The introduction of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) policy made US. collegiate athletes routine commercial endorsers, yet how fans evaluate their endorsements remains underexamined. This study examines how gender–product fit shapes persuasion and whether these effects vary by student–athlete gender, fan–athlete gender congruence and fanship across attitudes and behavioral responses.
Using a 3 (gender–product fit: incongruent vs neutral vs congruent) × 2 (athlete gender: male vs female) between-subjects online experiment (N = 409), participants viewed mock Instagram posts featuring NIL endorsements and reported attitudes and behavioral responses. Effects were tested using MANCOVA, with fan gender and fanship examined as moderators using PROCESS.
Gender–product fit significantly shaped persuasion, with gender-incongruent endorsements producing less favorable outcomes than both gender-neutral and congruent endorsements. The latter two conditions were largely comparable, although gender-neutral endorsements produced higher purchase intention. Athlete gender further conditioned responses to incongruence: male student-athletes received more favorable content attitudes than female student-athletes under gender-incongruent conditions. Fan-side moderation emerged primarily at the purchase stage: gender–product fit effects on purchase intention varied by fan–athlete gender congruence, while fanship moderated the contrast between gender-neutral and gender-incongruent endorsements.
This study extends athlete endorsement and sport marketing research by clarifying when expectancy-based fit and identity-based cues matter most across the persuasion sequence. It identifies an asymmetric pattern in which gender incongruence carries a persuasive penalty without a corresponding premium for gender congruence, with a content-level penalty for female student-athletes and fan-side moderation emerging primarily at the purchase stage. These findings offer evidence-based guidance for brands, athletic departments and NIL collectives.
