This study analyzes whether a doping scandal occurring during a global major sport event has an impact on on-site spectator satisfaction.
The investigation was conducted among 896 on-site event spectators attending a minimum of one event at the Nordic Ski World Championships 2019. Furthermore, five members of the organizing committee were retrospectively interviewed about how they judged the doping scandals’ impact on the perception of the event and its organization.
Results revealed that the scandal did not affect the spectators’ satisfaction and perception of the event. Nevertheless, the doping scandal was mentioned as a lowlight after becoming public.
Even though the doping scandal did not affect spectator satisfaction, such undesirable situations should be avoided as best as possible and form part of the event organizer’s comprehensive risk management and communication strategy.
It can be concluded that spectator satisfaction remained quite stable while any negative impacts, if not directly affecting the spectator, seemed to be considered as somehow “part of the event.”
1. Introduction
From the 20th of February to the 3rd of March 2019, the 52nd FIS Nordic Ski World Championships (NSWC, 2019) took place in Seefeld (Tyrol/Austria). Over 12 days, 204,400 global spectators followed the various sport competitions on location (Olympia region Seelfeld, 2019). We were assigned to analyze both the sport event’s regional economic impact and spectator satisfaction. However, an unexpected doping incident during the event opened up the opportunity to address critical issues related to how a major sporting event scandal affects spectator satisfaction.
On the morning of the 27th of February, there was a raid on the NSWC 2019. Code-named “Operation Aderlass,” five athletes were detained, including two Austrian cross-country skiers. The athletes were accused of blood doping and were arrested, uncovering an entire doping network around the German doctor Mark S (Kistner and Knuth, 2019). Although the full extent of the doping network was not revealed until years after the event, the initial news reports relating to the immediate incident clearly highlighted the scandal, featuring images of the athletes being caught red-handed in their hotel rooms. Videos of an athlete in the act of receiving a blood transfusion (characteristic for autologous blood doping) circulated just hours after the police raid in Seefeld. This unexpected incident could be described as a “doping shock,” causing a serious scandal and media backlash during a major sport event.
Although recent research has examined spectator satisfaction at sport events (e.g. Biscaia et al., 2023; Pahrudin et al., 2024), to the best of our knowledge, no study has ever investigated the significance of a doping scandal for a major sport event and its impact on on-site spectator satisfaction. As such a sport scandal would heavily impact the organizers of the NSWC 2019 in their operations and reputation, we also analyze the views of members of the organizing committee (OCM) in order to understand the consequences for the host of this event. Thus, the central research question (RQ 1) of this contribution is: Does spectator satisfaction at a major sport event change following a doping scandal during the event phase? Besides the spectators’ views, we were also interested in exploring how the organizers of a major sport event experienced the doping scandal during the event. Thus, our second research question is (RQ 2): How does a doping scandal influence the spectators’ satisfaction from the perspective of the event organizers? The final research question (RQ3) is: How does a doping scandal influence the event organizers’ immediate work?
The following article is structured as follows. We start by giving a brief overview of existing research on spectator satisfaction at sport events. Second, we describe the central theoretical approach of this contribution, which is based around the Sport Spectator Satisfaction Model (SSSM) developed by van Leeuwen et al. (2002). Given that no study has ever specifically investigated the significance of a doping scandal for on-site spectator satisfaction at a major sport event, we present a more general literature review on the impact of scandals on sport consumption. We then describe the methods of our two empirical studies: first, the quantitative study, and second, the qualitative study. After presenting the empirical results, we describe some key managerial implications for event organizers and policymakers to consider.
2. Literature review and theoretical foundation
2.1 Sport event spectator satisfaction
Since the late 1970s, customer satisfaction has increasingly moved into the foreground of management research. Companies are consistently trying to understand their customer needs and focus on customer loyalty (Pechlaner et al., 2002). This also applies to sport events and, in particular, to on-site spectators attending an event (Schnitzer and Stickdorn, 2012).
Research on on-site spectators at sport events ranges from profiling spectators in terms of their expenditure patterns (e.g. Preuss et al., 2007) to examining their motives for attending sport events (e.g. Bason, 2023; Kim et al., 2023). Furthermore, the quality of services at sport events and their effect on spectator satisfaction (see in particular the meta-analysis of Biscaia et al., 2023), the development of a spectator satisfaction model for mass participant sport events (Duan et al., 2020) and the event location exploring the intentions of spectators (e.g. Brown et al., 2016) are research streams that have been developed in more recent years.
From a methodological point of view, the assessment of spectator satisfaction has also evolved from the classical pen and paper questionnaires being filled out on-site to mixed-method approaches with the combination of observations, qualitative and quantitative questionnaires as well as mobile ethnographical apps (see, for example, Schlemmer et al., 2021). Finally, longitudinal study designs have been applied to assess, for example, the stability of spectator satisfaction at sport events (Schnitzer and Barth, 2019).
To better understand the determinants of sport event spectator satisfaction, van Leeuwen et al. (2002) developed their SSSM by extending the disconfirmation of expectations model (see Figure 1).
The framework shows nine ovals positioned across the diagram. Two ovals are present at the top, arranged horizontally and labeled “Core expectations” and “Core disconfirmation”. Two ovals are positioned on the left, arranged vertically, and labeled “Club identification” and “Win or Lose”. Two ovals are arranged vertically in the center and labeled “Core perceived performance” and “Peripheral perceived performance”. Two ovals are positioned at the bottom center, arranged horizontally and labeled “Peripheral expectations” and “Peripheral disconfirmation”. One oval is placed on the right at the center-right position labeled “Customer satisfaction”. Seven rightward arrows emerge from “Club identification” and point toward “Core expectations”, “Core disconfirmation”, “Core perceived performance”, “Peripheral perceived performance”, “Peripheral expectations”, “Peripheral disconfirmation”, and “Customer satisfaction”. Five rightward arrows emerge from “Win or Lose” and point toward “Core perceived performance”, “Core disconfirmation”, “Peripheral perceived performance”, “Peripheral disconfirmation”, and “Customer satisfaction”. Three outward arrows emerge from “Core expectations” and point toward “Core disconfirmation”, “Core perceived performance”, and “Customer satisfaction”. An outward arrow emerges from “Core disconfirmation” and points to “Customer satisfaction”. Two outward arrows emerge from “Core perceived performance” and point to “Core disconfirmation” and “Customer satisfaction”. Two outward arrows emerge from “Peripheral perceived performance” and point toward “Customer satisfaction” and “Peripheral disconfirmation”. Three outward arrows emerge from “Peripheral expectations” and point toward “Peripheral perceived performance”, “Customer satisfaction”, and “Peripheral disconfirmation”. An outward arrow emerges from “Peripheral disconfirmation” and points toward “Customer satisfaction”. A caption at the bottom reads “Source(s): Figure courtesy of van Leeuwen e t a l dot, 2002, p dot 119”.Sport Spectator Satisfaction Model (SSSM)
The framework shows nine ovals positioned across the diagram. Two ovals are present at the top, arranged horizontally and labeled “Core expectations” and “Core disconfirmation”. Two ovals are positioned on the left, arranged vertically, and labeled “Club identification” and “Win or Lose”. Two ovals are arranged vertically in the center and labeled “Core perceived performance” and “Peripheral perceived performance”. Two ovals are positioned at the bottom center, arranged horizontally and labeled “Peripheral expectations” and “Peripheral disconfirmation”. One oval is placed on the right at the center-right position labeled “Customer satisfaction”. Seven rightward arrows emerge from “Club identification” and point toward “Core expectations”, “Core disconfirmation”, “Core perceived performance”, “Peripheral perceived performance”, “Peripheral expectations”, “Peripheral disconfirmation”, and “Customer satisfaction”. Five rightward arrows emerge from “Win or Lose” and point toward “Core perceived performance”, “Core disconfirmation”, “Peripheral perceived performance”, “Peripheral disconfirmation”, and “Customer satisfaction”. Three outward arrows emerge from “Core expectations” and point toward “Core disconfirmation”, “Core perceived performance”, and “Customer satisfaction”. An outward arrow emerges from “Core disconfirmation” and points to “Customer satisfaction”. Two outward arrows emerge from “Core perceived performance” and point to “Core disconfirmation” and “Customer satisfaction”. Two outward arrows emerge from “Peripheral perceived performance” and point toward “Customer satisfaction” and “Peripheral disconfirmation”. Three outward arrows emerge from “Peripheral expectations” and point toward “Peripheral perceived performance”, “Customer satisfaction”, and “Peripheral disconfirmation”. An outward arrow emerges from “Peripheral disconfirmation” and points toward “Customer satisfaction”. A caption at the bottom reads “Source(s): Figure courtesy of van Leeuwen e t a l dot, 2002, p dot 119”.Sport Spectator Satisfaction Model (SSSM)
The SSSM assumes that customers form certain expectations around product performance and subsequently build perceptions of the performance. Depending on the difference between expectation and perception, the comparison can result in negative disconfirmation, confirmation or positive disconfirmation and therefore cause spectator satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The model furthermore indicates that spectator satisfaction arises from core and peripheral dimensions of the sport product. The core dimension consists of the game itself. The peripheral dimensions include non-sports product components such as food services, fringe events and shuttle services. The SSSM further considers unique aspects of the spectator sport product, namely the win-lose phenomenon and club identification. Whether a team or athlete wins or loses can have direct and indirect effects on spectator satisfaction. Therefore, considering the win-lose phenomenon when analyzing sport customer satisfaction is considered important.
Unexpected incidents such as doping scandals can cause differences between core and peripheral expectations and perceived performance. Furthermore, they can change the probable outcome of competitions after the exclusion of athletes testing positive for doping. Therefore, according to the SSSM, doping scandals could affect spectator satisfaction through a number of different processes such as the emotional connections, moral response and public discourse regarding the involved athletes, teams, nations and organizing bodies (Kim et al., 2022; Laine, 2006) or the withdrawal of sponsoring support or media coverage (Blumrodt and Kitchen, 2015; Solberg et al., 2010). Our SSSM-based theoretical considerations do not seem to allow the direction of a possible change to be determined.
Even though the SSSM was developed for sport clubs, we use it as a basis for this study, being aware that not all dimensions (e.g. club identification) of the model can be transferred to our study.
2.2 Doping as an example of a serious scandal in sports
In the following section, we will introduce the definition of scandals and their impact on fans while situating doping as a particular type of scandal at sport events. A scandal in sports can be defined as an “illegal or immoral action that has an impact on the sport or competition” (Hughes and Shank, 2005, p. 214). Scholarly literature elaborates on how scandals occur in the sporting context. Rowe (2019) suggests that unethical actions turn into scandals because of the surrounding structural dynamics, e.g. having an audience that is emotionally invested, the commercial scale of professional sport and the expansive media presence. Media coverage can foster a scandal through its scope and the people’s responses to it. The idealistic view of sport being an escape from the unsettling world fuels the development of scandals. Sport scandals are also never just about the sport; they also address different social and institutional matters, such as bureaucratic fallacy or charismatic failure (Wanger and Storm, 2020). Furthermore, the negative impact of a scandal is higher the more people are involved and the longer the scandal lasts (Hughes and Shank, 2005).
Doping is seen as corrupt and unethical behavior and falls within the scope of such scandals. While the practice of doping can broadly be understood as a performance enhancement through the use of particular (legal or illegal) substances (Moston and Engelberg, 2017; Petersen, 2020), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) defines doping more formally as “the occurrence of one or more anti-doping rule violations” (WADA, 2021). The use of doping contradicts the rule of fair play and “the spirit of sport” and – through deviant actions – leads to a competitive advantage (Karen and Washington, 2015; see also Moston and Engelberg (2017) or Petersen (2020) for a detailed discussion). Importantly, doping is not only linked to the athlete itself but is also rooted in a history of systematic and entangled networks across sports organizations, institutions and athletes’ medical staff (Mignon, 2003).
Whether or not a sport scandal is tolerated may depend on different aspects such as the support of so-called “ambi”-fans cheering for multiple teams (see Sun et al., 2023) or where the sport scandal takes place. The impact of off-field scandals does not necessarily immediately affect the gameplay. However, they can have a negative impact on stakeholders because of their role model status (Chien et al., 2016; Kelly et al., 2018) and thus affect trust toward the whole sport system. Nevertheless, on-field scandals have a more negative impact on stakeholders than off-field scandals (Lee and Kwak, 2017). As a consequence, consumers develop a negative attitude toward athletes following a scandal. Hence, the negative impact is higher if the bad behavior is directly linked to athletic performance (Sato et al., 2015).
2.3 Doping scandals and their significance for major sport events
Doping scandals or other off-field scandals have already been analyzed in the context of the sponsors’, athletes’ and society’s views and how those actors are affected by such scandals. As sponsors, companies use the visibility of sport for their products and try to establish a connection between a brand and sport to reach their marketing goals. However, this strategy is not without risks, as sport scandals have the potential to backfire on the companies’ image (Hughes and Shank, 2005).
Consumer responses to scandals vary by consumer profile and the type of scandal. On the one hand, Abeza et al. (2020) state that doping is one of the five scandal types that are likely to produce the most negative outcomes among consumers, even leading to a public refusal to host a major sport event (de Oliviera Santos et al., 2019; Müller et al., 2023). On the other hand, in their analysis of 25 doping scandals, Danylchuk et al. (2016) found no significant impact of doping scandals on the stock return of primary cycling team sponsors, which “provides encouragement for potential cycling sponsors who have hesitated in becoming involved due to the scandals that exist in the sport” (p. 51). Nevertheless, even the fear of a bad reputation and the associated repercussions can lead to the withdrawal of TV broadcasters from doping-related sports events, such as the withdrawal of two German public service broadcasters from the Tour de France in 2008 (Solberg et al., 2010). As Blumrodt and Kitchen (2015, p. 44) state, “[i]f an athlete is the subject of a doping scandal, this might be considered as fraud on the part of the team sponsor.” Sponsors can mitigate this risk by pro-actively coaching and educating sponsored athletes while also preparing immediate communication strategies to mitigate the damage after a doping scandal (Blumrodt and Kitchen, 2015). While these studies give initial insights into long-term communication strategies, they provide little insight into how a doping scandal during an event affects the event organizer’s immediate work.
Not only are sponsors and athletes impacted by doping scandals, but society and fans are also involved. The perceptions of doping scandals among the public have been examined in different contexts. Stamm et al. (2008), for example, analyzed the changes in attitude toward doping among both the public and athletes. They interviewed different groups in the Swiss population in the years 1995, 1998, 2001 and 2004. Results show that the way of thinking has dramatically changed. Respondents are strictly against doping and think that there must be harsher punishments for violations; even the younger generation today is against liberalization and in favor of strict prohibitions. In summary, results show that in the timeframe from 1994–2004, the opinions on doping among different society groups have shifted. Overall, Stamm et al. (2008) conclude that top Swiss athletes are even more critical of doping than the Swiss population.
Kim et al. (2022) tested how causal reasoning and moral reasoning determine consumer responses to athlete scandals such as doping. They highlight the complex cognitive mechanisms that show how “even the same scandal can be evaluated differently, depending on consumers’ attribution patterns and moral reasoning strategies” (p. 479). They also emphasize how event organizers can reduce the damage of doping scandals by pro-actively developing a good reputation, creating an effective media relationship strategy and having an open dialog with key stakeholders. Laine (2006) discusses the collective emotions around shame and national identity in the public media discourse around the Finnish Doping Scandal in the 2001 Nordic World Ski Championships in Lahti, Finland. Doping scandals and their public discourse become peripheral dimensions that are tightly related to the collective feelings of the audience and how they identify with the athletes and the national sports event. As Laine (2006) exemplifies in the data from the discourse, the “audience who has supported [the] athletes feels that it has been humiliated, as the victory was achieved by cheating.” (p. 71)
Another stream of research in this context analyzes whether or not a doping scandal affects people’s motives for watching sports. Results from a Norwegian survey (n = 925) show that respondents were absolutely against forbidden substances; nevertheless, substances that are in the so-called “grey zone” seem to be acceptable (Solberg et al., 2010). Similar results can be found among Belgian students (Vangrunderbeek and Tolleneer, 2010). More specifically, public acceptance of doping was analyzed (n = 1,968) in cycling among different groups (“fans” and “non-fans,” “cyclists” and “non-cyclists,” “doping informed” and “doping uninformed” and gender- and age-groups). Results show women and older people have a more negative attitude toward doping than men and younger people. Furthermore, results reveal that non-cycling fans are more willing to accept doping than cycling fans (Van Reeth and Lagae, 2013). Similar results can be found in a study of Moston et al. (2012). Finally, power dynamics and governance failure in the context of doping scandals have also been analyzed, showing that the fear of the impact on revenues and reputation tend to play a role in doping scandals (Harris et al., 2021).
Based on the currently existing theoretical and empirical knowledge, we would expect a doping scandal to trigger a reduction in spectator satisfaction at a major sport event during the event phase. However, to the best of our knowledge, no empirical study has ever tested this hypothesis. The purpose of our study was, therefore, threefold: First, to compare the overall satisfaction of spectators at a major sport event (case: NSWC, 2019) before and after the occurrence of a doping scandal. The study’s second central aim was to explore the perception among the event organizers of how a doping scandal during the event phase influences spectator satisfaction. Third, we analyzed how such a doping scandal influences the event organizers’ immediate work.
3. Method
Given the rather specific aims of our study, we applied different methodological approaches. For our first aim, we used data from an on-site spectator satisfaction survey. For the second and third objectives, we conducted five qualitative interviews with members of the OCM. The two approaches will now be described separately in more detail.
3.1 Questionnaire
Probably the best methodological approach to monitoring changes in event spectator satisfaction following a doping scandal would have been a longitudinal design. However, our data were based on a cross-sectional design study due to the fact that the doping incident was unexpected and the study was developed after the event, making it impossible to design the study with the intention of capturing pre- and post-scandal satisfaction levels.
To obtain an initial indication of whether a doping scandal affects spectator satisfaction at a major sport event along with the likelihood to recommend the event to others, we decided to apply a case-control matching with 718 respondents. Using this procedure, for every person who completed the questionnaire before the scandal (22.02.2019–27.02.2019; n = 406), we obtained a person comparable in their central characteristics who filled in the questionnaire after the scandal (28.02.2019–03.03.2019; n = 312). Although the survey instrument was not specifically developed for the research questions featured in this contribution, the most central aspects of the SSSM were covered by the said questionnaire. Besides these theoretical considerations, our choice of matching variables was driven by the results of the empirical investigations presented above. This resulted in the use of matching variables presented in Table 1.
Matching variables and outcome variables and their operationalizations
| Matching variable | Operationalization |
|---|---|
| Gender | Female/Male |
| Age | Years |
| Main residence Tyrol | Tyrolian/non-Tyrolian |
| Accompaniment | Event visit alone/accompanied |
| Peripheral dimension of event satisfaction | Perceived influence of weather on overall satisfaction (5-point Likert scale converted into positive/neutral/negative) |
| Core dimension of event satisfaction | Perceived influence of excitement and atmosphere of the competition on overall satisfaction (5-point Likert scale converted into positive/neutral/negative) |
| Unique aspects of the spectator sport product (win-lose phenomenon and identification with the athletes) | Perceived influence of the success of the individual’s favorite athletes on overall satisfaction (5-point Likert scale converted into positive/neutral/negative) |
| Outcome variable | Operationalization |
| Overall event satisfaction | How do you rate your overall satisfaction with your time at the NSWC 2019? (5-point Likert scale from very satisfied to not at all satisfied) |
| Willingness to recommend the NSWC 2019 to friends or acquaintances | How likely are you to recommend the NSWC 2019 to a friend or colleague? (11-point Likert scale from very unlikely to very likely) |
Note(s): NSWC 2019, 52nd FIS Nordic Ski World Championships
Source(s): Created by authors
The matching, which was conducted by applying the case-control matching procedure in SPSS 27, resulted in 188 pairs. The sample consisted of 48.4% females, 23.9% of whom were Tyrolian. All respondents reported that they were accompanied by others. Although we allowed a matching tolerance of up to five years, the pairs did not statistically differ in the mean age (age difference: 0.2 years, p = 0.300).
Based on our matching procedure, for every case (before the doping scandal), we had a control case (after the doping scandal). Due to violation of the assumption of normality for the difference variable (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, p < 0.01), we applied the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for both outcomes, i.e. overall event satisfaction and recommending the NSWC 2019 to friends or acquaintances. For all tests, the level of significance was set to α = 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 27 (IBM, New York, NY, USA).
Additionally, we asked an open question about the NSWC 2019 highlights and lowlights as perceived by the spectators during their visit. Respondents had the chance to name a maximum of three negative and three positive experiences.
3.2 Interviews
Five OCMs from different working areas of the NSWC 2019 were interviewed about how they retrospectively judged the doping scandals’ influence on spectator satisfaction. Their professional profiles were linked to different sectors such as media, sponsoring, overall management and organization, advertising and doping prevention. They were directly involved in the planning and execution of the event and, as such, were also directly affected by the doping scandal. Furthermore, the OCMs were all in direct contact with spectators, as they were officially recognizable in their uniforms and were also asked by spectators about the doping scandal. The interviewees decisively influenced the event through their decisions and were deemed to possess specialist knowledge. They were therefore considered OCMs in this investigation.
The guided interviews started with two introductory questions relating to their occupations. The main questions built upon each other to arrive at the main thesis of this work: “Was there a difference in on-side audience satisfaction during the NSWC 2019 in Seefeld before and after the doping scandal?” In the course of the interviews, the OCMs were also encouraged to express how the doping scandal during NSWC 2019 had influenced their own immediate work. An open form of communication with the interview partners was chosen, which allowed them to express their own knowledge, opinions and experiences independently and freely.
Eight OCMs were contacted via email. Positive feedback was received from five OCMs, as some OCMs had already left the organization. The interviews took place from the 16th of May to the 5th of June 2019. As far as the saturation rate is concerned, we conducted interviews until no new information emerged (Hastings and Perry, 2000). The duration varied from 15 to 30 min. Two of the interviewees were aware of the guidelines, as they asked for them in a prior email. In some conversations, the order of the questions was changed. This allowed the OCMs to address other aspects that were not previously considered. All interviews were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. After all the interviews had been carried out and transcribed, the text passages were cleaned of dialect words and filler words for the purposes of the written language. The OCMs released the written interviews after reviewing them one more time. Mayring’s (2010) content analysis was used for interview interpretation. Each question was trimmed down to its main message before being categorized. Based on the categories, the OCMs’ statements were compared with each other and with the questionnaire.
4. Results
4.1 Questionnaire
Contrary to our hypothesis, our empirical results did not show a decrease in the spectators’ overall satisfaction with the major sport event after the doping scandal had occurred during the event. Furthermore, the results showed a statistically significant change in the spectators’ recommendation of the major sport event. Interestingly, and again contrary to our expectations, the recommendation increased after the doping scandal (see Table 2).
Comparison of event spectators’ overall satisfaction and the likelihood to recommend the NSWC 2019 before and after the occurrence of a doping scandal during the event phase (188 pairs)
| Before | After | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mdn | IQR | Mdn | IQR | z | p | |
| Overall satisfactiona | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | −1.565 | 0.118 |
| Likelihood to recommend NSWC 2019b | 8.0 | 4.0 | 10.0 | 2.0 | −3.960 | <0.001 |
Note(s): a 1 = very satisfied to 5 = not satisfied at all; b1 = unlikely 11 = highly likely
Source(s): Created by authors
In the open question section of the questionnaire about the NSWC 2019, spectators were asked about the highlights and lowlights of their visit. The connotations regarding the named lowlights of the NSWC (see Figure 2) which included doping, were analyzed for all on-site spectators participating in the survey. Regarding the frequency of people naming doping as a lowlight of the NSWC, there is a statistically significant difference between the spectators interviewed before (0.18%, n = 565) and after (7.6%, n = 421) the doping scandal (χ2(1, n = 986) = 38.84, p < 0.001). The effect is to be considered small to medium (φ = 0.20).
The figure shows two rectangular panels side by side. The left panel contains multiple words of varying font sizes. The largest words are “None (n equals 70)” and “Organization (n equals 62)”. Medium-sized words include “Food (n equals 21)” and “Athletes (n equals 15)”. Smaller words include “Region (n equals 8)”, “Competition (n equals 7)”, “Visitors (n equals 7)”, “Events (n equals 7)”, “Medals (n equals 5)”, and “Other (n equals 10)”. The right panel also displays multiple words of varying font sizes. The largest words are “Organization (n equals 34)” and “Doping (n equals 32)”. Medium-sized words include “Competition (n equals 27)” and “Weather (n equals 22)”. Smaller words include “None (n equals 20)”, “Food (n equals 12)”, “Athletes (n equals 12)”, and “Other (n equals 5)”. A caption at the bottom reads “Source(s): Created by authors”.Lowlights before (left) and after (right) the doping scandal
The figure shows two rectangular panels side by side. The left panel contains multiple words of varying font sizes. The largest words are “None (n equals 70)” and “Organization (n equals 62)”. Medium-sized words include “Food (n equals 21)” and “Athletes (n equals 15)”. Smaller words include “Region (n equals 8)”, “Competition (n equals 7)”, “Visitors (n equals 7)”, “Events (n equals 7)”, “Medals (n equals 5)”, and “Other (n equals 10)”. The right panel also displays multiple words of varying font sizes. The largest words are “Organization (n equals 34)” and “Doping (n equals 32)”. Medium-sized words include “Competition (n equals 27)” and “Weather (n equals 22)”. Smaller words include “None (n equals 20)”, “Food (n equals 12)”, “Athletes (n equals 12)”, and “Other (n equals 5)”. A caption at the bottom reads “Source(s): Created by authors”.Lowlights before (left) and after (right) the doping scandal
4.2 Interviews
The results of the OCM interviews were sorted by categories in the order of the questions from the interviews (see Table 3). After the introductory questions, the first question about the importance of spectator attitudes at major sport events was asked. All five OCMs agreed that spectator satisfaction was the most important aspect at sport events. One OCM commented: “Of course, that’s very important. It is essential for a successful event” (OCM 1). This attitude was confirmed by three OCMs underlining the changing expectations toward sport events: “And just from the perspective of organizers, the mood is essential, because the spectator today not only expects sporting excellence but also a great event” (OCM 1). Subsequently, the OCMs were asked which factors influence the audience sentiment. The OCMs agreed that the supporting program must be suitable for the event too. In addition, the aspect of “weather” was addressed. Three of the five OCMs agreed that weather significantly influences the mood. It was said, “I think the most important point, and we were lucky in Seefeld, is the weather. If you are in the rain for two weeks, it may be that the mood is not good” (OCM 2).
Extracted categories and number of references from the OCM interviews, ordered by interview questions
| Question | Category | n of N | Category | n of N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Satisfaction | Importance of spectator mood | 5 | Values change | 3 |
| 2. Impact on satisfaction | General conditions | 5 | Weather | 3 |
| 3. Perception doping | Internal communication | 3 | Media | 2 |
| 4. Impact workplace | No | 3 | Conditional | 2 |
| 5. Confrontation doping | Yes | 5 | ||
| 6. Perception doping On site visitors | Conditional perception | 5 | National perception | 3 |
| 7. On-site visitor satisfaction | No satisfaction break | 5 | National perception | 2 |
| 8. Negative feedback | No | 3 | Positive feedback | 2 |
| 9. Changes in future organization of NSWCs | No | 5 | Smooth doping controls | 3 |
| 10. General satisfaction of OCMs | Very satisfied | 5 |
Source(s): Created by authors
Regarding the core aspect of this study, the doping scandal, all OCMs stated that they had immediately received internal notification of the doping scandal or had heard about it through the media. Three of the OCMs, working in sponsorship, organization and advertising, answered the question of whether or not the doping scandal had had an impact on their workplace . Only two said that it had affected their work but had done so only for a few hours during which they had to schedule appointments. The respondents had all previously been confronted with the issue of doping before this doping scandal occurred. That said, none had previously been involved in the detection operation or immediate scandal, but rather in doping prevention measures. Regarding the question of whether the on-site spectators were aware of the doping scandal, they unanimously concluded that there was little awareness at a national level. This was followed by the main question: “Did the viewer’s mood change as a result of the doping scandal in the course of the event?” All OCMs answered that there had been no change in or loss of mood because it did not interest people in the long term. One OCM commented: “For me, it was undetectable that it detracted from the mood” (OCM 1). In retrospect, the OCMs did not receive any negative feedback in the course of the doping scandal. By contrast, two of the interviewees even stated that they had received positive feedback on the event and the doping controls. Similarly, all agreed that in terms of changes to future NSWCs, the organizer had no control over the doping scandal and that there was, therefore, no need to change anything around the organization of the event. In this context, expressions such as, “nothing will change” (OCM 4), “you cannot prevent it” (OCM 5) and “that’s not the organizer’s fault” (OCM 1) were cited. Finally, the OCMs were asked how they found the overall NSWC 2019. Everyone thought that the event had been a great success and they were satisfied. One OCM described the event as follows: “The NSWC in Seefeld was a wonderful event, helped, of course, by many Scandinavian on-site spectators, by excellent weather and also by an excellent organization” (OCM 1).
5. Discussion
Our analyses add to the scholarly literature by showing that a doping scandal during the event does not seem to have a negative influence on the spectators’ satisfaction and perception of the event, thus answering the first research question. Overall satisfaction and the intention to recommend the venue even experienced an uplift after the doping scandal. No strong interaction effects of gender or being Tyrolian could be found. Nevertheless, there is a difference in terms of naming doping as a lowlight before and after the doping scandal. This means that, while the doping scandal affected the on-site attendees, it could simply be interpreted as a disappointing “part of the games.” Considering the second and third research questions, the OCMs, in their function as event organizers, did not, however, observe any negative responses from the spectators regarding the doping scandal or at least they were not directly reported to them. They even stated that, being recognized by their official uniforms, they had received positive feedback on the event and the doping controls – in the sense that potentially poorer doping controls would not have revealed this issue and that the spectators perceived this as a positive.
The SSSM (Van Leeuwen et al., 2002) suggests a possible explanation for these results. In this study, customer satisfaction could have been influenced by a high level of identification with the doped athletes by reducing the disconfirmation between expectations and perceived performance. Lee et al. (2015) showed that moral decoupling (separating the evaluation of immoral behavior and performance) and moral rationalization (reducing uncomfortable dissonance by justifying immoral behavior) can lead to an ongoing support of transgressive athletes by sports consumers. While the behavior itself is still seen as deviant (Karen and Washington, 2015), it is, indeed, considered part of the “spirit of sport” (Moston and Engelberg, 2017; Petersen, 2020) for spectators. Furthermore, according to Lee et al. (2018), para-social relationships between fans and athletes can influence the willingness of fans to forgive the unethical behavior of the athlete. It is also possible that the spectators’ perception of the event remained stable or even became slightly more positive because some spectators forgave the doped athletes and continued to support them.
According to Bouchet et al. (2011), sport spectators can be categorized into different spectator profiles with specific consumption needs. It is conceivable that the doping scandal at the NSWC 2019 satisfied the desire of the athletes’ profile for drama and theatrical intensity at the event. This might explain why the spectators’ perception of the NSWC 2019 remained stable after the doping scandal. Furthermore, the increase in the perceived influence of excitement and atmosphere on overall satisfaction might be an argument in support of this explanation.
Wakefield and Blodgett (1994) and Tomlinson et al. (1995) showed that customer satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of factors. Besides aspects concerning the game itself, customer service is of considerable importance to the sport spectator. Furthermore, Schnitzer and Barth (2019) showed that perceived satisfaction remains relatively stable over time. Therefore, the doping scandal is only one of many factors possibly influencing spectator satisfaction and thus does not seem to gravely interfere with the stability of spectator satisfaction.
The contrast between the increase in the naming of doping as a lowlight after the doping scandal and the interviewed OCMs not observing any negative responses to the scandal could be explained by the fact that the respondents vented their frustration over the doping scandal anonymously in the questionnaire rather than actively expressing their disappointment at the event location.
Otto et al. (2021) investigate the relationship between doping and a loss of trust in fairness followed by a reduced demand for the sport. Results show that a doping incident reduces trust in athletes’ fairness but does not have an impact on the demand for watching the affected event. They conclude that fairness is not a central factor for spectators to keep following the sport event. These findings correspond to our results, as the doping scandal did not influence spectator satisfaction. One could argue that those spectators who stayed away from the event because of the incident were not actually captured in the second group of survey participants. However, spectator numbers did not support this assumption, as OCM 5 said: “Also the [spectator] numbers showed that they increased on the second weekend. The day ticket sales were rising.”
Nevertheless, the results of the present study stand in contrast to the findings of other researchers. Other studies (e.g. Laine, 2006; Lee and Kwak, 2017; Van Reeth and Lagae, 2013) have concluded that doping scandals have a major impact on spectators. Lee and Kwak (2017) found that on-field scandals, e.g. doping, have a bigger negative impact on different stakeholders than off-field scandals. Furthermore, few studies showed that there is a difference between genders in terms of their reaction to on-field scandals. The study by Van Reeth and Lagae (2013) shows that women are less tolerant of doping than men. By using different matching variables such as gender or age (see Table 1), our study could not support such results. One should, however, bear in mind that this study is unique in its data collection, and therefore, it is not easy to compare our findings with existing literature. However, it offers new perspectives in terms of analyzing the satisfaction of on-site event spectators in an on-field scandal. Furthermore, one should consider that the doping was mentioned among the lowlights of the event.
Various results could be explained through the concept of Sun et al. (2023), which suggests that ambi-fans are more tolerant of scandals than other fans. There might be missing team or player identification with the athletes involved in the scandal such that the spectators were not negatively impacted. For example, during the interviews, OCM 3 also had the impression that the high number of fans from Norway and Sweden did not take much interest in the Austrian athletes. However, it should be noted that the questionnaire did not contain any questions on which athletes the spectators supported or cheered for, which needs to be seen as a limitation of this study. Furthermore, Sun et al. (2023) showed that different effects can be identified when the scandal affects the gameplay. A low impact on spectator satisfaction might be due to a minimal effect on the overall “gameplay” compared to team sport events, especially given that Nordic skiing is mostly an individual sport. OCM 5 shares these insights, as he mentioned it was important that no “big names” were among the athletes involved and that the picture would have looked very different if they had caught a “big fish.” This poses the question of whether the impact might have been different if the spectators were fans of the athletes involved in the scandal or if they were idols of the sport rather than relatively unknown figures, as in this case.
Additionally, considering Harris et al. (2021), the investigation management of the scandal most likely had a direct impact on the course of the doping scandal. Good risk management might have influenced the spectators’ positive perception of the overall event. OCM 1 agrees that the OCM is jointly responsible for doping controls, as they need to provide the conditions for a good process. Therefore, some managerial implications can be deduced. According to Leopkey and Parent (2009), risk management should be seen as a proactive process specific to the event that involves assessing, minimizing and planning responses to all possible risk factors. Despite great planning of the OCM, sport events are still confronted with unexpected risks – such as scandals – through external factors (Parent and Ruetsch, 2020). Two of the interviewees involved in the event organization mentioned stress and uncertainty concerning the incident, as it was unclear how the situation would develop and what impact it would have (OCM 1 and OCM 2), even though it ultimately had no direct influence on the event and its implementation (OCM 1). When dealing with unplanned incidents, different risk strategies can be considered. As outlined by Nunkoo et al. (2018, p. 163), one way of managing the effect of corruption or other potential deviant behavior such as doping scandals and “fostering public trust” is by “improving transparency and increasing public knowledge of the role of government and the OCM in mega-event development.” Therefore, preventive risk management and transparent communication about the measures taken should be closely considered when managing a sport event and related scandals (Parent and Ruetsch, 2020).
Our study also contributes to the theoretical discussion around the influence of doping scandals on sport events. In this regard, our study sheds light on the spectator perspective and implies that doping scandals do not influence the event satisfaction of spectators. This adds to the discussion as to whether spectators believe doping is “part of the game” and echoes calls for a more morally and ethically differentiated discussion about doping as deviant behavior (Karen and Washington, 2015; Petersen, 2020) and how scandals influence the organization and execution of major sport events (de Oliviera Santos et al., 2019). As the SSSM (van Leeuwen et al., 2002) was not developed for one-off events but used more specifically in the sport club context, the adaptation of the model for major sport events such as the NSWC 2019 could be seen, on the one hand, as a future research avenue but also, on the other hand, as a limitation of this study in that it was not possible to address all dimensions possibly influencing spectator satisfaction.
Furthermore, additional limitations of this study need to be considered. First, spectators who decided to avoid the event due to the doping scandal are naturally not reflected in the second group of the study. Therefore, the study might not have reached all relevant respondents of the target group and might not have detected all perceived negative impacts of the doping scandal. Furthermore, conclusions are only made for on-site spectators, not for all spectators, e.g. television audiences. Additionally, due to the unexpected incident of the doping scandal, the development of a specific questionnaire based on the SSSM was only partially possible. That is why insights into the influence on spectator satisfaction were drawn from open questions that included lowlights of the event. There were no questions that directly addressed the scandal or spectators’ perceptions. The generalizability of these results remains difficult, as this is a very specific case and the study design was developed after the event due to the fact that such a study cannot be designed by purpose. Finally, even though a theoretical saturation rate was reached, five interviews limit the insights of the qualitative research. Thus, more interviews with further stakeholder groups could have been conducted in order to gain a deeper understanding of the scandal’s impact. For future research projects, interviewees should be contacted earlier (three OCMs had already left the organization when the qualitative interviews were conducted). Also, the length of the interviews (30 min and less) might be a sign that the OCMs are less motivated to dedicate their time to follow up projects after an intense period of operational work.
6. Conclusion
This is the first study to investigate on-site spectator satisfaction in connection with a doping scandal. To conclude, the doping scandal does not seem to have a big impact on spectator satisfaction and perceptions of the event. This conclusion is supported by the statements of the OCMs, who all mentioned that the doping scandal did not attract much interest. It can be said that, similar to other studies revealing scandals in general and in sports in particular, spectator satisfaction remains quite stable and negative impacts, if not directly affecting the spectator, seem to be considered part of the game.
Prospectively, the relevance of the study in hand should be supported by further research. This study was underpinned by the SSSM (Van Leeuwen et al., 2002) as the theoretical framework. Future research could look into other perspectives, such as the Wagner and Storm (2022) approach as soon as it has become more established.
Using a longitudinal study design to follow up after the event, it could be interesting to investigate the extent to which the doping scandal remains in the spectators’ mind in the long term, especially as the full extent of the doping scandal only unfolded after the immediate police raid at the event. This level of knowledge is particularly important in supporting prior research outlining the link between public trust, transparency and corruption (Nunkoo et al., 2018) and in generating implications for organizers of future NSWCs and related sport events. Furthermore, it could be interesting to research whether this incident influenced future organizing committees and their risk management, as Hanstad (2008) identified organizational changes within the International Ski Federation after a doping scandal in cross-country skiing in 2001. Interviews could shed light on pre-emptive measures that have been taken concerning potential scandals or similar events.
Funding: This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions [823815].
