Agenda 2030 y Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible

Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal
The future of professional football: A Delphi-based perspective of German experts

on probable versus surprising scenarios
Steffen Merkel Sascha L. Schmidt Dominik Schreyer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Steffen Merkel Sascha L. Schmidt Dominik Schreyer , (2016),"The future of professional football",
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 295 - 319
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBM-10-2014-0043
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 10:40 16 September 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 16 September 2016, At: 10:40 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 42 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"The role of sport science in the elite football labour process", Sport, Business and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 341-359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
SBM-07-2015-0023
(2016),"Factors impacting the decision to attend soccer games: an exploratory study",
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 320-340 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBM-05-2014-0024
(2016),"The impact of social networks in the development of a personal sports brand",
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 274-294 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBM-09-2015-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:235887 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-678X.htm
The future of professional The future of

professional
football football
A Delphi-based perspective of
German experts on probable 295
versus surprising scenarios
Steffen Merkel
Center for Sports Marketing, EBS Business School, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany
Sascha L. Schmidt
Center for Sports and Management,

WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany, and
Dominik Schreyer
Center for Sports Marketing, EBS Business School, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the future of professional soccer by 2025. Scientific
foresight studies on this industry do not yet exist despite its current position at a crossroads: toward
further exploitation of profit potential? Or clear commitment to the traditional European Model of Sport?
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a Delphi-based scenario study. In total, 62
high-level experts from sport, business, and society evaluated the probability of occurrence, impact,
and desirability of 15 future projections over at least two rounds. The resulting 5,940 quantitative
judgments and 670 qualitative comments were condensed into probable scenarios and surprising
wildcards.
Findings – Two probable scenarios for European professional soccer by 2025 exist: in an
extrapolation scenario, clubs will reap long-term gains from fulfilling public demands regarding
stadium security, competitive balance, and social engagement. The less likely alternative is an
extensive commercialization, including a short-term exploitation of all imaginable income sources, such
as virtually augmented stadiums, financial investors, and league-owned broadcasting channels.
Research limitations/implications – The findings are primarily based on qualitative research and
an all-German sample. Further studies could incorporate additional quantitative data or might survey
an international panel to increase predictive accuracy.
Originality/value – The paper is novel in that it examines a yet unaddressed research gap – the
future of professional soccer – with a common scientific foresight method that is already established in
sport management research – the Delphi technique.
Keywords Football, Scenario planning, Foresight, Delphi survey, Club marketing, Fan behaviour,
Professional soccer, Bundesliga
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Association football is one of the world’s most popular sports. No other ball
game unites 1.3 billion fans, 265 million active players, and 26 billion World Cup
spectators (Alegi et al., 2013; Fédération Internationale de Football Association, 2007).
Sport, Business and Management:
Especially European professional football leagues exert significant economic impact. An International Journal
Vol. 6 No. 3, 2016
pp. 295-319
The authors would like to thank Dr Heiko A. von der Gracht for his valuable support and friendly © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2042-678X
review of the paper. DOI 10.1108/SBM-10-2014-0043
SBM The top-division clubs nearly tripled their revenues during the past decade to
6,3 €19.4 billion in the 2011/2012 season ( Jones and Boon, 2003; Jones, 2013). This figure is
comparable to the $23 billion combined income of the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL major
league franchises (Hanold, 2012).
The economic boom of professional football in Europe coincided with major changes
during the last 20 years, such as the foundation of the UEFA Champions League that
296 meanwhile realizes the highest broadcasting income of any football league worldwide
(Szymanski, 2006), or the Bosman Ruling that guarantees players, whose contracts
have expired, the right to free transfers (Simmons, 1997). Currently, there are no signs
that the industry’s growth and rate of transformation are slowing down.
Nonetheless, European professional football has seemingly reached a crossroads (see,
e.g. Beech and Chadwick, 2013): either further commercialization as supporters of a closed
Champions League, stock market-financed clubs, and restricted player releases for national
team competitions propose (Szymanski, 2006) – or clear commitment to the traditional

European Model of Sport with promotion and relegation based on sporting merit, solidarity
between professional and amateur leagues, and football’s mission to strengthen national
identity and social integration (European Commission, 1998; Szymanski, 2003).
This is in particular true for the German market. Being the world’s most popular
league in terms of average stadium attendance for the sixth consecutive year (Deutsche
Fußball Liga, 2015), German Bundesliga as well as participating “clubs [also] lead the
way in terms of commercial revenue [with] €816 million” ( Jones, 2013). In contrast,
policy-makers in the Bundesliga have been shy to relax financial regulations such as
the widely discussed 50+1-rule (Budzinski and Müller, 2013). Unlike in, for example,
the British/Barclays Premier League or the Spanish Primera División, further
commercialization is therefore not necessarily a given in all football markets.
Scenario planning[1] is a common method to explore the future of market segments,
industries, products, or regions, when they have reached such a crossroads. The term
implies using the scenario technique and subsequently crafting strategies based on the
developed future scenarios, which are usually reported as internally consistent and
plausible narratives (Amer et al., 2013; Bishop et al., 2007). Scenario planning is employed
in virtually every industry today since the timely identification of trends, the capability
to handle uncertainties, and the quick adaptation to changes are fundamental to
organizational competitiveness (Varum and Melo, 2010). Surprisingly, a scientific study
concerning the future of professional football in Europe or in specific European markets
such as Germany does not yet exist to the best of our knowledge, which is quite remarkable
considering the market’s size, growth potential, and current position at a crossroads.
Our paper aims at closing this research gap and was directed by two main questions:
(1) Which scenarios will shape the probable future of professional football by
2025 – in particular, what will be the major areas and drivers of development?
(2) Which events will shape the surprising future of professional football by 2025 –
in particular, what are realistic variants of radical disruptions?
We developed two probable scenarios and two surprising wildcard scenarios based on
the results of our Delphi survey, an established survey method that has already been
applied in sport management research (e.g. Costa, 2005; Uhrich and Benkenstein, 2010).
A survey panel comprising 62 experts from the immediate German Bundesliga
environment evaluated the probability of occurrence, impact, and desirability of 15
future theses, or so-called projections. These projections covered potential changes to
game rules, stadium spectator behavior, or marketing of broadcasting rights. In doing The future of
so, we do not only explore potential enablers and inhibitors of the near future of the professional
football industry, but on a side note, approach football experts’ general attitudes
toward entrepreneurship and innovation for the first time.
football
Although we persevere a relatively strict German experts’ perspective on the
future of professional football, our results allow for generalized statements
regarding the future of football in Europe and beyond. In fact, most experts 297
operate across Europe and frequently exchange views with other experts around the
globe. For example, some of our experts work for a leading international sport
rights agency and consult professional football clubs throughout Europe – others
are executives from the football industry and are active members of international
working or interest groups such as the European Club Association (ECA). In addition,
while some few projections centered on specific developments within the
German market, thus making a sound knowledge of the German football market a
prerequisite for being considered as an expert, most projections focus on the
football industry as a whole.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: we first briefly review the literature
on experts’ attitudes toward innovation in professional football, as well as on scenario
planning in professional football and Delphi applications in sport management
research. Delphi surveys must follow rigorous scientific principles to yield valid and
reliable results. Our four-step research process including the formulation of projections,
selection of experts, execution of the survey, and development of scenarios is hence
extensively documented. Thereafter, we discuss the results and present two probable
scenarios, and two surprising wildcard scenarios. The paper concludes by
summarizing the findings, deriving practical implications, and highlighting avenues
for further research.
Literature review
Football experts’ attitudes toward innovation in professional football
Although the ability to innovate sports is fundamental in a rapidly changing global
business environment (Ratten, 2011; see also Ratten, 2010), literature on experts’
attitudes toward innovation in sports is scarce and has been mostly limited to the
analysis of managerial attitudes in the field of non-profit sport organizations which, at
least to a certain extent, follow own rules (see, e.g. Vos et al., 2012)[2]. Hoeber and
Hoeber (2012), for example, present evidence suggesting that managers’ attitudes
toward innovation were of significant importance not only during the initiation but also
the adoption decision phase. Similarly, Winand et al. (2013), find that, at the managerial
level, decision-maker’s attitudes toward change are critical for service innovation in
sports federations.
In contrast, empirical studies discussing experts’ attitudes toward innovation and
(technological) change in both professional sports in general and professional football
in particular are practically non-existent. To the best of our knowledge only one study
has so far made professional football decision-makers’ attitudes toward innovation a
subject of discussion – and this with an unexpected result. More specifically, Gilmore
and Gilson (2007), find that, “[w]hilst the change management literature typically
emphasizes dramatic and rapid coercive restructuring accompanying open-ended
environment change” (p. 409), decision-makers of Bolton Wanderers Football Club
successfully responded to continuous, seismographic change by using a mixture of
both innovation and “known routines and historical ways of working” ( p. 409).
SBM Aside of this case study, football experts’ attitudes toward innovation and change in
6,3 general and the future of professional football in particular remain a “black box.” This
is even more surprising as professional football policy-makers at a global level, often
labeled conservative, have not necessarily been resistant to various innovations like the
introduction of Financial Fair Play (e.g. Flanagan, 2013; Franck, 2014; Szymanski, 2014;
see also Dermit-Richard, 2012), decision aid technology (Fowler, 2013), and new contest
298 designs such as FIFA’s Club World Cup in 2000 or UEFA’s Week of Football in 2014.
Similarly, the laws of the game have changed repeatedly, taking also into account
recent technological developments (e.g. International Football Association Board, 2015).
Subsequently, in order to shed some light on this important issue, we draw on scenario
planning that, “among the many tools a manager can use for strategic planning […]
stands out for its ability to capture a whole range of possibilities in rich detail”
(Schoemaker, 1995, p. 25).
Scenario planning and professional football

Scenario planning has a long history. Although its application in the business context
is a newer phenomenon and 70 percent of all studies were published after the year 2000,
it is an established method to simulate the future of firms, market segments, industries,
or regions for several reasons (Bradfield et al., 2005; Varum and Melo, 2010). Scenario
planning was found to improve corporate financial performance (Phelps et al., 2001)
and prevent decision-making errors, such as overconfidence and tunnel vision
(Schoemaker, 1995). Scenario techniques are popular in many sectors, most pronounced
in the energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, logistics, transportation, and nursing
industries. Surprisingly, scientific scenario studies on the future of professional football
do not exist to the best of our knowledge.
Scientists and practitioners seeking to have a look into the “crystal ball” on this topic
currently need to develop scenarios themselves. Only scattered suggestions are
available in academic papers, political resolutions, industry reports, and edited books.
This literature revolves around three major topics.
The first is changes in national leagues’ frame conditions. A closed Champions
League, increasing competitive imbalance at the national level, and stronger profit
orientation of football clubs are frequently mentioned trends (Hoehn and Szymanski,
1999; Smith and Westerbeek, 2004; Szymanski, 2006). In addition, changes to game
rules have been recommended by some authors, which would have considerable impact
on the football industry. Partovi and Corredoira (2002) recommend reducing the
number of field players, whereas Voepel and Quitzau (2009) expect time-outs and
instant replays to facilitate in generating additional advertising revenues.
Second, on the supply side, football club marketing will likely evolve by 2025. Boyle
and Haynes (2004) hypothesize that league associations could directly distribute
content through own pay TV channels instead of auctioning media rights to
broadcasters. Moreover, corporate citizenship programs might become indispensable
for professional football clubs according to Smith and Westerbeek (2004).
Third, demand side changes could shape the future of professional football. Voepel
and Quitzau (2009) believe that increasing mobility, individualism, and digitalization
will significantly change fan behavior. They predict a rising share of international fans,
a replacement of lifelong fans by short-term event consumers, and a digitalization of
the spectator experience. Furthermore, widespread fan involvement in club ownership
and management, as advocated by the European Parliament, Committee on Culture
and Education (2006), is imaginable.
The existing literature provides initial insights but only constitutes a starting point. The future of
The above-cited references either do not qualify as scenario studies or rely on professional
qualitative narratives instead of rigorous foresight approaches. Among the most
prominent of these approaches are Delphi surveys, which frequently serve as input
football
generators for scenario planning (Nowack et al., 2011).
Delphi applications in sport management research 299

The Delphi method has been previously applied in sport management research. Costa
(2005) surveyed 17 scholars on the current status, main controversies, and ideal future
of sport management research, application, and training. Uhrich and Benkenstein
(2010) composed a Delphi panel with 20 fan commissioners from the German
Bundesliga, who identified and ranked formative indicators of sport stadium
atmosphere during live team sports. Lim et al. (1994) asked 30 experts to name
investment areas for promoting mass sport in South Korea in a Delphi-like approach.
Recently, Tavana et al. (2013) integrated a Delphi survey among football coaches into a
fuzzy inference system to determine optimal team formations in multi-player sports.
These examples feature different numbers of rounds, respondents, or evaluation
dimensions and illustrate the topical and methodological flexibility of the approach.
However, it is remarkable that only Costa (2005) applies the Delphi method with its
genuine purpose, namely, in a foresight study (Gordon and Helmer, 1964).
Our research proceeds in the same vein. We conduct a Delphi survey to generate
input for scenarios on the future of professional football in Europe, and thus, explore
football experts’ attitudes toward innovation within this respective industry for the
first time. Thereby, we address a research gap with a common scientific foresight
method, which is already established in sport management research.
Method
Choice of foresight method
Scenario planning is defined by Schoemaker and van der Heijden (1992) as an
exploration which focusses on several key uncertainties and illustrations of the future.
Its result is a “coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible
future state […]. It is not a forecast; rather, a scenario is one alternative image of how
the future can unfold” (Nakicenovic et al., 2000). The Delphi method is frequently used
to generate input for scenario planning since it produces creative, objective, and
credible solutions to problems in absence of empirical evidence (Nowack et al., 2011).
Delphi was developed by US RAND Corporation to synthesize opinions on the
future and comprises four principles: anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and
statistical aggregation (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Gordon and Helmer, 1964; Rowe and
Wright, 1999). The method asks participants to anonymously evaluate pre-defined
projections of the future along several dimensions with mandatory quantitative scores
and optional qualitative arguments. Upon completion, the experts receive controlled
feedback by means of summary statistics on the entire panel’s judgment per projection.
In subsequent iterations, participants can modify or maintain the evaluations based on
their knowledge of the group consensus (von der Gracht, 2012). Delphi provides more
accurate assessments than individuals as it reflects the principle that “n heads are
better than one” in cases of uncertainty (Rowe et al., 1991). It also has advantages to
interactive groups which are often dominated by powerful individuals, exhibit peer
pressure, and tend to have unstructured discussions (Dalkey, 1969; Powell, 2003).
SBM We applied a real-time Delphi approach, which has been proven to be efficient and
6,3 valid by Gnatzy et al. (2011). Contrary to traditional sequential paper-and-pencil Delphi
studies, this internet-based variant provides panelists with immediate feedback by
aggregating all evaluations completed so far, even if some experts have not yet
responded. Participants may directly proceed to the next “round” although the
real-time Delphi process essentially becomes “round-less” without violating any of its
300 four principles (Gordon and Pease, 2006). A key advantage of the real-time approach is
a lower drop-out rate since time-constrained panelists may flexibly absolve the
evaluation rounds (Gnatzy et al., 2011).
In line with Schuckmann et al. (2012), the experts selected for our research endeavor
rated all projections concerning their expected probability of occurrence (metric scale
0-100 percent), impact on the football industry, and desirability (both five-point Likert
scales). Subsequently, they received the compiled statistics for group mean, median,
and interquartile range (IQR)[3] as well as written arguments. Combining such

quantitative and qualitative feedback has been previously proven to improve the
accuracy of research results (Best, 1974).
The establishment of methodological rigor in Delphi-based scenario planning is
crucial to guarantee the validity and reliability of results (Hasson and Keeney, 2011).
Therefore, we followed proven guidelines and applied the approach used by von der
Gracht and Darkow (2010). The overall research process, as depicted by Figure 1,
encompassed four main steps.
First, we formulated and reviewed the Delphi projections by condensing over 160
relevant factors. Second, we selected the panel experts by identifying, evaluating, and
finally inviting 167 participants from diverse professional backgrounds. Third, we
conducted the Delphi survey over a six-week period. Fourth, we developed probable
future scenarios and surprising wildcard scenarios for the European professional
football industry in 2025 based on the Delphi results. Steps 1, 2, and 4 are detailed
hereafter. In particular, we emphasize which scientific guidelines were adopted to
guarantee methodological rigor.
Formulation of Delphi projections

To facilitate comprehension, Table I displays the 15 Delphi projections for the football
industry in 2025. Literature (e.g. Gausemeier et al., 1996) recommends incorporating
input from various sources when formulating future projections. We structured this
process as follows: first, extensive desk research synthesized insights from academic
papers, industry reports, edited books, and internet-based discussions and yielded
Desk Expert Development Review and Analysis Scenario Discontinuity Plausibility

Research Workshop of projections pretesting of results formulation analysis checks
Formulation of Selection of Execution of Development of

Delphi projections panel experts Delphi survey future scenarios
Figure 1.
Four-step research
process of our
Delphi-based
Definition of Identification Evaluation Invitation
scenario study exp. categories of experts of experts of experts
Areas of future development
The future of
Frame conditions professional
Football industry Supply side Demand side football
Drivers environment 2025 Football club marketing 2025 Football fan behavior 2025
P 1. Football rules resemble 5. Every professional football 10. Large investors and fan
ice hockey and handball club has a corporate social associations hold the
rules. Time outs, responsibility code of majority of shares in the 301
changes “on the fly,” conduct, which its sponsors professional football clubs
and time penalties have also have to satisfy of the German Bundesliga
been introduced
E 2. The Champions League 6. Professional football clubs 11. International fans are the
qualification has been have resolved the problem of greatest source of revenue for
abolished – participants violent stadium spectators by professional football clubs.
are selected based on increasing their investments They finance player transfers
economic criteria (e.g. in security via micro-investments
brand popularity) (e.g. €2 per fan)
S 3. The Bundesliga 7. The leagues have abolished 12. Fans identify themselves
remains the most the summer break and have with superstars instead of
competitively balanced introduced a winter break football clubs and switch
professional football instead clubs according to which
league in Europe team their superstar plays
for
13. Contrary to movies, shows,
and documentaries, football
games are the last type of
TV event that is watched
“live” by spectators
T 4. Driven by new 8. Football TV rights are not 14. Stadium spectators view
marketing opportunities auctioned to the media commercials, information,
in the area of digital anymore – the leagues sell and videos via technological
technologies, the football the rights directly to end innovations, such as Second
industry maintained its consumers though own Screens or Google Glasses
growth rate after 2013 channels
9. Professional football clubs 15. Fans actively influence
generate higher sponsoring football games by voting
revenues through digital about team line-ups,
channels than through substitutions, or Table I.
classical in-stadium sportswear/jersey designs Delphi Projections
advertising for the football
Notes: P, political-legal; E, economic; S, socio-cultural; T, technological industry by 2025
119 future factors to consider. Second, we conducted an expert workshop to confront

11 industry practitioners with these results. The subsequent discussion yielded
49 additional factors.
Third, we channeled and structured all creative ideas in a matrix spanned by the
dimensions areas of future developments and drivers of future developments. Based on
the literature review, three areas were identified: the industry frame conditions (i.e. the
leagues’ environment), the industry supply side (i.e. club marketing), and the industry
demand side (i.e. fan behavior). To identify drivers, many Delphi studies use the PEST
framework (Nowack et al., 2011). Therefore, we distinguished four categories, namely,
political-legal, economic, socio-cultural, and technological drivers (Applegate and
SBM Johnsen, 2007). Each cell of the resulting 3×4 matrix was populated with 1-2 key
6,3 projections, which were selected based on the discussion during the expert workshop,
in order to condense the respective previously detected factors. This process ensured
an unbiased and balanced questionnaire design (Nowack et al., 2011). The statements
accordingly covered a broad variety of potential developments, among others
concerning game rules, competitive balance, club ownership, stadium spectator
302 behavior, or marketing of broadcasting rights. At the same time, the Delphi survey was
limited to 15 projections requiring less than 30 minutes of the experts’ time to avoid
response fatigue (Hung et al., 2008; Mitchell, 1991). We selected a planning horizon of
2025 to permit distancing from already fixed decisions and promote “out-of-the-box”-
thinking (von der Gracht and Darkow, 2010).
Fourth, a review and pretest verified the completeness and plausibility of the
questionnaire content. Moreover, compliance of the statements with common principles
was checked since their formulation crucially affects the quality of Delphi studies.
Projections should be 10-30 words long, depending on their complexity and the experts’
familiarity with the subject (Salancik et al., 1971). Furthermore, they should be
unambiguous, feature only agreed-upon definitions, and avoid forcing respondents to
answer several compounded conditional statements at once (Hill and Fowles, 1975).
Selection of panel experts

The quality of Delphi results reflects the combined expertise of all participants.
Therefore, improper panel selection is the most serious validity threat in Delphi studies
(Creswell, 2003; Mitchell and McGoldrick, 1994). By definition, Delphi panels are not
statistically representative, but contain only the most knowledgeable experts (Powell,
2003). There is no general rule regarding the optimal sample size. It depends on the
research scope, the desired panel heterogeneity, and the availability of experts in the
field (Fink et al., 1984; Loo, 2002). While many Delphi studies feature 15-35 respondents
(Gordon, 1994), surveys with parameters similar to ours – broad scope, heterogeneous
panel structure, numerous available experts – have had 40-60 participants (e.g. Schmidt
et al., 2001). This was also our target panel size. Our four-step selection process relied on
ideas from Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) and is described hereafter.
First, we defined expert categories including their approximate weights. This
facilitates a well-balanced panel, which is recommended particularly with respect to
professional background (Preble, 1984). Heterogeneous panels produce more accurate
estimates since diverse viewpoints reduce the polarization of preferences and responses
(Yaniv, 2011). Particularly in Delphi surveys with a broad scope, participants with
different backgrounds complement each other since one person cannot be a specialist
for every topic (Bradley and Stewart, 2003). Our three categories of experts from sport,
sports business, and society, including the respective number of invitees and
participants, are depicted in Table II.
In step 2, all categories were populated with a long-list of specific candidates whom
we identified via criterion sampling, similar to other Delphi studies. In particular, we
scanned the previously defined target functions and activated the contact networks of
our institute and our research partner.
In step 3, we evaluated the 272 long-list candidates by calculating an
aggregate score of their prominence within the industry, their expertise concerning
the statements to be examined, and their likelihood of participation. On this basis,
we selected the invitees and prioritized to whom to send follow-up reminders to
encourage participation.
Sport (19/48) Business (24/62) Society (19/57)
The future of
Professional football clubs (7/22) Sport marketing and (19/34) Academia (7/17) professional
sponsoring football
Football club marketing Football rights Futures research
and sales marketing agencies institutes
Executive board Managing directors Directors
members 303
Football club finance Sports marketing Consumer research
and controlling agencies institutes
Executive board Managing directors Directors
members
Football club sporting Football sponsoring Sport and fan research
matters agencies institutes
Executive board Managing directors Directors and
members researchers
Stadium service (7/12) Football sponsors (3/18) Fan organizations (3/10)
providers
Stadium regulatory Sport equipment Football club
bodies manufacturers supporter liaison
Commissioners Heads of sport Department heads
marketing
Stadium management Corporate football Independent fan
companies sponsors initiatives
Managing directors Heads of sport Spokespersons
marketing
Stadium equipment “Emerging” football International fan
manufacturers sponsors associations
Project managers Managing directors Spokespersons
Football associations (5/14) Sport-related internet (2/10) Media (9/30)
companies
Federal football Internet sport portals TV stations
association Founders Sport department
Department heads heads
Club football association Large internet Printed matter
Board members/ corporations Football magazine
Directors Managers chief editors
Sport venture financers Internet channels
Business angels Managing directors Table II.
Notes: Level 1 (expert areas): column head; Level 2 (types of expert organizations): normal font; Level Composition of the
3 (expert functions): italics. (/) ¼ (number of participants/number of invitees) Delphi panel
In step 4, we invited 167 experts, who received a personal e-mail with a customized link
to our internet-based Delphi portal. Moreover, direct contacts of our institute and our
research partner were approached personally. Unfortunately, though, time constraints
rather than disinterest were frequently mentioned as a barrier to participate.
The final sample consisted of 62 experts from the German professional football
industry. The panel was balanced with 19 participants from sports, 24 participants
from sports business, and 19 sports society experts. The remarkable 37 percent
participation rate indicates that these experts demonstrated a high degree of interest
and satisfaction with questionnaire content and design (von der Gracht and Darkow,
2010). This high degree of interest is also emphasized by the fact that the number of
SBM qualitative arguments made throughout the survey was substantial (670 comments; i.e.
6,3 10.8 comments per expert). Interestingly, experts from sports business (288; 15.2), and
society (253; 10.5) were keener to debate than experts from sports (129; 6.8). Since both
non-participation and passivity represents a serious challenge in most Delphi studies,
we selectively sent reminders in order to assure the necessary balance between the
three different stakeholder groups.
304
Development of future scenarios
After conducting the survey and closing the survey portal, the quantitative and
qualitative Delphi results were reviewed and evaluated to complete the scenario
planning process. Thereby, we developed probable scenarios and surprising wildcards
for the year 2025 based on a pre-determined four-step process.
First, Delphi results were analyzed by statistically aggregating the 5,940
quantitative judgments, resulting from the 62 experts evaluating 15 projections

along the three dimensions probability, impact, and desirability over on average of
2.13 rounds. The 670 corresponding qualitative arguments, which equal 10.8 comments
per expert, were attributed to 234 categories using an open coding procedure to
structure the insights (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Thereof, 440 statements concerned
the probability, 115 the impact, and 115 the desirability of the projections.
We additionally performed a cluster analysis along the dimensions probability and
impact. This is advisable for Delphi studies in order to reveal similarities in the data
(Akkermans et al., 2003; Ogden et al., 2005). Second, we modeled two scenarios of the
probable future. Scenario formulation was based on the results of the aforementioned
activities which we condensed and tabulated for each projection similar to Schuckmann
et al. (2012). Third, we conducted a discontinuity analysis of the surprising future,
synthesizing all qualitative arguments to determine events with low probability but
high impact. Such wildcard situations are often neglected despite potentially high
consequences (Grossmann, 2007). Their consideration in scenario studies is
recommended to identify alternative options, validate scenario robustness, and adapt
to potential emergency situations (Markmann et al., 2013). Fourth, the plausibility of the
probable scenarios and surprising wildcards was confirmed through final checks by
means of desk research.
Results
Delphi results are often analyzed with strategic maps, i.e. scatter plots positioning each
projection along the two major dimensions probability and impact (Akkermans et al.,
2003; Schuckmann et al., 2012). Figure 2 illustrates such a strategic map. Each number
represents the corresponding projection from Table I. While final mean probability
estimates range from 13.0 to 77.4 percent, all projections have an expected mean impact
greater than 3.25, i.e. higher than neutral. This underscores their relevance and sound a
priori formulation. Apparently, the panel expects a promising future for European
professional football by 2025. With one exception, the four most probable projections
are highly desirable, whereas the six most undesirable projections are also the six most
improbable ones.
Table III contains Delphi summary statistics. The decrease in standard deviations
of up to 8.0 percent between the first and final Delphi round for all projections is
particularly notable and reflects a fundamental rationale of the Delphi method:
controlled feedback of the statistical group response leads to a convergence of the
experts’ probability estimates. In line with previous studies, an IQR of 20 percent or
very 4.4
high 2*
The future of
8
professional
4.2
Surprise football
10 9
4.0
Mean impact on the industry
15* 14
Commercialization
3.8 4 305
7
*
3.6 13
3
11* Extrapolation
3.4
Eventuality 6
5
12*
1
Figure 2.
3.2 Strategic map of the

Low Desirability (< 2.5) Medium Desirability (2.5-3.5) 15 future projections
very High Desirability ( > 3.5) * Consensus on Probability (IQR - 20) along final
low 0.0 probability and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 impact
Mean probability of occurrence (%)
less is assumed to reflect consensus among the panelists (von der Gracht and
Darkow, 2010). Only five projections fulfill this criterion, which indicates a
controversial discussion. The differences among the expert categories sport,
business, and society confirm this impression. For example, panelists from the
business category consider the statements more probable on average. Figure 2
demonstrates that a consensus was only reached for projections that were confidently
rated as highly probable or improbable. This pattern is common for Delphi studies
(Ogden et al., 2005).
We finally performed a complete linkage cluster analysis[4] with Euclidean
dissimilarity measure to discover projections with similar probability and impact. The
resulting four clusters are presented in Figure 2 and constituted the basis for
subsequent scenario formulation. Next, we discuss two probable scenarios which we
call extrapolation and commercialization, the latter being less likely, but more
impactful. Thereafter, two wildcard scenarios from the remote cluster named surprises
are detailed.
Discussion
Scenarios of the probable future
Our first research objective was to develop scenarios for the probable future of
European professional football by 2025. Table IV presents the top three coded enablers
and inhibitors, the number of comments, and a conclusion per projection. It serves as a
detailed reference to the following more illustrative scenario descriptions.
The above-mentioned cluster analysis detected the two probable scenarios
extrapolation and commercialization. Both have a mean likelihood greater than
50 percent when averaging their four, respectively, six constituent projections.
The extrapolation scenario advances already anticipated developments to the year
2025. It combines the status quo – preserving the competitive balance in the German
Bundesliga and maintaining the broadcast of football games as the foremost live
television event – with apparent trends – the introduction of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) codes for football clubs and the decline in stadium violence. An
6,3
306
SBM
Table III.
on quantitative
evaluations of the
Summary statistics
15 future projections
Probability Imp. Des.
1st round (n ¼ 62) Final round (n ¼ 62) Change (%) Group means
Projection number and short title M SD IQR M SD IQR M SD Sport Bus. Soc. M M
Football industry environment 2025

1. Rule changes 28.5 26.1 37.5 27.7 24.8 37.5 −2.8 −5.1 25.0 29.0 28.7 3.32 2.35
2. Champions League qualification 13.9 19.2 18.7 13.0 18.2 18.7 −6.3 −5.2 10.1 12.7 16.4 4.34 1.29
3. Balance of the Bundesligaa 63.9 24.0 30.0 66.2 22.5 30.0 +3.6 −6.1 70.5 71.3 55.4 3.55 4.40
4. Football industry growth rate 55.7 25.3 35.0 56.6 24.3 35.0 +1.6 −3.9 58.4 57.1 54.2 3.81 3.81
Football club marketing 2025
5. CSR code of conduct 62.7 30.1 43.8 63.9 28.9 37.5 +1.8 −4.2 65.5 66.9 58.4 3.32 4.02
6. Resolution of stadium violence 50.9 28.3 53.7 51.4 26.8 52.5 +1.0 −5.1 47.4 59.0 45.8 3.35 4.42
7. Change of season dates 39.4 26.7 46.3 38.7 25.4 38.8 −1.6 −4.8 34.2 41.9 39.2 3.73 2.56
8. League-owned TV channel 49.8 28.4 50.0 49.2 27.3 48.8 −1.1 −4.1 49.2 54.4 42.6 4.21 2.65
9. Share of digital advertising 61.4 23.9 37.5 61.1 23.7 37.5 −0.5 −1.1 60.6 63.3 57.9 4.06 3.37
Football fan behavior 2025
10. New club owners 39.6 26.3 40.0 37.8 24.2 40.0 −4.5 −8.0 30.5 43.3 38.2 4.08 2.05
11. Importance of Fans w/o Borders 20.9 20.1 25.0 19.6 19.2 20.0 −6.3 −4.5 18.7 19.4 20.7 3.42 2.21
12. Identification with superstars 25.0 24.2 20.0 23.7 22.9 20.0 −5.0 −5.1 23.5 20.8 27.7 3.26 1.48
13. Live consumption of football 76.2 26.6 20.0 77.4 25.0 17.5 +1.6 −6.0 82.6 78.5 70.8 3.68 3.84
14. Technically augmented stadiums 65.5 26.1 40.0 65.7 26.1 40.0 +0.2 −0.3 68.5 66.3 62.1 3.98 3.05
15. Active fan influence on game 18.7 24.6 19.7 18.2 24.5 18.5 −2.6 −0.3 20.8 14.4 20.6 4.00 1.60
Notes: Imp., impact; Des., desirability; Bus., business; Soc., society. IQR is in italic if consensus is reached. aSignificant difference in mean evaluations between
the expert groups ( p o0.05)
1. Football rules resemble ice hockey and handball rules. Time outs, changes “on the fly,” and time penalties have been introduced
Total number of arguments: 93 Probability arguments: 73 Impact arguments: 9 Desirability arguments: 11 High-probability arguments: 20 Low-probability arguments: 53
Top 3 enablers Changes to game rules would create additional marketing opportunities (14)
Changes “on the fly” make football more attractive, more modern, and faster (3)
Time penalties have already been tested in youth and amateur football (2)
Top 3 inhibitors FIFA, fans, and the entire industry are too conservative to change the rules of the game (20)
Fans will not accept changes to football rules that threaten the game’s traditional character (10)
Football rules have not been modified extensively during the last years (5)
Conclusion 2025: major changes will not be made to football rules. The industry is too conservative to resist marketing pressure. The introduction of
changes “on the fly” could become an exception, which would make the game attractive, modern, and fast
2. The Champions League qualification has been abolished – participants are selected based on economic criteria (e.g. brand popularity)
Top 3 enablers A European top league comprising only the best players offers considerable marketing potential (3)
The ECA’s predecessor G-14 has actively lobbied for a European Super League (2)
A European first division would be a sporting contribution to the European integration at large (1)
Top 3 inhibitors Abolishing the Champions League qualification based on sporting criteria violates basic football principles (15)
A change of qualification criteria is hardly enforceable against clubs and associations which would consequently drop out (6)
The strongest clubs (financially) already compete in the Champions League – the economic necessity of a change is low (6)
Conclusion 2025: the Champions League qualification will be based on sporting criteria. Nevertheless, the concentration of financially strong clubs will
increase further – also to appease the ECA, which might otherwise announce a European Super League
3. The Bundesliga remains the most competitively balanced professional football league in Europe
Top 3 enablers The economic rationality of the Bundesliga ensures that many clubs are competitive (5)
Germany’s economic strength and geographic dispersion are good preconditions for a well-balanced Bundesliga (4)
Solidary redistribution of the Bundesliga broadcasting revenues would guarantee a continued balance (4)
Top 3 inhibitors The current redistribution scheme for Champions League revenues increases the imbalance among German clubs (8)
Already today, the English Premier League and smaller leagues have more championship aspirants than the Bundesliga (4)
The imbalance among the Bundesliga clubs has increased during the last years (2)
Conclusion 2025: the Bundesliga is competitively balanced due to Germany’s economic strength and the solidarity among clubs. However, redistribution of
Champions League revenues aggravates the financial and sporting gap among the clubs
4. Driven by new marketing opportunities in the area of digital technologies, the football industry maintained its growth rate after 2013
Top 3 enablers Numerous yet unforeseen digital business models will emerge: their application will be pioneered in the sports context (3)
European football clubs have not yet exploited the willingness-to-pay of their highly emotional fans (2)
Many TV and stadium advertisement budgets are already being transferred to digital channels (2)
(continued )
professional
football
projection
conclusion per
comments, and
Top 3 enablers and
inhibitors, number of
The future of
Table IV.
307
6,3
308
SBM
Table IV.
Top 3 inhibitors While traditional income sources, such as broadcasting revenues have grown, digital revenues remained less important (6)
Digital marketing potential is overrated. Profitable business models are difficult to anticipate or altogether inexistent (4)
Recent market growth came from one-off events like the 2006 World Cup or stadium expansions – the market is saturated (3)
Conclusion 2025: the football industry will continue to grow as digital business models emerge and fans’ willingness-to-pay is fully exploited. The absence
of one-off events in the foreseeable future might call this result into question
5. Every professional football club has a corporate social responsibility code of conduct, which its sponsors also have to satisfy
Top 3 enablers Brand positioning and public relevance of European football clubs suggest the introduction of CSR codes of conduct (4)
The importance of CSR activities and socially acceptable behavior is continuously increasing (3)
Sponsors will force clubs to introduce CSR codes since they must follow compliance rules themselves (2)
Top 3 inhibitors A CSR code of conduct does not directly increase revenues or sporting success (6)
The influence of football clubs on their sponsors is limited (3)
Implementation and control of CSR codes of conduct pose considerable technical challenges (2)
Conclusion 2025: football clubs will fulfill public expectations and formulate CSR codes to strengthen their brand position. Whether sponsors will exert
additional pressure or vice versa: football clubs will force their sponsors to adopt CSR codes, is unclear
6. Professional football clubs have resolved the problem of violent stadium spectators by increasing their investments in security
Top 3 enablers Stadium violence can be prevented through investments in security and fan dialogue (7)
Today, stadium violence is not a real problem despite widespread media coverage reporting the contrary (2)
Football clubs will try everything to solve the problem of stadium violence due to its prominence in public discussion (1)
Top 3 inhibitors Violence occurs everywhere – it is hardly resolvable in football stadiums (9)
Football clubs do not sufficiently invest in the required security infrastructure (2)
Although many measures to protect against stadium violence have already been undertaken, the problem still exists (2)
Conclusion 2025: it is unclear whether stadium violence will remain a problem. It is not surprising, since even experts are indecisive about how the situation
can be resolved and whether it constitutes a significant issue at all.
7. The leagues have abolished the summer break and have introduced a winter break instead
Top 3 enablers The 2022 World Cup in Qatar will trigger a permanent harmonization of league seasons according to the calendar year (10)
The Central European summer climate is warm and stable, whereas the winter is actually too cold for outdoor football (1)
Top 3 inhibitors World and European Championships in the winter and league games in Southern European summer heat are not rational (5)
The responsible football associations are too conservative to abolish the summer break (4)
Football attracts fewer spectators during the summer holidays (4)
Conclusion 2025: most leagues will retain the summer break. Its abolishment would attract fewer spectators and pose climatic challenges. However, holding
the World Cup 2022 in Qatar during the winter months could cause European leagues to shift their season
(continued )
8. Football TV rights are not auctioned to the media anymore – the leagues sell the rights directly to end consumers though own channels
Top 3 enablers An own channel would lead to higher revenues and value generation for the football clubs (5)
Leagues can directly influence the media coverage by operating own channels (4)
An own channel is easily implementable – technical and organizational requirements are already fulfilled (2)
Top 3 inhibitors Auctioning the broadcasting rights to the media would lead to bidder competition and higher revenues (4)
The financial and operational risks of an own channel are significant (3)
Negative previous examples demonstrate that specialized football channels are unprofitable (2)
Conclusion 2025: the launch of league-owned TV channels is realistic. The crucial, yet unclear trade-off is: would external bidding among TV channels or
insourcing value creation yield higher revenues for football clubs?
9. Professional football clubs generate higher sponsoring revenues through digital channels than through classical in-stadium advertising
Top 3 enablers Digitalization allows for higher reach, measurability, and customization than classical in-stadium advertising (5)
The increasing digitalization will create completely new, yet unforeseen distribution channels (3)
Top 3 inhibitors Digital revenues will surpass analog revenues in the long-run, but not by 2025 (5)
Sponsors have a lower willingness-to-pay for online content (1)
Economically viable digital business models do not yet exist (1)
Conclusion 2025: digital will surpass analog football sponsoring revenues due to higher reach, measurability, and customization. Whether this happens
before 2025 is questionable as large-scale viable business models are still missing
10. Large investors and fan associations hold the majority of shares in the professional football clubs of the German Bundesliga
Top 3 enablers Investors factually control some Bundesliga clubs via long-term partnerships already today – complete takeovers are likely (6)
Large investors are the only still suboptimally exploited revenue source in the Bundesliga (3)
The 50+1-rule preventing majority control of football club investors will be abolished. It is incompatible with EU law (2)
Top 3 inhibitors Conservative associations and powerful fan initiatives support the 50+1-rule (11)
Investor ownership models are incompatible with fundamental principles of the German football industry (2)
Conclusion 2025: the 50+1-rule preventing majority control of football club investors will officially continue. However, investors could effectively control
clubs as part of long-term partnerships already today – complete takeovers are likely
11. International fans are the greatest source of revenue for professional football clubs. They finance player transfers via micro-investments
Top 3 enablers Digital media facilitate the participation, crowd funding, and internationalization of the fan base (2)
European competitions attracting international fans, such as the Champions League, will gain further relevance (2)
Crowd-funded player transfers are a powerful public statement of the fans in prominent cases (1)
Top 3 inhibitors Fan culture will remain national. Emotional home stadium visits bond fans with their clubs (6)
Only a few European top clubs might generate higher international revenues than domestic revenues (4)
For historical reasons, particularly German football clubs lag behind in international marketing (3)
Conclusion 2025: football fan culture will remain nationally oriented despite megatrends, such as mobility, digitalization, and globalization. Absolute top
clubs and international crowd funding of player transfers will be notable exceptions
(continued )
professional
football
The future of
Table IV.
309
6,3
310
SBM
Table IV.
12. Fans identify themselves with superstars instead of football clubs and switch clubs according to which team their superstar plays for
Top 3 enablers Young fans show lower identification with clubs, but higher mobility. This supports following a superstar (3)
Digital media stimulate the glorification of global superstars (2)
Top 3 inhibitors Stars have natural “expiration dates.” Fans can support one club for their entire life (8)
Social alienation, globalization, and mobility will link fans to their hometown clubs more than ever (6)
At most, fans will increasingly change “secondary clubs” together with their superstars (5)
Conclusion 2025: lifelong identification with football clubs will be stronger than temporary identification with superstars. However, many fans will change
their secondary clubs together with superstars
13. Contrary to movies, shows, and documentaries, football games are the last type of TV event that is watched “live” by spectators
Top 3 enablers Important football games lose news value and excitement if they are not watched live (7)
Public viewing of important football games is an emotional collective event (4)
Pay TV channels have a commercial interest to limit free to air football broadcasts (2)
Top 3 inhibitors Many spectators also watch other live TV shows (4)
Only very important football games will be watched live by the majority of spectators in 2025 (1)
Conclusion 2025: football games are one of the last emotional collective events which most spectators watch live. Otherwise, they lose news value and
excitement. However, pay TV channels are increasingly interested in limiting free to air football broadcasts
14. Stadium spectators view commercials, information, and videos via technological innovations, such as Second Screens or Google Glasses
Top 3 enablers Technologies for augmented reality in stadiums are currently being developed and field-tested (6)
A “digital stadium” would allow for the customization of advertisements and the generation of higher revenues (3)
Technology changes occur quickly everywhere. Spectators will also adopt Google Glasses and Second Screens in stadiums (2)
Top 3 inhibitors Stadium spectators focus on the game and the live atmosphere. They will not accept auxiliary technical devices (9)
Stadium gadgets will remain a rare additional offering that is hard to commercialize (2)
The privacy protection in augmented stadiums is technically challenging (1)
Conclusion 2025: the widespread implementation of technologies currently being field-tested will make the stadium experience digital. The opportunity to
generate additional revenue will outweigh concerns that technical devices spoil the stadium atmosphere
15. Fans actively influence football games by voting about team line-ups, substitutions, or sportswear/jersey designs
Top 3 enablers Societal (participation) and technical (Formula 1 cockpit view) trends suggest increased fan influence (2)
Active influence on football games bonds fans closer to their club (1)
Social media are a practical platform to realize polls on game events (1)
Top 3 inhibitors Only limited active fan influence is imaginable, e.g. in friendly games or amateur leagues (8)
Active influence from external laymen threatens the sporting value of the game (3)
Such technologies deprive clubs of their full sovereignty in sporting decisions – associations will prevent their introduction (2)
Conclusion 2025: despite technical feasibility, active fan influence is unrealistic because it spoils the sporting value of the game. However, realistic
compromises could be tested in friendly games or lower leagues
Note: Number of entries in parenthesis
extrapolation is the most probable (M ¼ 64.7), desirable (M ¼ 4.17), but second-least The future of
impactful (M ¼ 3.48) scenario. Its high probability can be underpinned with 1-2 professional
convincing arguments per projection. Germany’s evenly distributed economic strength
reduces the ability of football clubs to achieve local monopolies and facilitates in
football
maintaining the competitive balance among clubs in the Bundesliga. Furthermore,
corporate governance codes will likely increase the pressure of sponsors on football
clubs to formulate CSR codes themselves. Interestingly, the scenario’s opponents 311
question the relevance of these topics rather than compellingly explaining their
counter-prediction for 2025. For instance, critics doubt whether stadium violence is a
serious problem already today and whether the Bundesliga is still even-balanced.
In conclusion, the extrapolation scenario expects professional football clubs to
responsibly fulfill the enormous expectations European societies have of them – either
through ensuring stadium security, safeguarding competitive balance, or specifying their
social responsibility. Reaping long-term benefits from professional responses to public

concerns seems more important than commercializing short-term revenues. If anything,
this scenario indicates additional revenue potential from broadcasting rights if football
becomes the dominant live event on television by 2025.
The second scenario with likelihood greater than 50 percent entails extensive
commercialization of European professional football. In principle, it presumes the
protection of industry cornerstones, such as open league systems, current game rules,
or national club competitions – but forecasts the full exploitation of available revenue
sources within the constraints of this system. The Delphi projections constituting this
scenario project that football leagues will launch their own TV channels, investors will
control the majority of Bundesliga clubs, visitors of virtually augmented stadiums will
view customized commercials and real-time information, and digital sales will surpass
classical in-stadium advertising by 2025. Although industry cornerstones remain
untouched, these examples exceed the sole extrapolation of anticipated developments.
Consequently, the experts attribute a lower probability (M ¼ 51.5) and higher impact
(M ¼ 3.98) to this scenario.
Commercial exploitation of European professional football is apparently the
emotional issue. Compared to the largely endorsed extrapolation scenario,
commercialization exhibits a significantly lower desirability (M ¼ 2.91; p o 0.001).
Moreover, no other scenario exhibits a higher dissent (average IQR ¼ 40.0 percent). For
instance, numerous experts believe that the sports industry will pioneer the
introduction of yet unforeseen digital technologies. Others believe that large-scale
viable business models in this field are altogether inexistent. Many respondents claim
that bidder competitions among TV stations will yield the highest broadcasting
revenues for football clubs. Others claim that this applies to an insourcing of value
creation into a league-owned TV channel. Finally, some experts consider digitally
augmented stadiums as almost market-ready, while others doubt that spectators would
accept any technical dilution of the live experience.
In conclusion, the commercialization scenario expects the exploitation of all potential
revenue sources within the boundaries of the current “system” of professional football.
It is on aggregate more likely than not, but appears too heterogeneous and
controversial to be fully implemented by 2025. Its most probable elements, such as
growth of digital sales channels could nevertheless become realistic commercialization
supplements to an otherwise conservative extrapolation scenario. However, even this
prudent forecast requires caution as the panel was far from achieving a consensus on
any of the six projections.
SBM This controversy indicates the German expert’s rather conservative perspective on
6,3 innovation in professional football. Interestingly, this attitudinal pattern, a low
desirability for radical changes, becomes even more apparent when exploring experts’
attitudes toward potential discontinuities in the future football industry. Needless to
say, this tendency is also reflected in experts’ unrestricted desirability for an
extrapolation scenario.
312
Discontinuities of the surprising future
Scenario planning primarily investigates the probable future. Notwithstanding, our
second research objective was to also examine possible unexpected scenarios that
could shape the future of European professional football.
Figure 2 indicates two clusters at the improbable end of the spectrum, which we call
surprise and eventuality (MS ¼ 15.6; ME ¼ 23.7). They have high and medium impact
(MS ¼ 4.17; ME ¼ 3.33) and low desirability (MS ¼ 1.44; ME ¼ 2.02). Eventualities
comprise environmental changes, such as modifications to game rules or an increasing
share of fans supporting foreign teams or individual superstar players. Football clubs
could capitalize on these opportunities. For example, Carlson and Donavan (2013)
demonstrated that fan identification with athletes had a significant positive influence
on team-related retail spending. A detailed description is beyond the scope of this paper
since this cluster is less controversial (average IQR ¼ 25.8 percent) and less likely than
the extrapolation or commercialization scenarios.
Instead, we follow most previous scenario studies and illustrate the unexpected
future with so-called wildcards, which consider a single event with low likelihood but
potentially tremendous consequences and are constructed from the qualitative
Delphi arguments. Figure 2 suggests two wildcards in the surprise cluster. First, the
Champions League qualification mode changes from sporting to economic criteria.
Second, fans gain influence on football games. Both projections have the lowest
probability at 13.0 and 18.2 percent, the highest and fifth-highest impact at 4.34 and
4.00, the lowest and third-lowest desirability at 1.29 and 1.60, and the third-lowest
and second-lowest IQR at 18.8 and 18.5 percent, respectively. The expert agreement
on extreme evaluations in all dimensions implies that the two wildcards exceed a
pure commercialization.
According to our Delphi panel, determining which participants are allowed to
participate in the Champions League based on economic rather than sporting criteria
would revolutionize professional football. Europe’s most prestigious club competition
would make a quantum leap toward a franchise-based major league scheme. National
divisions would lose their qualification spots for UEFA tournaments. Even a
permanent separation of a closed European first league and national second divisions
would become imaginable. The abolishment of the sporting Champions League
qualification seems unlikely by 2025. It contradicts the politically promoted European
model of sport, is hardly enforceable against economically weaker clubs or associations
that would consequently drop out, and threatens the competition’s long-term
attractiveness. However, one should keep two facts in mind: first, the G-14 predecessor
of today’s ECA has lobbied for an own European Super League in manifold variations
(Sloane, 2006). Second, the UEFA already restricts the access to international club
tournaments based on economic criteria through its Financial Fair Play Regulations
(Union des Associations Européennes de Football, 2012). In conclusion, the official
proclamation of economic qualification criteria for the Champions League, however,
seems improbable. The UEFA can pull less radical levers to effectively ensure
continuous international presence for its top clubs and appease the ECA without The future of
sacrificing the sporting qualification – e.g., by increasing the number of participants or professional
expanding the Champions League pre-qualification. Therefore, one might even argue
that this scenario has already become reality to some degree. De facto, the UEFA
football
Champions League has already become a super league from quarter finals onwards
where those professional clubs with the highest revenue (e.g. FC Barcelona, FC Bayern
Munich, and Real Madrid FC) determine the winner between themselves. 313
The second wildcard scenario regarding active fan influence on matches through
live votings about line-ups, substitutions, or jersey colors would also fundamentally
transform professional football. In certain respects, this wildcard even eclipses the
previous one. It intervenes into the game itself, requires a change of football
rules, and deprives clubs of their full sovereignty in sporting decisions. The influence
of external laymen would endanger the game’s sporting value and is hardly
enforceable against clubs that fear long-term conceptual sport management

would become impossible. However, societal megatrends, such as participation and
the development of social media as a viable technical platform suggest that denying
this opportunity from the outset could be negligent. It would not be the first
technological innovation triggering a modification to game rules, such as the
electronic hawk-eye system used in ITF tennis matches to determine if the ball was in
or out (International Tennis Federation, 2012).
Although a widespread integration of fan voting in football matches is unlikely by
2025, numerous other realistic yet less invasive alternatives are suited for pilot-testing:
e.g., restricting active fan influence to friendly matches, all-star games, and amateur
leagues, or simply having the opportunity to choose the jersey colors, could be
reasonable. Further, the rationale behind this scenario comprises so far unexplored
opportunities for additional commercialization by implementing fans’ voting decisions
as a means for sheer entertainment during, for example, pre-match reports or the
half-time break. In fact, innovations do not necessarily need to replace existing
structures but may complement them.
Conclusion
This paper applied empirical foresight methods to examine the future of professional
football in Europe. We developed Delphi-based scenarios condensing 5,940 quantitative
judgments and 670 qualitative arguments from 62 experts on 15 future projections. This
paper makes four contributions to the sport management literature:
(1) We described two probable scenarios for European professional football
until the year 2025 called extrapolation and commercialization. The former is
the most likely and desirable scenario. It essentially assumes that football
clubs will reap long-term benefits from responsibly fulfilling public
expectations, for instance by improving stadium security, safeguarding the
competitive balance among football clubs, or classifying their social
responsibility. The latter scenario projects a short-term exploitation of all
available revenue sources within the boundaries of the current “system” of
professional football. It is less probable, more impactful, and triggers
high dissent among the experts. A mixture of both scenarios appears most
realistic – e.g., the integration of probable commercialization elements, such
as exploiting digital revenue sources in an otherwise conservative
extrapolation scenario.
SBM (2) We illustrated two surprising wildcard scenarios which could shape a surprising
6,3 future of European professional football by 2025: first, a shift of the qualification
criteria for the UEFA Champions League from sporting criteria to economic
qualifications. Second, an integration of active fan influence on football games.
Both wildcard scenarios may seem utopian at first glance. However, the Delphi
arguments presented by the expert panel highlighted less drastic alternatives that
314 could indeed occur, such as expanding the Champions League pre-qualification or
conducting pilot tests of fan voting for friendly matches or all-star games.
(3) To the best of our knowledge, we conducted the first Delphi-based scenario
study in sport management. Accordingly, we discussed recommendations
ensuring the technique’s rigor, reliability, and validity in detail to facilitate
further investigations of our kind.
Sport management practitioners can benefit from practical implications

of this study. Football managers can either formulate new or validate
existing business strategies and contingency plans based on the industry-
wide probable scenarios and wildcard scenarios for 2025. The results of
this study suggest that clubs should consider generating CSR codes,
establishing digital revenue channels, and developing virtually augmented
stadiums as strategic priorities.
(4) Finally, this Delphi-based scenario study addresses professional football policy-
makers’ attitudes toward innovation for the first time. Interestingly, our results
give reason to believe that the 62 experts forming our panel convey a rather
conservative perspective on innovation – a defining characteristic of managers
in contrast to entrepreneurs who prefer innovations and take considerable risks
(e.g. Stewart et al., 1999).
Limitations of our approach reveal avenues for further research. Our scenarios mainly
incorporated qualitative research. By including more quantitative data than the Delphi
ratings, predictive accuracy could be improved. Moreover, the limitation of 15
projections was reasonable, but creates only a snapshot rather than a comprehensive
image of the future. A potential consolidation of European club competitions, the trend
toward numerous micro-sponsors, and the introduction of transfer markets for coaches
and team managers are possible trends that remained unaddressed. Furthermore, the
Delphi experts were only German. Balancing the panel not only with respect to
professional but also national background would convincingly rule out any effects on
the results. In addition, our experts’ favorable expectations on the future might be
attributable to a desirability bias, which often influences Delphi results, as
demonstrated by Ecken et al. (2011). A follow-up study verifying the accuracy of our
scenarios could therefore prove to be quite interesting.
Notes
1. The literature also utilizes terms like scenario building, scenario thinking, or scenario
analysis. Varum and Melo (2010) acknowledge that these terms are used interchangeably and
only show subtle differences. In this paper, we therefore utilize the most common term
scenario planning.
2. It is, however, worth mentioning that some authors have begun to study innovation in a
professional sporting context (see, e.g. Caza, 2000; Hoeber and Hoeber, 2012; Newell and
Swan, 1995; Winand et al., 2013; Wolfe et al., 2006).
3. First, we transformed probability and impact ratings into standardized z-scores as they were The future of
measured on different scales.
professional
4. The IQR is a measure of dispersion and is often used in Delphi studies. It equals the distance football
between the 25th and 75th percentile values (de Vet et al., 2005).
References 315
Akkermans, H.A., Bogerd, P., Yücesan, E. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2003), “The impact of ERP
on supply chain management: exploratory findings from a European Delphi study”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 284-301.
Alegi, P.C., Giulianotti, R.C., Joy, B., Rollin, J. and Weil, E. (2013), “Football”, in Doninger, W. et al.
(Eds), Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., Chicago, IL.
Amer, M., Daim, T.U. and Jetter, A. (2013), “A review of scenario planning”, Futures, Vol. 46,
February, pp. 23-40.

Applegate, E. and Johnsen, A. (2007), Cases in Advertising and Marketing Management, Rowman
& Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Beech, J. and Chadwick, S. (2013), “Introduction: the commercialization of sport”, in Beech, J. and
Chadwick, S. (Eds), The Business of Sport Management, 2nd ed., Pearson, Essex, pp. 3-23.
Best, R.J. (1974), “An experiment in Delphi estimation in marketing decision making”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 448-452.
Bishop, P., Hines, A. and Collins, T. (2007), “The current state of scenario development: an
overview of techniques”, Foresight, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-25.
Boyle, R. and Haynes, R. (2004), Football in the New Media Age, Routledge, London.
Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G. and van der Heijden, K. (2005), “The origins and
evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning”, Futures, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 795-812.
Bradley, L. and Stewart, K. (2003), “A Delphi study of internet banking”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 272-281.
Budzinski, O. and Müller, A. (2013), “Finanzregulierung und internationale
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit: Der Fall Deutsche Bundesliga”, Ilmenau Economics Discussion
Paper No. 82, Ilmenau.
Carlson, B.D. and Donavan, D.T. (2013), “Human brands in sport: athlete brand personality and
identification”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 193-206.
Caza, A. (2000), “Context receptivity: innovation in an amateur sport organization”, Journal of
Sport Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 227-242.
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1990), “Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Costa, C.A. (2005), “The status and future of sport management: a Delphi study”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-142.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dalkey, N. (1969), “An experimental study of group opinion: the Delphi method”, Futures, Vol. 1
No. 5, pp. 408-426.
Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), “An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of
experts”, Management Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 458-467.
De Vet, E., Brug, J., de Nooijer, J., Dijkstra, A. and de Vries, N.K. (2005), “Determinants of forward
stage transitions: a Delphi study”, Health Education Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-205.
SBM Deutsche Fußball Liga (2015), “Report 2015”, DFL Deutsche Fußball Liga GmbH, Frankfurt
am Main.
6,3
Dermit-Richard, N. (2012), “Football professionnel en Europe: un modèle de regulation financière
sectorielle”, Revue Management et Avenir, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 79-95.
Ecken, P., Gnatzy, T. and von der Gracht, H.A. (2011), “Desirability bias in foresight:
consequences for decision quality based on Delphi results”, Technological Forecasting and
316 Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 9, pp. 1654-1670.
European Commission (1998), “The European model of sport”, consultation document of DG X,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/documents/library/doc248_en.pdf (accessed October
24, 2014).
European Parliament, Committee on Culture and Education (2006), “Draft report on the future of
professional football in Europe”, Publication No. 2006/2130(INI), available at: www.
europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/631/631110/631110en.pdf (accessed
October 24, 2014).
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (2007), “FIFA Big Count 2006”, available
at: www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/bcoffsurv/bigcount.statspackage_7024.pdf
(accessed October 24, 2014).
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M. and Brook, R.H. (1984), “Consensus methods: characteristics and
guidelines for use”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 74 No. 9, pp. 979-983.
Flanagan, C.A. (2013), “A tricky European fixture: an assessment of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play
regulations and their compatibility with EU law”, The International Sports Law Journal,
Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 148-167.
Fowler, S. (2013), “How feasible is officiating technology in football?”, Interactive Multimedia
Conference’13, Southampton, January 8.
Franck, E. (2014), “Financial fair play in European club football: what is it all about?”,
International Journal of Sport Finance, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 193-217.
Gausemeier, J., Fink, A. and Schlake, O. (1996), Szenario-Management – Planen und Führen mit
Szenarien, 2nd ed., Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich.
Gilmore, S. and Gilson, C. (2007), “Finding form: elite sports and the business of change”, Journal
of Organizational Change, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 409-428.
Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., von der Gracht, H.A. and Darkow, I.L. (2011), “Validating an innovative
real-time Delphi approach-a methodological comparison between real-time and
conventional Delphi studies”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 9,
pp. 1681-1694.
Gordon, T. and Pease, A. (2006), “RT Delphi: an efficient ‘round-less’ almost real time Delphi
method”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 321-333.
Gordon, T.J. (1994), “The Delphi method”, available at: http://millennium-project.org /FRMv3_0/
04-Delphi.pdf
Gordon, T.J. and Helmer, O. (1964), “Report on a long-range forecasting study”, RAND
Publication No. P-2982, available at: www.rand.org/content/dam/rand /pubs/papers/2005/
P2982.pdf
Grossmann, I. (2007), “Critical and strategic factors for scenario development and discontinuity
tracing”, Futures, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 878-894.
Hanold, M. (2012), World Sports – A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA.
Hasson, F. and Keeney, S. (2011), “Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 9, pp. 1695-1704.
Hill, K.Q. and Fowles, J. (1975), “The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting technique”, The future of
professional
Hoeber, L. and Hoeber, O. (2012), “Determinants of an innovation process: a case study of football
technological innovation in a community sport organization”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 213-223.
Hoehn, T. and Szymanski, S. (1999), “The Americanization of European football”, Economic
Policy, Vol. 14 No. 28, pp. 203-240. 317
Hung, H.L., Altschuld, J.W. and Lee, Y.F. (2008), “Methodological and conceptual issues
confronting a cross-country Delphi study of educational program evaluation”, Evaluation
and Program Planning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 191-198.
International Football Association Board (2015), “The history of the laws of the game – 2001-
2006”, available at: www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/the-laws/2001-2006.html
International Tennis Federation (2012), “ITF rules of tennis”, available at: www.itftennis.com/
media/136148/136148.pdf
Jones, D. (2013), Annual Review of Football Finance – Highlights, Deloitte, London.
Jones, D. and Boon, G. (2003), Annual Review of Football Finance, Deloitte & Touche, London.
Lim, B.J., Rho, H.D., Kim, T.J., Chung, U.K., Kang, S. and Park, J.K. (1994), “Beyond North America
priorities of financial investments in mass sport in Korea”, Journal of Sport Management,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-62.
Loo, R. (2002), “The Delphi method: a powerful tool for strategic management”, Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 762-769.
Markmann, C., Darkow, I.L. and von der Gracht, H.A. (2013), “A Delphi-based risk analysis –
identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder
environment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 9, pp. 1815-1833.
Mitchell, V.W. (1991), “The Delphi technique: an exposition and application”, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 333-358.
Mitchell, V.W. and McGoldrick, P.J. (1994), “The role of geodemographics in segmenting and
targeting consumer markets: a Delphi study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 54-72.
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S. and Dadi, Z. (2000),
“Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on climate change”, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Newell, S. and Swan, J. (1995), “The diffusion of innovations in sport organizations: an evaluative
framework”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 317-333.
Nowack, M., Endrikat, J. and Guenther, E. (2011), “Review of Delphi-based scenario studies:
quality and design considerations”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78
No. 9, pp. 1603-1615.
Ogden, J.A., Petersen, K.J., Carter, J.R. and Monczka, R.M. (2005), “Supply management strategies
for the future: a Delphi study”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 29-48.
Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Partovi, F.Y. and Corredoira, R.A. (2002), “Quality function deployment for the good of soccer”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 137 No. 3, pp. 642-656.
Phelps, R., Chan, C. and Kapsalis, S.C. (2001), “Does scenario planning affect performance? Two
exploratory studies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 223-232.
SBM Powell, C. (2003), “The Delphi technique: myths and realities”, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 376-382.
6,3
Preble, J.F. (1984), “The selection of Delphi panels for strategic planning purposes”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 157-170.
Ratten, V. (2010), “Developing a theory of sport-based entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management
& Organization, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 557-565.
318 Ratten, V. (2011), “Sport-based entrepreneurship. Towards a new theory of entrepreneurship and
sport management”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 57-69.
Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999), “The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis”,
International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 353-375.
Rowe, G., Wright, G. and Bolger, F. (1991), “Delphi: a re-evaluation of research and theory”,

Salancik, J.R., Wenger, W. and Helfer, E. (1971), “The construction of Delphi event statements”,
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M. and Cule, P. (2001), “Identifying software project risks:
an international Delphi study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 5-36.
Schoemaker, P.J. (1995), “Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 25-25.
Schoemaker, P.J. and van der Heijden, C.A. (1992), “Integrating scenarios into strategic planning
at Royal Dutch/Shell”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 41-46.
Schuckmann, S.W., Gnatzy, T., Darkow, I.L. and von der Gracht, H.A. (2012), “Analysis of factors
influencing the development of transport infrastructure until the year 2030 – a Delphi based
scenario study”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 79 No. 8, pp. 1373-1387.
Simmons, R. (1997), “Implications of the Bosman ruling for football transfer markets”, Economic
Affairs, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 13-18.
Sloane, P.J. (2006), “Rottenberg and the economics of sport after 50 years: an evaluation”, in
Rodriguez, P., Kesenne, S. and García, J. (Eds), Sports Economics After Fifty Years: Essays
in Honour of Simon Rottenberg, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, pp. 211-224.
Smith, A. and Westerbeek, H. (2004), The Sport Business Future, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C. and Carland, J.W. (1999), “A proclivity for
entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate
managers”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-214.
Szymanski, S. (2003), “The economic design of sporting contests”, Journal of Economic Literature,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1137-1187.
Szymanski, S. (2006), “The future of football in Europe”, in Rodriguez, P., Kesenne, S. and García, J.
(Eds), Sports Economics After Fifty Years: Essays in Honour of Simon Rottenberg, University
of Oviedo, Oviedo, pp. 191-210.
Szymanski, S. (2014), “Fair is foul: a critical analysis of UEFA financial fair play”, International
Journal of Sport Finance, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 218-229.
Tavana, M., Azizi, F., Azizi, F. and Behzadian, M. (2013), “A fuzzy inference system with
application to player selection and team formation in multi-player sports”, Sport
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 97-110.
Uhrich, S. and Benkenstein, M. (2010), “Sport stadium atmosphere: formative and reflective
indicators for operationalizing the construct”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 211-237.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (2012), “UEFA club licensing and Financial The future of
Fair Play Regulations – edition 2012”, available at: www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/
Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/ 01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf (accessed
professional
October 24, 2014). football
Varum, C.A. and Melo, C. (2010), “Directions in scenario planning literature – a review of the past
decades”, Futures, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 355-369.
Voepel, H. and Quitzau, J. (2009), Strategie 2030 – Wirtschaftsfaktor Fußball, HWWI, Hamburg. 319
Von der Gracht, H.A. (2012), “Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications
for future quality assurance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 79 No. 8,
pp. 1525-1536.
Von der Gracht, H.A. and Darkow, I.L. (2010), “Scenarios for the logistics services industry:
a Delphi-based analysis for 2025”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 127
No. 1, pp. 46-59.
Vos, S., Breesch, D., Késenne, S., Lagae, W., Van Hoecke, J., Vanreusel, B. and Scheerder, J. (2012),
“The value of human resources in non-public sports providers: the importance of
volunteers in non-profit sports clubs versus professionals in for-profit fitness and health
clubs”, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 3-25.
Winand, M., Vos, S., Zintz, T. and Scheerder, J. (2013), “Determinants of service innovation:
a typology of sports federations”, International Journal of Sport Management and
Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 55-73.
Wolfe, R., Wright, P. and Smart, D. (2006), “Radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage:
the Moneyball story”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 111-126.
Yaniv, I. (2011), “Group diversity and decision quality: amplification and attenuation of the
framing effect”, International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 41-49.
About the authors

Steffen Merkel is a Doctoral Candidate at the Center for Sports Marketing (CSM). He graduated
from the EBS Business School with a Master of Science in Management in 2010 and also holds a
Master of Science in Management Control Degree from the EDHEC Business School. Steffen Merkel
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: steffen.merkel@ebs.edu
Sascha L. Schmidt leads the Center for Sports and Management (CSM), is a Professor at the
WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, and Research Fellow of the Center for Research in
Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA) in Switzerland. He holds a DBA from the
University of Zurich and was Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Business School.
Dominik Schreyer works for the Center for Sports Marketing (CSM) at the EBS Business
School. He holds a Doctorate Degree from the EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Agenda 2030 y Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Agenda 2030 y Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal

The future of professional football: A Delphi-based perspective of German experts

Downloaded on: 16 September 2016, At: 10:40 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The future of professional The future of

Center for Sports and Management,

team competitions propose (Szymanski, 2006) – or clear commitment to the traditional

Scenario planning and professional football

Delphi applications in sport management research 299

and interquartile range (IQR)[3] as well as written arguments. Combining such

Formulation of Delphi projections

Desk Expert Development Review and Analysis Scenario Discontinuity Plausibility

Formulation of Selection of Execution of Development of

119 future factors to consider. Second, we conducted an expert workshop to confront

Selection of panel experts

quantitative judgments, resulting from the 62 experts evaluating 15 projections

3.2 Strategic map of the

Football industry environment 2025

social responsibility. Reaping long-term benefits from professional responses to public

enforceable against clubs that fear long-term conceptual sport management

Sport management practitioners can benefit from practical implications

February, pp. 23-40.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 235-251.

About the authors

Potrebbero piacerti anche