum. This is, however, not the case for product driven brands. For product driven brands the control typically lies with the master brand. Therefore, athletes and their constituents must understand how to manage the athlete as a brand and should have knowledge of their brand relationships within the sport brand architecture. Further, ABRS also provides another critical implication for sport stakeholders. That is, the value of an athlete brand is not only the asset of the athlete but also an asset to all of his or her stakeholders.

ABRS helps our understanding of why we should view athletes as brands. However, it only provides a broad picture of sport brands and their relationships, and it does not provide a strategic approach for practitioners. Additionally, since we took the sub-relationships under the four major relationships direcdy from the BRS (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000), similar to previous findings (Ross, 2006), we are not sure how applicable ABRS may be to some unique relationships in sport. Therefore, we encourage further research in the area of sub-relationships. In addition to the unique nature of sport, because of the complexity of sport-brand architecture, more investigations should occur. This is because one brand can have multiple relationships with other brands simultaneously, and the boundaries between relationships are not definite. Thus, more research focusing on this complex area of inquiry is necessary.

We also believe future research should examine athlete-brand associations for different types of brand relationships (e.g., house-of-brands, sub-brands). Research in the area would allow scholars to identify the type of brand associations (e.g., attributes, benefits) that are attributable to development of athlete-brand equity. Furthermore, examining the salient brand associations consumers hold for athletes in different brand relationship dimensions would provide managerial guidelines for athletes, their agencies, and affiliate organizations. Finally, future research should also examine how an athlete's role with one brand affects his or her role with other brands.

Sidebar

Discussion Questions

1. This article discussed the degrees of relevance and representativeness as the factors that distinguish sub-brand relationships and endorsed-brand relationships. From athlete brand perspective, how can practitioners use these two brand relationships in order to increase brand equity?

2. From a sport organization's perspective, which of the four relationship dimensions (i.e., house of brand, endorsed brand, sub-brand, and branded house) would be most desirable? Would it be different across sports?

3. The authors mentioned that the value of an athlete brand is an asset not only to the athlete but also to organizations affiliated with the athlete as well. What strategies can marketers use to maximize the value they can obtain from an athlete's brand?

To Cite this Article

Williams, A. S., Kim, D., Agyemang, K., & Martin, T. G. (2015, Fall). All brands are not created equal: Understanding the role of athletes in sport-brand architecture. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(3), 75-86.

References

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996a). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996b). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 103.

Aaker, D. A. (2004). Brand portfolio strategy: Creating relevance, differentiation, energy, leverage, and clarity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). The brand relationship spectrum. California Management Review, 42(4), 8-23.

American Marketing Association. (2015). Brand. In Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/resources/pages/dictionary.aspx

Arai, A., Ko, Y. J., & Kaplanidou, K. (2013). Athlete brand image: Scale development and model test. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13 (4), 308-403.

Arai, A., Ko, Y. J., & Ross, S. (2013). Branding athletes: Exploration and conceptualization of athlete brand image. Sport Management Review, 1/(2), 97-106.

Bauer, H. H., Sauer, N. E., & Schmitt, P. (2005). Customer-based brand equity in the team sport industry: Operationalization and impact on the economic success of sport teams. European Journal of Marketing, 39(5/6), 496-513.

Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating sendee brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128-137.

Boyd, T. C., & Shank, M. D. (2004). Athletes as product endorsers: the effect of gender and product relatedness. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(2), 82-93.

Ciernes, M. D., Brush, G. J., & Collins, M. J. (2011). Analyzing the professional sport experience: A hierarchical approach. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 370-388.

De Chematony, L, McDonald, M., & Wallace, E. (2011). Creating potverful brands (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Boulder.

Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 291-314.

Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2001). Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport: Examining the link between brand association and brand loyalty. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3(1), 67-94.

Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 16(1), 54-81.

Gladden, J. M., Milne, G. R., & Sutton, W. A. (1998). A conceptual framework for assessing brand equity in division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12(1), 1-19.

Hughes, A. (2007). Personal brands: An exploratory analysis of personal brands in Australian political marketing. Paper presented at the ANZMAC Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Ji, M. F. (2008). Child-brand relations: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(5-6), 603-619.

Jowdy, E., & McDonald, M. (2002). Tara Nott case study: Celebrity endorsements and image matching. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 186-189.

Kaynak, E., Salman, G. G., & Tatoglu, E. (2007). An integrative framework linking brand associations and brand loyalty in professional sports. Journal of Brand Management, 15(5), 336-351.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keller, K. L. (2002). Branding and brand equity. In B. A. Weitz & R. Wensley (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing (pp. 151-178). London: Sage.

Kent, M. (2006). The Oxford dictionary of sports science and medicine (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Kerr, A. K., & Gladden, J. M. (2008). Extending the understanding of professional team brand equity to the global marketplace. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 3(1), 58-77.

Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic thinking (4th ed.). London, England: Kogan Page.

Kotier, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9 (4), 249-261.

Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38, 45-56.

Martin, B. (2009). An interview with William Arruda: Communicating your personal brand. Thunderbird International Business Review, 51 (5), 417.

Mullin, B., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. (1993). Sport marketing (1st ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons' perceived image on consumers' intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (1), 46-54.

Ozanian, M. (2011, October 3). The Forbes fab 40: The world's most valuable sports brands. Forbes.com. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45fhklg/2-tiger-woods/

Parmenti, M. A., & Fischer, E. (2012). How athletes build their brands. International Journal of Sport Management & Marketing, 11(1), 106-124.

Rein, I. J., Kotier, P., & Shields, B. (2006). The elusive fan: Reinventing sports in a crowded marketplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ross, S. D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 22-38.

Ross, S. D., James, J. D., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand associations in professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20(2), 260-279.

Till, B. (2001). Managing athlete endorser image: The effect of endorsed product. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10 (1), 35 -42.

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers' strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104-119.

Williams, A., Walsh, P., & Rhenwrick, I. (2015). A conceptual framework for assessing brand equity in professional athletes. International Journal of Sport Management, 16(1), 1-21.

Williams, A., Kim, D., Walsh, P., & Choi, W. (2015). What children love about athletes: An assessment of athlete brand associations among youth consumers. Global Sport Business Journal, 3(1), 63-77.

Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669.