Content uploaded by Aminuddin Yusof
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aminuddin Yusof on Apr 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 132
Spectator Perceptions of Physical Facility and Team Quality: A
Study of a Malaysian Super League Soccer Match
Aminuddin Yusof
Sports Academy, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang
E-mail: draminuddin@hotmail.com
Tel.: 03-89464277; Fax: 03-89464278
Lee Hooi See
University College Sedaya International, No. 1, Jalan Menara Gading
UCSI Heights, Cheras, 56000 Kuala Lumpur
Aminuddin Yusof
Sports Academy, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between stadium factors
(sportscape) and team quality on spectators’ satisfaction and their intentions to attend
soccer matches in Malaysia. The subjects comprised of 371 spectators attending a
Malaysian Super League soccer match. The subjects completed the sportscape instrument
(Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996) to measure perceptions of the physical facility while
the quality of the team was measured using items from Zhang, Pease, Smith, Lee and Lam
(1997) scale. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that team quality and sportscape
variables together predicted spectators’ satisfaction (R² = 0.289, adjusted R² = 0.285) and
their intentions to attend future matches (R² = 0.278, adjusted R² = 0.274). The results of
the study were discussed in light of earlier findings concerning sportscape features and
team quality. Practical implications of the results of the study to facility managers and
sport marketers were also discussed.
Keywords: Satisfaction, sportscape, team quality
Introduction
Attracting people to sporting events is a major avenue for many sports teams to increase revenue and
distinguish themselves from other teams. In order to increase attendance, it is important for sport
marketers to determine which factors most influence people to attend sporting events. This would
allow marketers to implement effective market segmentation and targeting and can be used as a tool to
help managers to determine those services required by spectators, plan and market events effectively
(Crompton & McKay, 1997), better position their work (Scott, 1996), and initiate improvements for
repeat attendance and increase revenues (Baker & Crompton, 2000). There have been various studies
that have examined spectators’ decisions to attend sporting events such as fan motivation factors, game
attractiveness, economic factors, competitive factors, demographic factors, stadium factors, value of
sport to the community, sport involvement, and fan identification (Shank, 2005; Welki and Zlatoper,
1994; Madrigal, 1995; and DeSchriver & Jensen, 2002).
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 133
In the literature, one of the key factors affecting spectators’ attendance appears to be team
quality (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Welki & Zlatoper, 1994; Madrigal, 1995; Zhang et al., 1997; Pan et.
al., 1999; Bernthal & Graham, 1999; and DeSchriver & Jensen; 2002). Team quality is defined in
terms of the winning percentage of the participating teams (Branvold, Pan and Gabert, 1997), number
of star players (Greenwall, 2001) and the level of rivalry (Leeuwen, Quick and Daniel, 2002). If a
spectator is satisfied with the quality of a team, he or she will most likely attend other games involving
the team in the future. While sport managers possess minimal ability to control and influence the
technical performance of a sports team, they can maximize the event experience by focusing on
stadium related factors. Based on the work of Wakefield, Blodgett and Sloan’s (1996), the stadium
factors is also known as “sportscape” and includes facility factors such as accessibility to parking, pre
and post game activities, arena and on-field promotions, concessions and merchandise, public address
announcements and musical selections during the game, interaction with game operations staff,
amenities of the venue, and other aspects of the event experience. Studies conducted on the relationship
between physical environment or sportscape features have shown that sportscape features do influence
spectators’ attendance. (Wakefield, Blodgett & Sloan 1996, Hill & Green, 2000; Westerbeek, 2000;
Chang, 2000; and Lee, Ryder & Shin, 2003),
In Malaysia, since 1991 there has been an increase in the number of stadiums with better
facilities. During the 1990’s and the early 2000’s, the Malaysian government has built a total of 12
soccer stadiums, and most of these stadiums are all seaters, with capacity exceeding 30,000 spectators
(http://www.worldstadiums.com/asia/countries/malaysia.html). However, the average attendance per
soccer match recorded during the same period is only about 2,000 to 6,000 spectators. No studies have
been done to identify the cause for the poor attendance of spectators. It is possible the poor attendance
might be due to the poor quality of soccer matches. The fall in FIFA rankings for the Malaysian soccer
team since the early 1990s saw a corresponding drop in the attendance of spectators for the FAM
league games, the FA Cup and Malaysia Cup games during the same period. Since increasing
attendance is a major concern of FAM, an increased knowledge regarding the factors that influence
spectator attendance at Malaysian Super League soccer matches would be useful for FAM and other
football associations in Malaysia.
Theoretical Framework and Research Model
This study is partly based on the theoretical framework known as the Sportscape model proposed by
Wakefield, Blodgett and Sloan (1996) as illustrated in Figure 1. Wakefield, Blodgett and Sloan (1996)
defined sportscape as the fixed elements in a built environment (i.e., those that remain the same from
game to game). It is hypothesized that satisfaction of users towards the sportscape features would
directly affect their intentions to attend future matches at the stadium. In addition, this study also
sought to identify the relationship between team quality and spectators’ satisfaction and their desire to
stay and return to the stadium for future matches (Figure 2).
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 134
Figure 1: Sportscape Model
Sportscape factors Affective response Behavioral Response
Stadium
access
Facility
aesthetics
Scoreboard
q
ualit
y
Pleasure Desire to stay
Repatronage
Seating
comfort
Layout
accessibilit
y
Space
allocation
Signage
Perceived
crowding
Figure 2
Independent Variables
1. Team Quality
2. Physical Facilities
(
S
p
ortsca
p
e Features
)
Dependent Variables
1. Spectators’ Satisfaction
2. Intentions to Repatronize
The following hypotheses were developed and tested at the 0.05 level of significance as
follows:
The hypotheses in this study are as follows:
H1: There is no relationship between spectators’ perceptions on sportscape features and spectators’
satisfaction.
H2: There is no relationship between spectators’ perceptions on team quality and spectators’
satisfaction.
H3: There is no relationship between spectators’ perceptions on sportscape features and attendance.
H4: There is no relationship between spectators’ perceptions on team quality and attendance.
Method
Using a convenience sampling method, data were collected from spectators who attended a Super
League soccer game at Shah Alam stadium. Data collection was done before the game and during the
half time interval period. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed and 371 (92.8%) were returned
usable for this analysis. Questionnaires were completed by 304 male (81.9%) and 67 female (18.1%)
spectators. The mean age of the spectators was 28.62 (SD = 8.50 years). Spectators were from various
age groups; 138 (37.2%) were less than 24 years old (only spectators 18 and older were sampled), 162
(43.7%) were aged 25 – 34, 47 (12.7%) were aged 35 – 44, 19 (5.1%) were aged 45 – 54, and five
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 135
(1.3%) were 55 or older. As for ethnicity, 335 (90.3%) were Malays, 10 (2.7%) Chinese, 23 (6.2%)
Indians and another three (0.8%) from other ethnic groups. 355 spectators indicated their monthly
household income. One hundred and twenty seven (34.2%) listed their monthly household income as
less than RM 1000, 112 (30.2%) had income in the range of RM 1001 – RM 2000, 66 (17.8%) were in
the range of RM 2001 – RM 3000, 19 (5.1%) were in the range of RM 3001 – RM 4000, 16 (4.3%)
were in the range of RM 4001 – RM 5000 and 15 (4.0%) listed their household income as more than
RM 5001. As for the educational qualification, about 234 (63.1%) spectators had at least a secondary
school education, 13 (3.5%) had upper secondary school qualifications, 8 (2.2%) had pre-university
level qualifications and 65 (17.5%) had diploma qualifications. Only 49 (13.8%) had either a
bachelor’s degree or higher qualifications.
Instrumentation
The questionnaires consisted of two main sections; one section on demographic variables and another
section consisted of several subscales designed to measure perceptions of the physical facility and
perceptions of team quality. The dependent variables investigated were spectators’ satisfaction and
their intentions’ to attend the soccer game. The perceptions of the physical facility were measured
using the scales developed by Wakefield, Blodgett and Sloan (1996) which consisted of seven
subscales of sportscape, namely four items from each sub-scale of stadium accessibility, facility
aesthetics, scoreboard quality, seating comfort, layout accessibility, space allocation and two items
from signage. The items were added up to form a total sum of spectators’ perceptions of the physical
facility (sportscape). The subscales were found to be internally consistent with alpha levels ranging
from .74 to .95 in Wakefield et al, (1996) study and .85 to .93 in Greenwell, (2001) study. The
perceptions of team quality were measured using items from Zhang et al.’s (1997) scale, which
included items that measured home team quality, star players, win/lose record, placing in standing,
team history, quality of the opponent and whether opponent team has star players. The items were
summed to yield a sum of spectators’ perceptions of the team quality. The reliability coefficient for
team quality in Greenwell study was .80. Spectators’ satisfaction was measured by three items from
Madrigal, (1995) instrument and this scale has reliability coefficients of .95 and .90 in Madrigal (1995)
study and Greenwell (2001) study respectively. Intentions to attend future matches were measured
using three items adopted from Zhang et al. (1997). All the dependent variables and independent
variables in the current study were measured on a five – point Likert Scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Results
Data analysis was performed to examine which independent variables (overall team quality or overall
sportscape) predicted spectators’ satisfaction and future attendance. Consequently, two regressions
were performed for each dependent variable (spectators’ satisfaction and future attendance).
Table 1: Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Predictor Variables and Spectators’ Satisfaction.
Variables B SEB Standard Beta p-value
Team quality .204 .023 .448 .01*
Sportscape .022 .007 .154 .01*
Notes: R = .537; R2 = .289; Adj. R2 = .285, *p < .05
The above table showed that the two independent variables, team quality and sportscape
features, significantly predicted spectators’ satisfaction. Hypotheses H1 and H2 were rejected and it
was concluded that team quality and sportscape affect spectators’ satisfaction. The R square of .289
suggests that team quality and sportscape features predictors’ variables explained 28.9% of the
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 136
variance/variation in the spectators’ satisfaction. As depicted in Table 1, the largest standardized beta
values is .448 which is team quality. This means that this variable contribute the most variance in
predicting the dependent variable (spectators’ satisfaction) as compared to sportscape features (beta
values = .154), when the variance explained by all other predictor variables in the model is controlled
for. It is suggested that one standard deviation increase in team quality is followed by .448 standard
deviation increase in spectators’ satisfaction. The results showed that team quality is an important
variable in predicting spectators’ satisfaction as spectators emphasized more on the quality of the team
than on sportscape features.
Table 2: Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Predictor Variables Spectators’ Future Attendance
Variables B SEB Standard Beta p-value
Team quality .184 .026 .351 .01*
Sportscape .043 .008 .263 .01*
Notes: R = .527; R2 = 0.278; Adj. R2 = 0.274, *p < .05
Inspection of the table 2 revealed that team quality and sportscape variables significantly
predicted spectators’ intention to attend future soccer game. H3 and H4 were rejected as showed in the
above table and it was concluded that team quality and sportscape affect spectators’ intention to attend
future soccer game. Both predictors explained 27.8% of the variance/variation in the spectators’ future
attendance. As depicted in Table 2, the standardized beta value of team quality was .351 and for the
sportscape features, it was .263. This showed that team quality has slightly more importance/impact in
predicting the spectators’ future attendance than sportscape features.
A hierarchical multiple linear regression method was used to address the influence of the two
independent variables (team quality and sportscape) on spectators’ satisfaction. Based on previous
studies, it has been shown that team quality (core product) did explain the greatest amount of variance
in spectators’ satisfaction (Greenwell, 2002, Madrigal 1995). In this study, the researcher wanted to
find out whether the model can be improved by adding another independent variable (sportscape
features) to the model. The sportscape features (variable under investigation) was entered in the second
model to determine whether the predictability of the criterion can be improved.
Results of the hierarchical regression were significant and accounted for 28.9% of variance in
spectators’ satisfaction (F = 74.654, p = .01). As shown in table 3, the team quality variable had
already explained about 27.0% of the variance in spectators’ satisfaction. The R square change showed
that sportscape features did contribute to the total variance in spectators’ satisfaction, even though it
only explained 1.9% of the variance in spectators’ satisfaction.
Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predictor Variables and Spectators’ Satisfaction
Step Variable R2 R
2 change F change Standard Beta p-value
1 Team quality .270 .270 136.463 .520 .01*
2 Team quality .289 .019 9.647 .448 .01*
Sportscape .154
Notes: R = .537; R2 = .289; Adj. R2 = .285, F = 74.654, *p < .05
Discussion & Conclusion
Results from this study revealed that overall sportscape and overall team quality significantly predicted
spectators’ satisfaction. This showed that both sportscape and team quality influenced spectators’
satisfaction in attending a football match. This study provides valuable information regarding the
relationship between team quality, spectators’ satisfaction and attendance. The physical environment of
the stadium is important to spectators’ satisfaction because spectators attending a football match would
normally spend hours at a time watching the event at that facility, thus a pleasant and positive
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 137
experience with the facility would encouraged the satisfied spectators to continue returning to the
facility. This finding is consistent with the general expectations about the importance of sportscape
features (Mullin et al., 2000; Greenwell, 2001 and has important implications for stadium managers.
Specifically, marketing efforts targeting potential spectators should provide detailed information
regarding an event and the facilities at the stadium. The uniqueness of the facilities and amenities needs
to be emphasized. Efforts should be made to make each visit to the stadium a positive and satisfying
experience so as to increase the probability that spectators will return. The findings of this study
suggests that sportscape features such as providing adequate parking, seating comfort and score board
quality is as important as having a superstar on the team (team quality).
Besides sportscape features, team quality was another important element in predicting spectator
satisfaction in this study. In the literature, team quality (teams with a winning record) has consistently
been viewed as the main factor in selling tickets to sports consumers and some studies suggest that fans
attend matches of winning teams to be associated with and identified with a winner (Keeegan &
Reinhard, 1982; Wann, Melnick, Russell & Pease, 2001). Wann et. al. (2001) suggests that spectators
often “view their favourite teams as an extension of themselves (and) experience the thrill of victory
when their team wins and the agony of defeat then their team loses. Thus, for many (spectators) an
important ego incentive is associated with spectating sporting events, namely the positive effect they
experience watching their team perform well.” Even though a marketing manager has no control over
the team performance (quality of team), certain strategies could be developed by football associations
in Malaysia to help increase team quality. For example, football associations in Malaysia can employ
professional coaches and use talent identification programs to select skillful young potential footballers
and trained them to be quality players. There appears to be a pattern in Malaysian Super League
matches where winning teams were able to attract higher attendance than less successful teams. For
example, in the recent 2007/2008 Super League matches, the Kedah team which had the best winning
record, managed to attract a total of 150,689 spectators. By comparison, the Selangor team which was
sixth from the bottom in the league standings only managed to attract 26,191 spectators.
Demographic information is also important for FAM in planning strategies to maximize
attendance at Malaysian Super League matches. For example, the information collected from this study
reveals that most spectators were Malay males, aged between 18 to 34 years, earning an income of
RM2000 and below, with an SPM education or less. Being aware of this demographic profile may help
football associations in Malaysia to develop a marketing plan by adjusting the 4 P's of marketing
(Product, Price, Place and Promotion). This can help ensure that the price of game tickets,
concessionaires and memorabilia are within the means of this group of spectators. Also, FAM may also
want to consider ways to attract female spectators or spectators from other ethnic groups or other age
groups, or from a different income range. For example, Greenwell et al.,(2002) found that women
spectators tend to place more emphasis on elements of the physical facility (e.g. cleanliness and
restrooms) and the service personnel and were less critical of team performance. Westerbeek (2000) in
his study on Australian Rules football matches found that older spectators place importance on how the
stadium was maintained and developed, and emphasized on the attractiveness of the stadium
surroundings, comfort and safety. However, most research has been conducted in western countries
and it is expected there will be differences between countries and cultures, and also between different
types of sports. Sport marketing is a relatively new field in Malaysia, and more research into the
demographic profiles of different types of sport spectators and investigating into their different needs
and values is required before appropriate marketing strategies can be implemented. As been pointed
out by Mullin et al. (2000), market segmentation is one of the key strategies that create the bridge
between managerial analysis and managerial action. Therefore, knowing the type of spectators from the
demographic data can assist sport managers or marketers to pinpoint areas in the physical facility that
needed improvement.
Two conclusions can be drawn based on the data from this study. First, sportscape and team
quality were important variables in predicting spectators’ satisfaction, and each was found to predict a
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 138
significant portion of the variance in spectators’ satisfaction. This finding lends credence to the sport
marketing principle that spectators’ evaluate both the product and product extensions in making
satisfaction judgments. Second, the sportscape and team quality were also found to be important in
predicting spectators’ intentions future attendance. This finding is important to sport marketers and
football associations in Malaysia in that it could help them consider strategies to increase attendance
and the revenue of the sport team or stadium. An important implication of this study is that it is the
combination of the individual sportscape features that made the overall sportscape encounter for the
spectators a satisfying experience and increased the chances of future attendance. Thus, sport marketers
and Malaysian football associations should invest more efforts and resources to increase the probability
of the customer experiencing a positive outcome from participating or from watching a game in the
stadium.
References
[1] Abdullah, Rizal., & Samuel, Eric. (2006, September 17.) Oh Deer! What a poor turnout. The
Sunday Star Newspaper, sport pg 57.
[2] Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Reserach in Education (6th ed.).
USA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
[3] Baade, R.A., & Tiehen, L.J. (1990). An analysis of major league Baseball attendance, 1969 –
1987. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14(1), 14 – 32.
[4] Baker, D., & Crompton, J.(2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27, 785-804.
[5] Bernthal, M.J. & Graham, P.J. (1999). The effect of sport setting on fan Attendance motivation:
The case of minor league vs. collegiate Baseball.Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(3), 223 – 238.
[6] Bitner, M.J. (1992). The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal
of Marketing, 56, 57 – 71.
[7] Branvold, S.E., Pan, D.W. & Gabert, T.E. (1997). Effects of winning percentage and market
size on attendance in minor league Baseball. Journal of Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(4), 35-
42.
[8] Cramer and Duncan. (2003). Advanced Quantitave Data Analysis. Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-
Hill Education.
[9] Creswell, J.W. (2005). Education Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
[10] Crompton, J., & McKay, S.(1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24, 425-439.
[11] Cunningham, G.B. & Hyungil, K. (2003). The theory of planned behaviour and intentions to
attend a sport event. Sport Marketing Review, 6, 127 – 145.
[12] DeSchriver, T. D. & Jensen P. E. (2002). Determinants of spectator attendance at NCAA
Division II football contests. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 311 – 330.
[13] Goodwin, L., & Goodwin, W. (1991). Focus on psychometrics: Estimating construct validity.
Research in Nursing & Health, 14, 235 – 243.
[14] Gratton, C., & Jones I. (2004). Research Methods for Sport Studies. London: Routledge.
[15] Green, F.E. (1995). An examination of effects related to consumer behavior influencing
attendance at professional sporting events. Digital dissertation abstracts.
[16] Greenwell, T.C. (2001). The influence of spectator sports facilities on customer statisfaction
and profitability. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio University, US.
[17] Greenwell, T.C., Fink, J.S., & Pastore, D. L. (2002). Assessing the influence of the physical
sports facility on customer satisfacton within the context of the service experience. Sport
Management Review, 5, 129 – 148.
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 139
[18] Greenwell, T.C., Fink, J.S., & Pastore, D. L. (2002). Perceptions of the service experience:
Using demographic and psychographic varaibles to identify customer segments. Sport
Markeitng Quarterly, 11(4), 233 – 241.
[19] Gustafson, M.W. (2005). The relative importance of the sportscape in football game attendance
at a NCAA Division I-A University. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Technology University, US.
[20] Hill, B., & Green C.B. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty, and the
sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review, 3, 145 – 162.
[21] Jin-Long, C. (2007). Managerial factors affecting team identification. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The Florida State University, US.
[22] Kyungro, C. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers’ satisfaction
and return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75 – 85.
[23] Leech, Nancy L. (2004). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Using and Interpretation. Mahwah,
NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.
[24] Leeuwen, L.V., Quick, S., & Daniel, K. (2002). The sport spectator satisfaction model: A
conceptual framework for understanding the satisfaction of spectators. Sport Management
Review, 5, 99 – 128.
[25] Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting
event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 205 – 227.
[26] Malaysia (2001). Taburan penduduk mengikut kawasan pihak berkuasa tempatan dan mukim =
population distribution by local authority areas and mukims. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan
Perangkaan Malaysia.
[27] Match attendance for 2005. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://msl.com.my/
[28] Miloch, K. (2005). Making it in the minors: An integrated strategy to achieve sustained
financial health. The Smart Journal, 2(1), 53 – 62.
[29] Mohd Salleh Aman. (2005). Asas Pengurusan Sukan. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti
Malaya.
[30] Muijs & Daniel. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London., GBR:
Sage Publications, Incorporated.
[31] Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (2000). Sport Marketing (2nd ed.). United State: Human
Kinetics.
[32] Oh, R. & Velloo, L. (2007, July 1.) Massive jam forces Sultan of Kedah to walk to stadium.
The Sunday Star Newspaper, sport pg 61.
[33] Pan, D.W., Zhu, Z., Gabert, T.E., & Brown, J. (1999). Team performance, market
characteristics, and attendance of major league Baseball: A panel data analysis. The Mid-
Atlantic Journal of Business, 35(2&3), 77 – 91.
[34] Pruegger, B.E. (2003). The effect of game day promotions on customer behavior in the East
Coast Hockey league (ECHL). Retrieved September 6, 2006, from
http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-09042003 165209/unrestricted/Final_Apr_diss.pdf
[35] Robertson, D., & Pope, N. (1999). Product bundling & causes of attendance & non-attendance
in Live Professional Sport: A case study of the Brisbane Broncos & the Brisbane Lions.
Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://ausport.gov.au//fulltext/1999/cjsm/robertson&pope31.htm
[36] Shank, D.M. (2005). Sports Marketing: A Strategic Perspective. New Jersey: Pearson
Education Inc.
[37] Shonk, D. J. (2006). Perceptions of service quality, satisfaction and the intent to return among
tourists attending a sporting event. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio University, US.
[38] Samuel, Eric. (2006, July 28). Ibrahim: Everyone must contribute to improve the standard of
the game. The Star Newspaper, pg S68.
[39] Scott, D.(1996). A comparison of visitor’s motivations to attend three urban festivals. Festival
Management and Event Tourism, 3,121-128.
© Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes - Issue 8 (November, 2008) 140
[40] Soonhwan, L., Cynthia R., & Hee-Joon, Shin. (2003). An investigation of environmental
motivation factors among minor league Baseball (MiLB) fans. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from
http://thesportjournal.org/2003Journal/Vol6-No3MiLB.asp
[41] Stadiums in Malaysia. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
http://www.worldstadiums.com/asia/countries/malaysia.html.
[42] Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescape in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66 – 76.
[43] Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers’
behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45 – 61.
[44] Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G. & Sloan, H.J. (1996). Measurement and management of
sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 15 – 31.
[45] Wakefield, K.L., & Sloan, H.J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty & selected stadium factors
on spectators attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 153 – 172.
[46] Wann, D.L., Melnick, M., Russell, G., & Pease, D. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and
social impact of spectators. London: Routledge.
[47] Welki, A.M., & Zlatoper, T.J. (1994). III. The industry of sports US professional football: The
demand for game-day attendance in 1991, Managerial and Decision Economics, 15(5), 487 –
494.
[48] Westerbeek, H.M. (2000). The influence of frequency of attendance and age on “place”-
specific dimensions of service quality at Australian rules football matches. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 9(4), 194 – 202.
[49] Wiersma, W. (1986). Research Methods in Education: An Introduction (4th ed.). Newton,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
[50] Zhang, J.J., Pease, D.G., Smith, D.W., Lee, J.T., Lam, E.T.C., & Jambor, E.A. (1997). Factors
affecting the decision making of spectators to attend minor league hockey games. International
Sports Journal, 1(1), 39 – 53.
[51] Zhang, J.J., Lam, E.T.C., Bennett, G., & Cannaughton, D. P. (2003). Confirmatory factor
analysis of spectator decision-making inventory (SDMI). Measurement in physical education
and exercise science, 7(2), 57 – 70.
