Professional athlete responses to new product development: A dialectic

Abstract

Research Question Although scholarship focussed upon professional athletes has grown considerably, their perspective remains underrepresented within the sport management literature. Accordingly, this study gives voice to such athletes by exploring their perspectives with regard to the demands, opportunities, and tensions arising from a new sport product innovation that has significantly impacted their profession.Research Methods Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 25 professional male cricketers competing in two of the world’s most prominent professional T20 cricket leagues. Interviews were thematically coded to reveal central athlete perspectives, and representative quotes were used to support the analysis.Results and Findings Two central insights emerged. First, professional athletes internalised a consumer demand for entertainment arising from the advent of T20 cricket, resulting in modifications to their individual frontstage self-presentation. Whilst not a conscious branding exercise, these modifications demonstrated a tension between pursuing athletic performance on the one hand and entertainment on the other. Second, despite the significant financial opportunities that T20 cricket affords, athletes emphasised the intrinsic interpersonal benefits of the product innovation. This included experiential elements around cultural immersion and personal development as well as newfound opportunities to form relationships within an otherwise fiercely competitive work setting.Implications This study contributes to a small body of work exploring professional athlete perspectives, revealing candid backstage insights surrounding lived experiences within the profession. The findings are particularly significant to athlete branding work in that they illustrate how professional athlete self-presentation can be influenced by performative pressures emerging from consumer-driven product innovation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.