The legitimacy work of institutional disruption and maintenance: examining the rivalry between LIV golf and the professional golf association

Abstract

Research Question Research has shown those within sport organizations engage in legitimacy work when innovation is introduced and/or when current institutional arrangements are challenged. However, both legitimacy work and emotions have received limited attention within sport management research. This study sought to answer two questions: How do actors in dominant sport organizations frame messages to influence perceptions of legitimacy? And, how are messages crafted to evoke emotional responses from evaluators of new endeavors?Research Methods Using framing theory to guide the analysis, the researchers conducted emotional discourse analysis of 38 mainstream sport media articles to understand how PGA members framed messages to evoke emotional responses from audiences to influence how they perceived LIV Golf.Results and Findings The findings showed that the PGA framed itself as true golf and used emotional discourse to show how LIV Golf undermined the PGA’s conception. Actors suggested that LIV was eroding the legacy and traditions of golf, destroying the game, and negating the meritocratic structures of golf. The discourses within these themes were rife with emotional syntax that became a means of legitimacy work to maintain the dominant positioning of the PGA.Implications This research extends current understandings of legitimacy and institutional work within sport management by showing how emotion can be used as a means of legitimacy work to address/hinder institutional field dynamics, like innovation and competition. This work also shows how subjects of legitimacy work can change from the introduced practices to the introducing actor. Finally, this work shows how challenges can induce institutional evangelism.

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 — 19 citations exist upstream.

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