Insights from the inside: marketing agency practitioners’ perspectives on developing athlete brands

Athletes are regarded as visible and influential human brands, which, like other types of brands, should be managed strategically and developed in a way to boost their appeal to stakeholders (Carlson and Donavan, 2013; Mogaji et al., 2022). A central aspect of understanding athlete brands has therefore been identifying the components that combine to create their brands. Scholars agree that the athlete brand consists of how the athlete is presented in the context of not only their athletic pursuits but also their personal lives. As such, Goffman’s (1959) theory of self-presentation has underpinned much of the work on athlete brands as it can account for how athletes are presented both professionally (termed front-stage presentations) and in private settings (termed back-stage presentations).

Arai et al.’s (2013, 2014) Model of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) built on Goffman’s (1959) work by conceptualising how consumer perceptions of athlete brands are formed by their collective perceptions of an athlete’s: athletic performance, attractive appearance and marketable lifestyle. Athletic performance describes perceptions of an athlete’s physical performance capabilities within their selected sport or sports, attractive appearance describes perceptions held towards the athlete’s physical conditioning and attractiveness, and marketable lifestyle captures the evaluation of aspects linked to the athlete when they are not participating in athletic competition and those which capture broader characteristics of what they represent. Subsequent work has also established various other sport attributes, such as the specific sport the athlete plays or their playing number, act as functional associations (e.g. the athlete’s sport or playing number) that also help consumers form perceptions towards athlete brands (Kunkel et al., 2022). Consumer impressions of athlete brands are formed by their interpretation and judgement of both sport and non-sport content, the related brands which surround the athlete, and the related direct and mediated communications emanating from each (Doyle et al., 2023). Such work establishes the dynamic process by which consumers evaluate athlete brands, underscoring the importance of better understanding how these brands are strategically presented and marketed. However, what is yet to be revealed is what processes govern the identification, selection, and implementation of an athlete’s back-stage and front-stage presentations (e.g. Goffman, 1959) and how key components reflecting an athlete’s performance, appearance and broader life are chosen to form the athlete’s brand (e.g. Arai et al., 2013). We propose to fill this gap by exploring the process employed by MAPs – who, unlike athletes, are experts in brand building – strategically work to build athlete brands.

Extant research has provided several contributions to knowledge surrounding how athlete brands are developed and subsequently managed. Such research has broadly concentrated on three broad areas. First, research centres on understanding how athletes can build their brands via media platforms, particularly via social media. This line of enquiry has documented how the characteristics, source and orientation of athlete posts can impact consumer engagement and attitudes (Doyle et al., 2022; Su et al., 2020). Relatedly, early work established athletes used Twitter primarily to post content about their personal lives and to answer questions from their fans (Hambrick et al., 2010; Pegoraro, 2010), while subsequent research documents how athletes’ Instagram use is also largely personal in nature, but largely absent of strategy (Geurin, 2017; Smith and Sanderson, 2015) as well as the observed differences in the way that sportsmen and sportswomen use the platform (Ciegelski et al., 2024). Overall, this line of work establishes how athletes can leverage their brands via direct communications and need to consider the type of content they share as part of this process.

Second, scholars have sought to understand the shared value that athletes can create by partnering with corporate and philanthropic brands, and the associated threats to value when athletes are linked to scandals. It is argued that athlete engagement in actions deemed positively by society will reflect positively on their brands and vice versa (Babiak et al., 2012; Chien et al., 2016). From a brand development perspective, longitudinal research has demonstrated that concerted and strategic efforts by athletes to promote their philanthropic and charitable efforts on social media can impact how consumers view their brands. Specifically, research documents how philanthropy can form an effective part of an athlete’s brand-building strategy and favourably augment the set of associations consumers link to the athlete and their level of fandom (Kunkel et al., 2022). Finally, studies have argued for the importance of athlete brand authenticity, achieved through a multi-dimensional, complex and long-term process, which is believed to lead to higher consumer identification (Bredikhina et al., 2023). Collectively, this work demonstrates the importance of athletes developing favourably perceived brands extending beyond sport, and how this must be pursued consistently over time.

Third, a growing body of research centres on exploring how athlete brands are developed within a broader ecosystem of related brands surrounding the athlete (Su et al., 2020). These surrounding brands exist in both vertical and horizontal hierarchy and include both sport and non-sport related brands (Baker et al., 2022). These brands include an array of organisational-level entities (e.g. teams and sponsors) and individuals (e.g. teammates and family members) who act as sources of information helping consumers form their evaluations of the athlete (Doyle et al., 2023). This work establishes that athlete brands are not developed in isolation, but instead are part of a larger associative network of brands which they both impact and are impacted by. This bi-directional relationship is important in clarifying the value of understanding how athlete brands are created and managed. In their work focused on student-athletes, Kunkel et al. (2021) asserted that the NIL value associated with athlete brands is influenced by, but not wholly derived from, their team and institutional affiliations. Whilst the above research provides a significant foundation upon which athlete branding can be understood, opportunities remain to add to this knowledge. Extant work has thus far been generated from research focused solely on athlete or consumer perspectives, neglecting that of the MAP.

Athletes have become increasingly popular as human brands over the past few decades, fuelled by the increased commercialisation of sport and the proliferation of technologies which give athletes widespread attention (Doyle et al., 2022). However, Mogaji et al. (2022) note the need for athletes to balance their commitments towards their sport conflicts with the time required for athletes to carefully and strategically craft their brands. Many athletes lack both the time and knowledge to do so, leading to more athletes engaging the services of professionals to develop and subsequently manage their brands (Geurin, 2017). Much like how athletes employ accountants to assist with their finances, marketing practitioners with expertise in branding and a knowledge of the sports industry are best placed to help athletes devise and implement strategies for their personal brands (e.g. Arai et al., 2013; Taniyev et al., 2022). The use of marketing and public relations agencies by sport organisations appears to be a common and well-researched practice (Manoli and Hodgkinson, 2017; Manoli et al., 2024), yet one that has not been explored thus far for athletes and their use of marketing agencies for brand development. As such, and despite MAPs directing increased attention towards athlete services since the mid-2000s, little is known about the processes that guide the athlete brand development process (Ballouli and Hutchinson, 2010). Academic literature has begun to understand the MAP approach to athlete brand development; however, this is limited to single-practitioner interviews (e.g. Ballouli and Hutchinson, 2010; Ballouli and Hutchinson, 2012). Building on this work, we advance understanding related to how MAPs assist athletes with a specific focus on uncovering the processes that underpin the athlete brand development process.

Qualitative data gathered from 28 semi-structured interviews were utilised to address our research purpose. The interviewees were all MAPs, employed in marketing agencies based in the UK. The 16 agencies represented possess a wide portfolio of clients, coming from both sport and the wider entertainment industry. Before the data collection has begun, ethical approval was obtained by the lead author’s University.

The participants were mostly male (N = 19, 67.9%), within the 40–50 age bracket (M = 44.3; SD = 2.93). The sample reported having between 5- and 18-years’ experience working with athletes (M = 12.35; SD = 3.52). Most of the interviewees (N = 18) had been working in the sports industry before joining their agency, with the remainder having a general marketing or media background prior to working in sports. All participants interviewed had experience in the development of a minimum of 10 athlete brands, ensuring the insights offered came from knowledgeable and experienced individuals. More information on the interviewees and data collected can be found in Table 1 below.

Criterion sampling (Suri, 2011) was used to identify the possible interviewees, with the selection criteria being the individual’s experience in not only working with athletes for more than five years, but also their involvement in the development of athletes’ brands. Only those individuals who met both criteria were selected and interviewed for this study. Recruitment first leveraged one of the author’s professional networks of contacts within the sport marketing industry. Invitations to participate in the research were distributed via email to these contacts alongside further information about the study. After these initial interviews (N = 9) were conducted, snowballing was used to gain access to additional participants. This consisted of asking interviewees for referrals to appropriate colleagues from within the same agency or from alternate agencies and resulted in an additional 19 interviewees participating in the research. All interviews were conducted online, using a video call programme between May 2021 and April 2022 to comply with national health guidelines in the UK following the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic.

Following the semi-structured interview process, a set of core questions were created to help guide the discussion, while allowing the flexibility necessary to ensure that a natural flow existed in the interviews. The questions were developed following the review of the literature and the questions asked in similar studies on brand development and management in sport (e.g. Manoli, 2020). Mindful of social desirability effects, attention was paid for similar questions to be asked in different ways and for interviewees to be probed for justifications on their answers (Nederhof, 1985). A sample list of the interview questions asked is provided in  Appendix, with similar questions covering all topics presented asked in all interviews conducted. Throughout the interviews several athletes were mentioned as examples by the MAPs, but due to the non-disclosure agreements signed between them and the MAPs, as well as to protect the interviewees’ anonymity, the athletes’ names were redacted from the study. It is worth noting however that the examples mentioned included athletes who participate in both team and individual sports (with an almost equal split), and whose sport would be considered high-revenue and highly commercialised, such as football and tennis.

Each interview was recorded with the participant’s consent and transcribed shortly after completion. In total, 31 h and 52 min of audio data were collected with interviews ranging from 55 min to 85 min in length (M = 68). Transcription produced an average of 10 pages of single-spaced text per interview. The interview transcripts were sent to the interviewees to ensure their accuracy and to allow for any errors to be identified, in order to increase the trustworthiness of the study (Candela, 2019). In this process of member checking, a small number of comments were received by the interviewees, suggesting mostly the replacement of particular words in the transcripts.

Data were analysed inductively using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis. This thematic analysis using no a priori codes, involved a careful and meticulous examination of the transcripts, while annotating and coding the patterns and themes that emerged using different colours. The initial coding was conducted independently by the members of the research team who are experienced researchers, before it was discussed in meetings among them (Boyatzis, 1998). Regular discussions on the codes, sub-themes and themes that emerged took place, to allow for any disagreements to be raised and debated upon until an agreement was reached. In these meetings, intra (in different moments in time) and inter (between the coders) coding reliability was also calculated, with the percentage of agreement being above 90% (indicating a high reliability – Boyatzis, 1998). A thematic map was also designed as part of the thematic analysis, to help refine and organise the codes, sub-themes and wider themes that emerged from the data in a meaningful way, thus revealing the three-step process, which also represents the three wider themes that emerged from the data analysis. This map was then used in the presentation of the findings and in the uncovering and interpretation of the athlete brand development process as it is detailed below.

Findings demonstrated how a three-step process characterised the way that MAPs approached developing athlete brands. These steps – brand brainstorming, brand pillaring and brand training – reflect how MAPs strategically approach identifying, positioning and leveraging the commercially attractive components linked to athletes. The process described, while co-collaborative between the marketing practitioners and the athlete clients, requires specific input from both sides, with their roles and involvement changing in each step. Figure 1 illustrates the three-step process, which is further discussed below.

• Step 1: Brand brainstorming

MAPs have begun the brand development process with their athlete client by first conducting a brainstorming session. The primary purpose of the session was to collectively identify important attributes linked to the athlete. This process was driven by the athlete – with guidance from the practitioner – so that the elements linked to the athlete’s brand, which emerged here, were both comprehensive and authentic. Interviewee 9 described this approach in the following way:

As the quote shows, MAPs are actively involved in the development of the athlete’s brand, and they assist the athlete to articulate and brainstorm attributes that align with their authentic selves. The brainstorming step was presented as an open discussion in which athletes were prompted to think outside the box when trying to propose relevant attributes, which were discussed in terms of relevance, salience and potential appeal to fans and sponsors. The role of the MAPs was prominent in terms of guiding the process and suggesting attributes that the athletes might not have considered, highlighting the process of co-creation that is evident in this step. Here, the MAPs began conceptualising what the athlete’s designed brand (the terms we use from here) would become, with the input of the athlete and a focus on authentically connecting with fans and/or sponsors as the outcome.

All interviewees highlighted how important the athletes’ involvement was in this process and how collaboration on developing the brand is important for the success and longevity of the brand. That is because, as they explained, aligning the newly designed brand with the actual personality of each athlete assists in presenting an accurate and consistent brand over time. This approach also ensured authenticity across the athletes’ own social media accounts, reducing the need for extensive training and corrective involvement from the MAPs, as the following quote shows.

It was also argued that the collaborative nature of this process and indeed involving the athlete in every step of it through constant and open dialogue, ensures that any point of disagreement between the MAP and the client can be addressed immediately. This, as it was claimed, allows for any suggestions or recommendations made from the MAPs to be clarified in detail and supported adequately, leading to a more efficient and harmonious collaboration between the two parties.

• Step 2: Brand pillaring

After identifying the key attributes associated with the athlete, the next step involved selecting those that would underpin the athlete’s brand. These characteristics can be both attributes related to their playing career and aspects of their personal lives beyond the sport, which are nevertheless desirable and distinctive enough to attract the interest of the fans and potential sponsors. As the MAPs stressed, the selected characteristics need to be not only authentic, but also “interesting” and “marketable” and go beyond an athlete’s existing playing success.

As the quote shows, a brand’s desirable and “marketable” characteristics can be found in various aspects of an athlete’s background and personality, such as their socio-economic background, their upbringing, and even their gender and sexual orientation. As the interviewees argued, fans identify with the athletes they follow and tend to prefer distinctive brands that might share their own characteristics. As such, it was suggested that a unique brand that is based on underrepresented or less often encountered pillars, such as a difficult upbringing or a lower socio-economic background, might attract and sustain more interest from the fans. Ultimately, this interest might attract more or different sponsors that are also aiming to promote themselves in an alternative manner, aligning themselves with less popular yet more distinctive and desirable athletes’ brands. As the MAPs explained:

It was argued that the need for interesting and unique pillars exists for all athletes, despite the sport in which they participate, with examples of both team and individual sports mentioned by the interviewees, alongside their belief that performance by itself is not enough to help engage fans and sponsors, even in the most popular sports. Through the numerous examples of athletes provided by the MAPs, it was evident that the main pillars on which the designed brand was built were what made it distinctive and “sellable”, even when the athletes had not achieved significant playing success. This would then allow an athlete to maintain a distinctive, consistent and “sellable” brand, even when they are not achieving great playing success, while differentiating themselves from other athletes whose promoted brand is only based on their playing achievements.

When interviewees were prompted during the interviews to explain whether differences might exist in the development process of the brand of different athletes depending on the sport they play, their gender, age or other characteristics, they all insisted on following a similar process with all their clients, as the following quotes show.

When asked what “interesting” and “marketable” brands or characteristics are, several responses were given, with often mentions of particular socio-demographic characteristics of athletes, as well as their economic and family background and social and family life, combined with the MAPs’ ability to build a story around them. As it was argued:

While examples were offered at times on what is marketable and interesting in their eyes, as the above quotes also illustrate, it was made clear that this was a subjective evaluation based on MAP’s experience and expert analysis of what would drive fans’ interest and engagement, as well as sponsors’ attention. When MAPs were further questioned on how these evaluations were made, or how marketable and interesting could be understood, it was argued that their experience, research and insider knowledge of the industry drives their expert evaluations. It is because of these characteristics and their hard work, as it was suggested, that their expertise was created, and despite the interviewers’ efforts, no additional clarifications were offered on these terms.

In terms of highlighting the brand pillars which will guide the athlete’s branding strategy, the interviewees suggested that they rely heavily on their experience of working with athletes and sponsors, which is often complemented by additional market research on social media and corresponding metrics.

All interviewees argued that the designed brand needs to be “distinctive” and “unique”, emphasising that attention needs to be often drawn to “alternative” or “underrepresented” characteristics that an athlete has (such as their difficult upbringing, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or underrepresented physical features). The MAPs’ perspective was that their experience and skills enable them to identify such characteristics and their potential to be marketed, whereas the athlete client may typically overlook these attributes or not consider them viable or relevant to their brand. Additionally, whilst the first step was more collaborative, in the second step, the marketing practitioners became more vocal in terms of proposing and at times insisting on selecting attributes for the brand pillars, with the athlete taking on a more secondary role.

• Step 3: Brand training

After the selection of brand pillars, all interviewees suggested that the newly designed brand needs to be agreed upon with the athlete and their agent (if they have one). It was highlighted that all parties (MAP, athlete and agent) need to agree on the key features or characteristics that should be promoted in future communications, to ensure that the designed brand is communicated in a coherent way. This buy-in is required, since most of the athlete clients either manage their social media accounts themselves or have their agent – rather than the marketing agency involved in the brand’s development – do so. Since the ongoing responsibility of managing the brand falls on the athlete or agent, the MAPs need to ensure that the designed brand is clearly understood and can therefore be clearly and coherently communicated in all future communications from the athlete.

When MAPs were asked about any points of disagreement in this buy-in part or throughout the process, it was argued that since the whole process is based on long and detailed, continuous discussions, disagreements between the two parties rarely occur. The collaborative nature of the process, as it was argued earlier in the manuscript, is based on a continuous dialogue between the MAPs and their clients, and forms the basis for what was described to be a rather harmonious process. As it also was suggested, MAPs are eager to support any propositions made to their clients and discuss their suggestions in detail until an agreement is reached throughout each step of the process. The MAPs interviewed claimed that athletes respect their expertise and recommendations; however, it was also clarified that the athlete client is ultimately the one deciding on their brand and how it will be managed, and as such, it is up to them to follow the advice provided by the MAPs.

Whilst MAPs maintain contact with their clients after the designed brand is co-created, the responsibility of managing it on an everyday basis falls on the athletes themselves. As such, after their buy-in on the brand pillars, MAPs described how a training process is offered, in which examples of how the designed brand can be promoted coherently are given. These examples can include potential posts on social media (e.g. celebration or important days in which posts are to be made), particular vocabulary that can be used in future communications (e.g. specific words to demonstrate respect and understanding for a topic), as well as examples of vocabulary and posts that are to be avoided in any future online or offline communications on behalf of the athlete (e.g. expressions or comments that might be considered politically incorrect). This was illustrated by Interviewee 18 who stated: “What we tend to do, especially with rising brands, is give them guidelines: what to post, what words to use, etcetera … But we are not running the brand together. We give guidance then they do the everyday stuff.”

As it became clear through the interviews, this step of the process consists of training and providing guidance on best practice brand management. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the training process described by the MAPs was rather rudimentary, involving several examples of what to do and what to avoid in future communications, offered to the athletes and their agents shortly after the designed brand was agreed upon. It was suggested that refreshers or corrective steps might be taken at a later point (e.g. if the athlete lost followers, a sponsor’s contract or got involved in a scandal), but only when the athlete would request (and pay for) them. These further refreshers or assistance in realigning the designed brand were in fact, mentioned by the MAPs as additional services offered when an athlete might have lost a sponsorship agreement, saw a decline in their social media following or after their potential involvement in a scandal or crisis.

It was again suggested that the closer the designed brand is to the athlete’s true personality, the easier it might be for them to manage it consistently, further emphasising the importance of the collaborative element in the overall brand development process and the skills required on behalf of the MAPs. In this final step of the process, the MAPs appear to be leading the process again, with the athlete clients holding nevertheless an important role in agreeing and ultimately being trained to manage their designed brand.

The purpose of this research was to better understand how MAPs approach the athlete brand development process, complementing work which has been conducted at the team brand level (Davies et al., 2023). Prior studies have demonstrated that athletes have defined goals for their brands, but typically do not apply a strategic approach to the development and management of their brands (Geurin, 2017). Similarly, most athletes lack formal marketing qualifications and the necessary expertise, and time, to adequately leverage their brands (Lebel and Danylchuk, 2012). Thus, the findings of the present research expand knowledge by identifying the value-added role that MAPs can play in developing unique and attractive athlete brands. This is important given the increased attention and influence of athletes in the sports marketplace (Baker et al., 2022) and answers calls from scholars to better understand how athlete brands are created and positioned to others (Doyle et al., 2023).

Our work built on the sparse extant literature focused on MAPs, which has to date been generated from interviews with one practitioner only (see Ballouli and Hutchinson, 2010, 2012). From interviews with 28 MAPs across 16 agencies, we specifically outline how a three-step collaborative process is followed, which focuses on identifying, selecting and promoting distinct and authentic attributes to base the athlete’s brand persona on. Prior work examining outsourced marketing activities in sport has highlighted the importance of involving professionals (Davies et al., 2023) and engaging in collaboration in co-creating brands (e.g. Manoli and Hodgkinson, 2017). Similarly, we found the MAPs’ expertise and skills are valued, however, the athlete clients’ input and buy-in are required for the process to create an authentic designed brand which will be managed coherently after the process is concluded. Three main contributions and implications for practice are provided.

The first contribution stems from exploring the role of MAPs in athlete branding. Our findings demonstrate the key value-added role that MAPs can play in devising the strategies that guide athlete brand development practice, contributing to this burgeoning research area (Arai et al., 2013, 2014). Specifically, we demonstrated that this process consists of three steps and outlines the collaborative, yet distinct, roles that the MAP and the athlete fulfil as the designed athlete brand is conceptualised, refined, and ultimately implemented. Findings demonstrated how MAPs can leverage their marketing expertise and industry knowledge to guide the development of the athlete’s designed brand, depicting how third-party experts can add to the branding of others (e.g. Carlson and Donavan, 2013). The level of input of each side changes in each step, with the element of collaboration, however, remaining consistent throughout the process, due to its strategic role in achieving authenticity in the designed brand.

Past athlete branding research has focused either on understanding how athletes approach self-managing their brands (Geurin, 2017; Mogaji et al., 2022) or how consumers perceive and react to these brands. Thus, our work complements and builds on extant work by documenting how those responsible for creating the brand seek to develop it in a manner designed to create customer-based brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Like observations within the professional team context (e.g. Davies et al., 2023), we found co-creation was an important part of this process, and that the pursuit of authenticity and uniqueness underpinned the development of the designed athlete brand. The importance of curating a designed brand that aligns authentically with the athlete as a person emphasises the importance of focusing on both the sport and non-sport components of the athlete’s life (Kunkel et al., 2022) and the role of brand authenticity in increasing and maintaining fan identification (Bredikhina et al., 2023). Overall, the process described here illustrates the value of athletes partnering with professionals for brand management purposes and how such outsourcing may be beneficial in alleviating pressures to focus on both on- and off-field performance (Mogaji et al., 2022).

Second, findings illustrate how MAPs view athlete brands and seek to develop them with two key stakeholders – the fan and the sponsor – in mind. MAPs understood the importance of identifying numerous attributes linked to their athlete clients and how athlete brand equity is created from both on-field and off-field characteristics. This view supports the tenets of the MABI (Arai et al., 2013, 2014) and highlights how an athlete’s private and public personas can be managed to influence how they are perceived (Goffman, 1959). The emphasis from the MAPs on identifying non-sport related attributes in Step 1 demonstrates the value these professionals can add in the early parts of developing an athlete’s brand development strategy, opening opportunities that the athlete may not have otherwise considered (Kunkel et al., 2020), such as a focus on underrepresented or seemingly trivial attributes (O’Reilly and Braedley, 2008; Siemens et al., 2020). MAPs’ leadership and commitment to pillar the athletes’ brand on these characteristics, as illustrated in Step 2, further demonstrates the value-add of involving professionals, if possible, in this process. Our findings echo sentiments expressed in past research about the importance of engaging professionals for brand management purposes (Ballouli and Hutchinson, 2010, 2012), with our conceptual model (Figure 1) illustrating how a co-creational process involving MAPs and athletes is employed as a means to develop a marketable and unique athlete brand.

Findings can further empower athletes in their approach to brand management building on past work (Doyle et al., 2023; Geurin-Eagleman and Burch, 2016). The importance of emphasising unique and interesting attributes as a cornerstone of the brand aligns with past work documenting how athletes can differentiate themselves adjacent to important and impactful causes to become known as “More than an Athlete” appealing to consumers and sponsors alike (Na et al., 2020). This may be a particularly impactful strategy for sportswomen to adopt to counter biases in mainstream media coverage (Geurin, 2017; Toffoletti and Thorpe, 2018) and from within other third-party sources who demonstrate an overreliance on leveraging the attractive appearance domain (Delia, 2020). The findings of this study could therefore inform the brand management building processes of both individual and team sport athletes who are interested in making their brand more engaging, by aiming for uniqueness in the selected pillars. While the examples used by the interviewees of this study are athletes participating in highly commercial and high-revenue sports, athletes participating in less commercialised sports could also implement such approaches to attempt to increase the attractiveness of their brands in the eyes of their fans and potential sponsors.

Third, findings provide insights into how the designed brand is implemented and managed. Whilst MAPs described a process of training and implementation, this was elementary and in need of further attention. Unlike practices employed in brand management of sport organisations (e.g. teams), the athletes and agents were only provided with simple brand guidelines, and little to no ongoing involvement was retained by the MAPs (Manoli, 2020). Potential assistance from the agency practitioners was available only when requested or in crisis situations (i.e. scandals or loss of fans or sponsors) and unlike other studies that have examined outsourcing marketing activities in sport (e.g. Manoli and Hodgkinson, 2017), the process observed here largely ceased at the point of implementation. A long-term relationship between the athlete and the agency was rarely formed, possibly due to ongoing costs or the additional commercial assistance athletes might be receiving from their agents (Hu et al., 2023). Instead, a project-only relationship was created, limiting the outsourcing to the development aspect of the process, while excluding the management of the designed brand, and confining the training offered to the minimum. We found that whilst the process of brand development initially relied strongly on co-creation between the MAP and the athlete, and later also involved the agent, this collaborative approach did not extend to how the brand was managed. Capturing these issues in this study allows us to suggest that the strategic implications of this rudimentary training offered and the lack of long-term relationships between athletes and marketing practitioners remain yet to be identified and are thus worthy avenues for future research.

The present research has four primary limitations, which should be addressed in future research. First, the research was limited to understanding athlete branding using a sample of athletes who have the means and willingness to outsource the design of their brands only. While the expertise and skills of agency practitioners are highlighted through the study as a key element of the process, the roadmap provided could also be adopted by athletes to self-manage their brands. In this case, the findings can inform a diverse range of athletes (e.g. amateur, collegiate level and semi-professional) and assist them in strategically building distinct and valuable brands. However, further research is needed to understand the nuances that may exist in athlete brand building across contexts, sports, and sport levels.

Second, we collected self-reported data from agency practitioners, and as such, questions on response bias and recall can be raised. Nonetheless, and due to the aim of this study, interviews with key, knowledgeable and understudied agency practitioners were deemed necessary to explore their perspective on how athlete brands are developed and managed. To build on this study, future work is encouraged to conduct combined focus groups with MAPs and athletes to gather both perspectives. Integrating the perspective of the athlete’s agent may also provide additional insights not revealed here. Similarly, scholars could work alongside an agent across experimental research to help guide their approach to managing an athlete’s brand and document results over time.

Third, the study focused on agency practitioners based in a single setting. While our sample includes mostly internationally known athletes from diverse settings, the transferability of the findings to other contexts requires further scrutiny. Indeed, other countries and regions have different sport governance structures, cultural norms, and views on sport and athletes. Future research should examine how athlete brand development takes place in different contexts, across diverse sports, levels, and with varying degrees of funding support to complement and further enrich our understanding of the athlete brand development process and the steps taken by professionals tasked with athlete branding.

Finally, our sample of MAPs may also not reflect how all professionals would approach this process. The sample was vastly experienced, but this also meant that the average age of the agent was relatively high. It is possible that younger marketing agents may adopt different and novel strategies, implementation methods and ideas for athlete brand positioning. It is also possible that a more diverse sample of participants in terms of experience might have also uncovered diverse practices in the brand development process, unlike the rather uniform three-step process uncovered in our study. Additionally, as two-thirds of the sample were male, further work is needed to understand the female marketing agent perspective and to determine if there are any differences in the way that male and female agents approach athlete brand development. Moreover, a limitation could have arisen from the time in which the data were collected (towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic), which might have influenced the emphasis the MAPs placed on, for example, non-performance related brand pillars. Further research could examine the brand development process at different points in time to better capture the process independently of such an influence. Finally, as we did not differentiate between genders at the athlete level, future research has an opportunity to do so and examine if sportsmen and sportswomen may benefit from diverse strategies.

1. Can you describe your role in the agency?

2. Can you tell me a few things about your background?

3. When did you join the agency?

4. What did you do before joining?

5. What does your role in the agency entail? Can you name a few tasks/projects you’ve worked on?

6. What type of clients do you work with in the agency?

7. Do you work with athletes?

8. What type of work do you do for them?

9. Have you been involved in the development of any athlete brands?

10. Can you walk me through the process of how you develop an athlete’s brand?

11. Do you work together with the athletes for their brands?

12. How closely do you work together?

13. Can you walk me through the steps of the process of an athlete brand’s development?

14. How do you start the process?

15. Are there any particular aspects you are focusing on?

16. What is guiding this athlete’s brand development process?

17. Who is guiding the process?

18. Is it only you and the athlete involved in it?

19. Is it only you from the agency who is involved in it? If no, who else?

20. Is it only the athlete involved from their side? If no, who else?

21. What are you looking for when designing a brand?

22. When does the process end?

23. How many steps would you say there are within it?

24. Which one would you say is the most important step?

25. What do you do after the athlete’s brand is developed?

26. Is there a follow up on how the brand is managed?

27. How do you know if an athlete’s brand works?

28. How can you develop a strong brand?

29. Is there a brand training process?

30. Do clients come back to you for further assistance?

31. What more could you do to help them with their brands?

32. Is there any part of the athlete brand development process that you would like to talk more about?

Source(s): Authors’ own work.