Table 1 Literature review table: closely...

Table 1

Literature review table: closely related empirical research and how the present study extends prior work

Study	Context and method	Core constructs/model focus	Main takeaway (what the prior work shows)	How the present study extends it
Speed and Thompson (2000)	Survey/experimental sponsorship response research	Sponsor-property fit; attitudes; sponsorship response	Fit is a key driver of sponsorship evaluations and downstream responses	We keep fit as a central cue but embed it in a dual-transfer logic (fit to symbolic/image transfer to sponsor outcomes) alongside leadership cues
Woisetschläger et al. (2014)	Football context; naming-rights resistance	Commercialization concerns; identification; resistance; fit/benefits as buffers	Naming rights can trigger resistance; fit/benefits can mitigate backlash	We explicitly theorize “contested symbolism” as a boundary condition and model fit as a legitimacy cue in a high-identity club case
Gillooly et al. (2020)	Football fans; corporate stadium naming rights	Context sensitivity; legitimacy perceptions; fan reactions	Fan reactions to naming rights depend on context and legitimacy, not only exposure	We translate this to an integrated symbolic model where fit and leadership cues shape pride/identification and sponsor outcomes
Grohs et al. (2015)	Rival-team sponsorship; survey/experiment	Negative spillovers; rivalry; sponsor backlash	Identification/rivalry can produce negative sponsor effects; some mechanisms attenuate them	We acknowledge negative pathways and focus on legitimacy-building cues (authenticity + fit) as mechanisms that may reduce resistance
Biscaia et al. (2017)	Team-sponsor integration model (empirical)	Team brand experience to sponsor brand experience; sponsor responses	Team perceptions can transfer to sponsor perceptions in integrated models	We extend integrative sponsorship modeling by adding leadership authenticity, a distinct leader to club meaning-transfer mechanism, and member-governance heterogeneity (voting/MGA)
Spears and Singh (2004)	Scale development	Attitude toward brand; purchase intention	Valid measures for attitude and purchase intention	We apply these validated outcome measures to sponsor-focused responses in a club–sponsor setting
Schlesinger and Güngerich (2011)	Sport sponsorship and identification stream	Identification to sponsor response	Identification can generalize to sponsor evaluations/behaviors	We position identification as a downstream consequence of pride and meaning transfer, and test its role alongside sponsor attitude in predicting purchase intention

Study	Context and method	Core constructs/model focus	Main takeaway (what the prior work shows)	How the present study extends it
Speed and Thompson (2000)	Survey/experimental sponsorship response research	Sponsor-property fit; attitudes; sponsorship response	Fit is a key driver of sponsorship evaluations and downstream responses	We keep fit as a central cue but embed it in a dual-transfer logic (fit to symbolic/image transfer to sponsor outcomes) alongside leadership cues
Woisetschläger et al. (2014)	Football context; naming-rights resistance	Commercialization concerns; identification; resistance; fit/benefits as buffers	Naming rights can trigger resistance; fit/benefits can mitigate backlash	We explicitly theorize “contested symbolism” as a boundary condition and model fit as a legitimacy cue in a high-identity club case
Gillooly et al. (2020)	Football fans; corporate stadium naming rights	Context sensitivity; legitimacy perceptions; fan reactions	Fan reactions to naming rights depend on context and legitimacy, not only exposure	We translate this to an integrated symbolic model where fit and leadership cues shape pride/identification and sponsor outcomes
Grohs et al. (2015)	Rival-team sponsorship; survey/experiment	Negative spillovers; rivalry; sponsor backlash	Identification/rivalry can produce negative sponsor effects; some mechanisms attenuate them	We acknowledge negative pathways and focus on legitimacy-building cues (authenticity + fit) as mechanisms that may reduce resistance
Biscaia et al. (2017)	Team-sponsor integration model (empirical)	Team brand experience to sponsor brand experience; sponsor responses	Team perceptions can transfer to sponsor perceptions in integrated models	We extend integrative sponsorship modeling by adding leadership authenticity, a distinct leader to club meaning-transfer mechanism, and member-governance heterogeneity (voting/MGA)
Spears and Singh (2004)	Scale development	Attitude toward brand; purchase intention	Valid measures for attitude and purchase intention	We apply these validated outcome measures to sponsor-focused responses in a club–sponsor setting
Schlesinger and Güngerich (2011)	Sport sponsorship and identification stream	Identification to sponsor response	Identification can generalize to sponsor evaluations/behaviors	We position identification as a downstream consequence of pride and meaning transfer, and test its role alongside sponsor attitude in predicting purchase intention

Note(s): Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979); Meaning Transfer Model (McCracken, 1989); Symbolic/Image Transfer in sponsorship (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999); Psychological Continuum Model (Funk and James, 2001)

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable