THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION

FANTASY FANS?: COMPARING TEAM IDENTIFICATION AMONG
FANTASY FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND NON-FANTASY FOOTBALL
PLAYERS

By

THOMAS FITZPATRICK CORRIGAN

A Thesis submitted to the
Department of Communication
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

Degree Awarded:
Spring Semester, 2007

The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Thomas Fitzpatrick Corrigan
defended on April 5, 2007.

_______________________________

Arthur Raney

Professor Directing Thesis

_______________________________
Laura
Arpan
Committee
Member

_______________________________
Steven
McClung
Committee
Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.

ii

For my parents. I’ve decided to keep you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks must first go to my family and friends. I feel like I can group the two
together because my parents and brothers are great friends of mine, and my friends are in
many ways like family. Mom and Dad, I think I’ve come a long way from not knowing
my real name on the first day of Kindergarten. You guys have told me how proud you are
of me, but you should be equally proud of the job you’ve done as parents. Taylor, thanks
for always showing interest in what I’ve been up to at school. I know that when we were
little we fought ‘til there was blood, crying or both, but I’m really happy that our
relationship has come around. Kenny, it’s been exciting to see you grow up, and I hope
that I’ve been a good example for you. I’m sure that you’ll see even more success in
school and sports as you get older, but you should know that you’re the best football
player our family’s ever seen. Matt and Jess, you know how much you mean to me, but
considering this chapter of my life, thanks for helping get me through college. Without
the two of you I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have happened. Check that, it definitely
wouldn’t have. And to the rest of my friends, the past six years have been the most
exciting of my life. It would be hard to imagine my time at FSU without any of you.

Thanks must also go to my thesis committee. Dr. Raney, your assistance in
framing this study has been invaluable and your accessibility has made completing it
manageable when at times it seemed daunting. Dr. Arpan, the strong foundation you
provided me in research methods proved incredibly important in pulling this together. Dr.
McClung, thanks for guiding me through the online survey process. We are Marshall was
excellent too.

Finally, Jackson, I try to live every day in a way that I hope makes you proud of
the way I live it.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
................................................................................................
vi
Abstract
......................................................................................................
vii

1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................
1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................
3

3. METHOD ................................................................................................
14

4. RESULTS ................................................................................................
21

5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................
27

APPENDICES ................................................................................................
36

A LECTURE CONSENT FORM.............................................................
36
B
ONLINE
CONSENT
FORM................................................................ 37

C HUMAN SUBJECTS BOARD APPROVAL ......................................
38

D LECTURE SURVEY FOR FANTASY SUBJECTS ...........................
39

E ONLINE SURVEY FOR FANTASY SUBJECTS ..............................
44

F LECTURE SURVEY FOR NON-FANTASY SUBJECTS .................
51

REFERENCES ................................................................................................
55

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..............................................................................
59

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Reliability Analyses for All Scales and Indices ....................................
18

Table 2.1: Descriptive and Significance Measures for
Means of Collapsed Scales for RQ1 ....................................................................
21

Table 2.2: Crosstabulation and Chi-square Test for RQ1....................................
22

Table 2.3: Descriptive and Significance Measures for
Means of Collapsed Scales for RQ2 ....................................................................
22

Table 2.4: Crosstabulation and Chi-square Test for RQ2....................................
23

Table 2.5: Descriptive and Significance Measures for
Means of Collapsed Indices for RQ3...................................................................
24

Table 2.6: Crosstabulation and Chi-square Tests for RQ3 ..................................
25

vi

ABSTRACT

It is the contention of some members of the media that individuals who play fantasy
sports, particularly fantasy football, have less allegiance to their favorite sports teams than
individuals who do not play fantasy sports. The following study aimed to evaluate the validity of
these claims by comparing fantasy players and non-fantasy players in three respects: 1) their
identification with their favorite NFL teams; 2) their identification with their favorite fantasy
football players and favorite NFL players, respectively; and 3) their identification with several
points of attachment for NFL football, including the teams, players, coaches, the sport, and the
level of play. This study aimed to add to the existing body of research on team identification and
fantasy sports, and it represents the first academic study to compare fantasy and non-fantasy
players. A combination of paper and online surveys of 280 NFL fans at Florida State University
revealed that fantasy football players identify with their favorite NFL teams at higher levels than
do NFL fans that do not play fantasy football, contrary the contentions of the media. Fantasy
players also identified with their favorite fantasy football players at similar levels to non-fantasy
players’ identification with their favorite NFL players. A number of other points of attachment
for NFL fans were also addressed.

vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Sports media have undergone major changes over the past decade-and-a-half.
Hypercommercialism, the growth of cable sports networks like ESPN, and the expansion
and use of the Internet as a powerful new medium are just a few. One facet of this
landscape that has expanded immensely is the fantasy sports industry. Starting with
modest beginnigs in offices and bars, fantasy sports, and in particular fantasy football,
have blossomed into a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. Television, radio, magazines
and the Internet all have content geared particularly to fantasy football players, and with
good reason: estimates suggest that between 10 and 30 million individuals play fantasy
football each fall (Baltin, 2003).
While fantasy sports may seem trivial in the broad range of media and
communication studies, they represent an important new area of interactive sports media.
The Internet’s importance in the popularity of fantasy sports cannot be understated. It has
increased each game’s accessibility, improved the lifelike aspects of competition, and
enhanced communication between fantasy players (Lomax, 2006).
Aside from its growth, an aspect of fantasy football that has drawn considerable
attention (the front page of the New York Times for instance) is the way in which fantasy
football players identify with their favorite teams. Some members of the media contend
that fantasy football players seem much more interested in how many touchdowns Peyton
Manning threw, how many points the Baltimore Raven defense gave up, and whether or
not a Matt Stover field goal was from 49 or 51 yards, than whether their favorite NFL
team is victorious. The performance of favorite NFL teams may be trivialized, according
to some, while the performance of individual athletes seems to be of utmost importance.
It is the researcher’s intent to evaluate the validity of such claims by assessing
whether fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ in their level of identification not
only with their favorite teams, but with a number of the points of attachment for NFL
football, including identification with players, coaches, the sport of football and the level
of play exhibited by the NFL game.

1

This study aims to add to the body of research in two areas of sports and media:
those of team identification and fantasy sports. With respect to team identification, the
body of existing research is extensive. Spawning from research on social groups, studies
of team identification have compared the identification levels of different groups, as well
as the relationship team identification has with particular behavioral and psychological
characteristics (Wann, 2006). Recent studies have expanded to look at potential
identification with other aspects of sports fandom, such as individual players, coaches,
the sport in question and the level of play (Robinson & Trail, 2003). This study examines
how fantasy players and non-fantasy players compare with respect to all these factors. A
review of the literature on fantasy sports reveals a limited body of scholarly work. This
research, in fact, represents the first time to the researcher’s knowledge that fantasy
players and non-fantasy players have been compared in an academic study.

2

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Fantasy Sports

History of Fantasy Sports
Fantasy sports are games that allow individuals to apply their interest as sports
fans to competitions outside of the field of play which anyone can become involved in. In
most cases, fantasy sports allow individuals to operate as the “general manager” or
“owner” of a team with the performances and statistics of selected real players
contributing to their success in the fantasy game (Lomax, 2006, pp. 383-385).
While fantasy sports have seen their greatest period of growth in the Internet age,
one version or another has existed for more than half a century. The earliest fantasy sport
was the sports board game. These games, played with dice, a board and player cards,
were popularized in the 1950s and 1960s. Football and baseball games were the most
popular. The Strat-O-Matic baseball game, developed by Hal Richman in 1961, still
garners a following among devoted fans. For the Strat-O-Matic game, “each major league
player is represented by a card, on which his statistics from the previous season are
crunched into various rankings and outcomes. A roll of the dice and a check of the
batter's or pitcher's card then determines the result of each play” (Manly, 2006, p. D1).
Fantasy football was the 1962 creation of three Oakland, California-area sports
fans named Bill Winkenbach, Scotty Stirling, and George Ross. Winkenbach had
developed what would later be known as “fantasy sports” in the mid-1950s by creating
leagues for golf and baseball buddies in which players would draft athletes and then
compare performances through each game or tournament. He pitched the idea of a similar
game for football to Stirling and Ross, two writers for the Oakland Tribune. The three
were in New York at the time for an Oakland Raiders game, and discussed the intricacies
of a fantasy football league late into the night. “Over a few drinks, they created a scheme
of organization and a set of rules by which sports fans could draft the skill players from
pro football teams onto their own imaginary teams, and play weekly games against their
friends in a league that rewarded the team with the best record” (Esser, 1994, ¶ 10) Soon

3

after the men created the first fantasy football league, the Greater Oakland Professional
Pigskin Procrastinator’s League (GOPPPL). In the years that would follow, fantasy
football would spread much the same as it did in the Bay Area, through bars and offices
(Esser, 1994).
In 1980, Daniel Okrent and Glen Waggoner developed rotisserie baseball, the still
popular fore-runner to today’s fantasy baseball. Since the original members were all in
the publishing industry, this league is credited with much of the early popularity for
fantasy sports (Lomax, 2006).
The introduction of the microprocessor changed fantasy sports in two important
fashions. The first was to provide computerized versions of what were previously board
games. Early computerized versions of board games were crude and similar to their
predecessors. As technology improved so did the games, increasing the speed, graphics,
and lifelike nature of play. Today’s simulated computer games such as the EA Sports
series, Madden NFL and MLB Baseball are all part of a powerful billion-dollar-a-year
sports video game industry (Lomax, 2006).
The second way the microcomputer changed fantasy sports was the development
of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Previous to the microcomputer, fantasy leagues
were a good deal of work for the commissioner of each league. The commissioner had
the responsibility of looking up the previous day or week’s results in newspaper box
scores, tallying the results for each team by hand and reporting those results to each
owner/coach. With each league consisting of roughly eight to twelve teams and each
team containing often upwards of ten players, the work of a commissioner in early
fantasy sports leagues was a time consuming venture. Internet Web sites catering to
fantasy sports leagues eased the workload of the commissioner. Statistics were
automatically tallied, winners and losers were automatically determined and league
business such as trades and starting line-ups were completed with much greater ease
(Lomax, 2006).
Further, the Internet allowed individuals to play fantasy sports with others outside
of their immediate group of friends (Lomax, 2006). Some fantasy sports players used the
game as a way of keeping in touch with old friends. Quoting one fantasy player: “I would

4

have certainly lost touch with most of the guys in my league were it not for fantasy
football because none of us work together these days” (Baltin, 2003, p. E24).
Finally, the Internet also enhanced the realism of the game. By incorporating
elements like salary caps, trade deadlines and free agency, the game has made fantasy
“owners” more and more like the owners, general managers and coaches of real sports
teams. “The obvious reasoning is to make the fantasy as realistic as possible. As one
would expect, the more realistic the game, due to the incorporation of more realistic
features, the more time it consumes of the participant” (Lomax, 2006, p. 385)

Currently, the fantasy sports industry is growing at a rate of seven to ten percent a
year with 15 to 18 million current players. The games have an estimated economic
impact of $1 to $2 billion annually for the fantasy sports industry and $3 to $4 billion in
total economic impact (Fantasy Sports Trade Association [FSTA], 2006).
Types of Fantasy Sports

Virtually any sport in existence can have a fantasy version adapted to it.
Traditionally, major sports like football, baseball and basketball have been the most
popular; however, leagues exist for curling, bowling and even sumo wrestling.
Regardless of the sport, the way in which the fantasy game is played falls under
one of five game types according to Lomax (2006). The first, as described above, is the
board game, which can exist as a traditional board or as a technologically delivered
format of the same nature.
Second is the simulation game. These games utilize computer software to rate
players and simulate game play. “The simulator utilizes a rating system of the important
characteristics for each player (e.g., speed, agility, passing, 3-point shooting, blocking,
defense), and then uses them to play out an entire game” (Lomax, 2006, p. 386). These
simulator leagues are often used to reproduce the performances of teams from years past.
The third type of league is the Internet-based league. Sites such as ESPN.com,
Yahoo.com, and NFL.com offer leagues that participants can join with their friends or
with other fantasy sports fans from around the world. Some of these Internet-based sites
charge a fee; however, many are available free of charge.
The fourth type of league is the rotisserie or pool league in which fantasy players
draft athletes to their teams and the real statistics of those athletes determine their scoring

5

value. Fantasy players typically play head-to-head in these leagues with the statistics of
the players on one fantasy team compared to the statistics of the players on the other
fantasy team.
Finally, the fifth type of league sets apart single-season leagues from continuing
(or keeper) leagues. While single season leagues tend to incorporate the same scoring
systems as keeper leagues, keeper leagues retain the same participants year-in and year-
out. These leagues often have trophies for the seasonal winner as well as a level of
camaraderie and competitiveness not seen in single season leagues (Lomax, 2006).
These five types of leagues are not mutually exclusive. For example, a league can
be an Internet-based simulation game that has a keeper element. For the purposes of this
study the researcher will examine a type of fantasy league that is a mixture of Lomax’s
third, fourth and fifth types of fantasy sports. Those are Internet-based pool leagues with
either a single-season or keeper element. These types of leagues are the most common
leagues found on sites like ESPN.com, Yahoo.com and NFL.com, constituting a great
number of fantasy football players.
Although leagues on sites like Yahoo.com can vary in terms of statistical
categories, position categories, playoff systems and trading rules, most of them follow a
similar organizational system. Leagues generally consist of 8 to 14 teams, with 12 to 15
NFL players selected to each team. The players are selected in either an offline draft (in
person), an online draft, or by ranking players and allowing the site to select teams. Each
week the team “owner” selects a starting line-up from his available players to compete
against a line-up from a competing fantasy team “owner.”
Typically a team consists of the following position players:

1 Quarterback
2 Running backs
3 Wide receivers/tight ends
1 Kicker
1 Team defense or defensive player
The performance of each NFL player during that weekend’s games is evaluated
based on a number of statistical categories. Some leagues incorporate only scoring plays
(e.g., touchdowns and field goals) while others value statistical performances such as

6

yardage, completions, kick distance, sacks, interceptions and more. After the weekend is
complete the scores of the two competing teams are tallied and the “owner” with the
highest score is awarded a victory.
Another type of league found on sites like Yahoo.com and ESPN.com operates in
a similar fashion. Hundreds or thousands of fantasy players may compete in these
leagues; however, the NFL players available to them are not mutually exclusive. Each
team owner has a salary cap to work with, and the NFL players valued highest for the
fantasy season have the biggest price tag. After each week the performance of a fantasy
team is judged against the whole of the league to establish that team’s league ranking.
Fantasy football, rather than some other form of fantasy sport, will be the focus of
this study due to its solid position as the most popular of fantasy sports. (Indiana
University, 2000). Additionally, each sport has elements that make its fantasy game just a
little bit different from any other sport. For instance, fantasy baseball requires almost
daily participation to ensure a competitive edge. This is not the case for football in that a
fantasy player need only update his or her team once a week. Fantasy basketball most
often compiles stats from NBA players from an entire week’s worth of play. These
differences make comparing fantasy players from different sports somewhat challenging.
Literature on Fantasy Sports

A search for literature on fantasy sports reveals a small body of scholarly research
on the topic. “Nearly all of the literature on fantasy sports deals with either news,
information or basic survey research” (Lomax, 2006, p. 388).

A survey by the Indiana University Sports and Entertainment Academy (2000) of
individuals in the sports and entertainment industry found fantasy football to be the most
popular fantasy sport by a 2 to 1 ratio. Friendship was cited overwhelmingly as the top
reason for playing, with the thrill of competition registering as the second most popular
reason. Ninety percent of the participants were found to be male and most participants
spent one to four hours per week playing fantasy sports.
A study by Hiltner and Walker (1996) took a qualitative look at the bulletin-board
responses for Prodigy’s rotisserie baseball game during a 19-hour technical shut-down of
the site. The 250 pages of single-spaced text that were produced provided the researchers
with ample data for a content analysis focusing on “frustration with the Prodigy service,

7

with other players, and with the condition of the world in general” (p. 103). It gave the
researchers a unique opportunity to investigate an interesting fantasy sports phenomena:
“fantasy sports deprivation” (Lomax, 2006, p. 389).
The media have covered fantasy sports extensively, primarily from business and
popular culture angles. One common theme that is of particular interest to this research is
a contention regarding fantasy players as potentially “bad” fans of NFL teams. Take the
following content from major U.S. newspapers. The suggestion that fantasy players lack
team allegiance is evident.
Los Angeles Times Reporter Steven Wielenga (1997) described the audience at an
Orange County sports bar as “schizophrenic” referring to their allegiances as “fractured”
and reactions as “unpredictable.” “A crowd full of fantasy football players is apt to be
cheering or groaning at any time, regardless of the team jerseys they may be wearing, the
tables they may be sharing or the television they may be watching” (p. 1E). Richard
Sandomir’s (2002) assessment of fantasy football players in a front page column for the
New York Times was particularly negative, as reflected in the article’s title “Reality of
fantasy football: Root, root, root for no team.” “Fantasy leagues skew loyalties: fans will
cheer for their players to score touchdowns, even if they help defeat the flesh-and-blood
teams that they root (or rooted) for” (p. 1A). Nathaniel Kulish (2006) not only supported
Sandomir’s position in a New York Times editorial last year, but also suggested the
assessment was common knowledge, saying that, “among followers of professional
football [fantasy football] is a well-known perversion of traditional fan deportment” (p.
D11).
While the positions of Sandomir (2002) and Kulish (2006) seem to be driven, to
some extent, by frustration with fantasy players, their observations raise a concern for the
team identification of fantasy players. This literature review will now address the body of
research on team identification.
Team Identification

Spectators versus Fans

Before any discussion of team identification can occur, an understanding of the
difference between sports spectators and sports fans must be established. While some

8

researchers have used the two interchangeably, Wann (2001) highlighted the difference
between the two: “Sports fans are individuals who are interested in and follow a sport,
team, and/or athlete. Sport spectators (also called sport consumers) are those individuals
who actively witness a sporting event in person or through some form of media” (p. 2).
Therefore, not all sports spectators can qualify as sports fans because it is not a
stipulation the sports spectator operational definition that the individual be a fan of a
particular sport, team, and/or athlete (Wann, 2001).
Group Identification

Kagan’s (1958) analysis of early work on group identification led him define the
subject as “an acquired, cognitive response within a person. The content of this response
is that some of the attributes, motives, characteristics and affective states of a model are
part of the person's psychological organization” (p. 298). Wann (2006) takes particular
notice of another suggestion by Kagan that, “The major implication of this definition is
that the [subject] may react to events occurring to the [group] as if they occurred to him”
(p. 298). The implications of such a suggestion are clear for sports fanship. Using the
prior language of Kagan, by identifying with a team, a person “may react to events
occurring to” the team “as if they occurred to him” (Wann, 2006).
Social identity theory would later solidify this suggestion of Kagan by clarifying
the role of group categorizations in defining an individual’s social identity. By
categorizing oneself as a member of a particular group or groups, one is able to “partly
define himself or herself” as a social individual. “Identification is the perception of
oneness with or belonging to a group, involving direct or vicarious experience of its
successes and failures” (Ashford & Mael, 1989, p.34).
Team Identification
Wann points out the importance of “vicarious experience” when considering team
identification. According to social identity theory, it is not necessary for the individual to
actually participate as a member of a group, rather the individual can “perceive oneness
with or belonging to” it instead (Ashford & Mael, 1989, p.34). Sports fans, therefore, do
not have to actually participate as a part of a sports team to engage in team identification,
they simply have to perceive that they are a part of the group (Wann, 2006).

9

The notion of “vicarious experience” with a team is evident in Sloan’s (1979)
analysis of basking-in-reflected-glory (BIRGing). Cialdini et al. (1976) first formulated
and tested the concept of BIRGing in a series of creative studies involving university
students. In their first experiment, the researchers monitored the apparel worn every
Monday by students to identify if more team apparel was evident following a win than a
loss. In the second experiment, phone surveys were used to evaluate pronoun usage
regarding the team following wins and losses. The expectation was that participants
would choose pronouns aligning him or her more closely with the team following a win
than a loss (Cialdini et al., 1976).
The researchers’ experiments on BIRGing, found “significant tendency for
students to strive to associate themselves publicly with their university’s football team
more after the team had been successful” (p. 374). The students were more likely to wear
apparel indicating their association with the university or football team on the Mondays
following a victory than on the Mondays following a loss. Additionally, the pronoun we
was found to be used more following a win than following a loss. “By employing the
pronoun we, one is publicly able to associate oneself with another person or group of
persons. Through the use of some other designation, for example, they, one is able to
distance oneself from another person or persons” (p. 370). Sloan (1979) attributed this
tendency of individuals to Heider’s (1958) balance theory: “association with a ‘positive’
other will tend to make us appear more positive as well” (p. 235).
Taking this body of literature into account, Wann and colleagues have
conceptualized team identification as “the extent to which a fan feels a psychological
connection to a team and the team’s performances are viewed as self-relevant” (Wann,
2006, p. 332). Other terms such as team commitment and team loyalty have been
ascribed to the concept mentioned above, and their definitions have mirrored, for the
most part, this conceptualization of team identification (Wann, 2006). Therefore, this
definition will be utilized as the working definition for the remainder of this research.

Some fans identify more strongly with teams than others. Upon attending a
sporting event, this becomes evident. Some fans sit quietly and patiently, even talking
about things completely unrelated to the event. Others express almost complete
fanaticism, painting their bodies, cheering incessantly, and becoming completely

10

engrossed in the drama unfolding (Wann, 2006). While these two fan descriptions may
not accurately depict their actual identification with a given team, their caricatures point
out the idea that team identification exists at different levels for individual fans.
Wann and Branscombe (1993) highlighted the differences that have been found
between those fans that identify with teams on moderate or low levels and those with
strong team identification:
Persons who strongly identify with a specific sports team, relative to those
spectators moderate or low in identification, report more involvement with
the team, display a more ego-enhancing pattern of attributions for the
team’s successes and, have more positive expectations concerning future
team performances, exhibit greater willingness to invest large amounts of
time and money to watch the team play, and are more likely to believe that
fans of the team they are identified with possess special qualities (Wann &
Branscombe, 1993, p.1).
A number of studies (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Wann & Branscombe, 1993;
Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Wilson, 2001) have found no significant gender
differences with respect to team identification. Gender differences have been found in
“team attraction” (Funk et al., 2000) and “team loyalty” (Fink et al., 2002); however,
these studies utilized alternative instrumentation and the variance explained by gender in
Fink et al.’s study “was less than 2%” (Robinson & Trail, 2005, p. 61).
Taking into consideration the literature on fantasy sports and team identification,
one is lead to wonder whether the assessment of Sandomir (2002) is accurate. If fantasy
football does, in fact, “skew loyalties” it would seem safe to suggest that the team
identification of fantasy players would exist at lower levels than that of non-fantasy
players, but because no academic study exists in this area, it would be premature to offer
such a directional hypothesis. Therefore, the researcher posed the following research
question:
RQ1: Do fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ in the extent of identification
with their favorite NFL teams?

11

Player Identification
Citing the work of Wann, Tucker and Schrader (1996), as well as Matsuoka and
Fujimoto (2002), Robinson and Trail (2005) suggested that individuals may identify or be
“attached” to a specific player in addition to being “attached” to a specific team (p. 61)
Wann and Branscombe (1993) made a similar proposition in saying that “with the high
status given to many of today’s multi-million dollar players, some spectators may be
more highly identified with specific players than with the team itself’ (p. 10). Funk,
Mahony, Nakazawa and Hirakawa (2001) noted “considerable anecdotal evidence” in the
media suggesting that interest in players was a contributing factor to high interest in the
1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Their findings revealed, however, that interest in
players was not statistically significant in contributing to overall interest, positing that it
may have been an idea created by the media.
Working from this framework and taking into consideration that fantasy football
teams are a collection of individual NFL players, it seemed logical to presume that
identification exists on some level between the fantasy player and the athletes on his or
her fantasy football team. To examine this relationship, the researcher posed the second
research question:
RQ2: Do fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ in the extent of identification
with their favorite fantasy players and favorite NFL players, respectively?
Points of Attachment

While much attention has been paid to team identification, investigations of
identification with respect to other components of athletic competition have been
minimal. Wann (2006) suggested that future research should examine fans’ identification
with “multiple targets” such as “specific players, the organization as a whole, and the
sport in question” (p. 346) Trail and his colleagues have identified seven different points
of attachment that sports fans may connect with in their consumption of sports. Those are
the team, players, coach, university, community, sport and level of play (Trail et al.,
2003).
Taken individually, examples for each point of attachment are easy to recognize.
Identification with the team has already been established. Identification with individual
players seems evident in fanship for today’s professional superstars. At the height of his

12

greatness there were millions of Michael Jordan fans, but that is not to say that all of
them were Chicago Bulls fans. Likewise, fans may have a particular attachment to a
popular coach like Bobby Bowden of the Florida State Seminoles or the coach of a
hometown team. Students, alumni and faculty may attend an athletic event simply
because of their connection to a university without having any interest whatsoever in the
team or the sport. With respect to the community, Robinson and Trail (2005) note
Anderson and Stone’s (1981) contention that sports teams become “symbolic
representations” of the cities and communities they play in and for, and can “provide
individuals with a sense of belonging to that community” (p. 60). Finally, there may be
fans that have an attachment to a particular sport or a particular level of sport. For
example, some football fans are fans of the college game, but not the professional level.
These points of attachment are not mutually exclusive, so an individual can exhibit
combinations of attachments and identifications (Trail et al., 2003).

Taking into consideration this research on points of attachment, it might be
presumed that fans of the NFL would be attracted to the game for reasons other than just
having a favorite NFL team. To explore this proposition, the researcher posed the final
research question:
RQ3: Do fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ with respect to other points of
attachment for NFL football?

13

CHAPTER 3
METHOD

Sample
For this study, a convenience sample of 280 Florida State University students was
drawn from two sites. The vast majority of participants (n = 245) were students in large
lectures in the College of Communication at Florida State University, while other
participants (n = 35) were Florida State University students contacted through the social
networking Web site, Facebook.com. Of the sample, 55.4% (n = 153) were males and
44.6% (n = 123) females. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50, but 98.2% fell in the
18 to 24 range, providing a mean age of 20.9 years. A minority (n = 21) were graduate
students while the remainder (n = 255) were undergraduates. (These numbers do not
necessarily reflect the sample of 280 because the demographics portion was overlooked
by a few participants).
Of the sample, 37.9% (n = 106) were fantasy football players and 61.9% (n =
174) non-fantasy football players; however, these data should not be looked at as
reflection of participation in fantasy football among the greater population for two
reasons. First, those students who were contacted to complete the survey through
Facebook.com were self-described as fantasy players the “interests” section of their
online profile. Second, after an adequate sample of non-fantasy participants had been
gathered in lectures, only fantasy surveys were administered as a courtesy to the
professors who had volunteered their lecture time for the study.
Among fantasy players (n = 106), half of the subjects (n = 53) played other
fantasy sports than football including baseball, basketball, golf, NASCAR, hockey and
soccer. Baseball was the most popular (n = 38) followed by basketball (n = 25). Nearly
all (n = 105) played fantasy football on the Internet. Of the nine Web sites mentioned,
Yahoo.com (n = 71), ESPN.com (n = 29), and CBSSportsline.com (n = 12) were the most
used. Subjects stated that they played in an average of 2.44 (SD = 1.95) fantasy football
leagues each year, and the majority of fantasy players (n = 66) played in fantasy football
leagues for money, with stakes ranging from $5 to $1000.

14

Procedure
In the lectures, students were first asked to raise their hand if they played fantasy
football and were then asked to complete the survey designed for fantasy players. The
remaining students were asked to raise their hand if they watched at least one NFL game
in a typical week. Those students were then asked to complete the survey designed for
non-fantasy players. Although the “one game in a typical week” stipulation was
somewhat arbitrary, it was deemed important in order to avoid the comparison of fantasy
football players with individuals who had no interest in NFL football at all. Fantasy
players contacted through the social networking Web site, Facebook.com, were asked to
asked to participate by e-mail and were provided a link to the survey on Surveypro.com.
All surveys included a consent form (see Appendices A and B) as required by the Florida
State University Human Subjects Committee (see Appendix C)explaining the limited risk
associated with participating in the study.
Scales and Indices
A series of scales and indices were utilized for this study (see Appendices D, E
and F), all of which were based on the Sports Spectator Identification Scale (Wann &
Branscombe, 1990, 1993) or the Points of Attachment Index (Robinson & Trail, 2003). In
each case the instrumentation was designed to ascertain each subject’s identification with
a specific aspect of NFL football. The Sports Spectator Identification Scale (SSIC) was
used to evaluate each subject’s identification with their favorite NFL team (RQ1). The
scale was developed by Wann and Branscombe (1990, 1993) with the goal of creating a
“short but reliable measure of team identification” that could examine how the “behaviors
and experiences” of “deeply committed” fans differed from those that are less identified
(1993, p. 2). A review of the literature revealed that the scale is used more extensively in
sport psychology studies than the Psychological Commitment to Team (PCT) Scale
developed by Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard (2000), and the Connection to Team Scale
(CTS) developed by Trail and James (2001b). The seven, 7-point, Likert-style items are
designed to test for team identification as defined by “the extent to which a fan feels a
psychological connection to a team and the team’s performances are viewed as self-
relevant” (Wann, 2006, pp. 332-333).

15

Although the SSIS was originally created to measure team identification, Wann
and Branscombe (1993) stated that “with a slight modification of the measure,
individuals’ identification with particular players compared to the team as a whole could
be investigated” (p. 10). Since a comprehensive scale could not be located for
identification with specific athletes, alterations were made to the SSIS to evaluate
identification with the subjects’ favorite fantasy football players and favorite NFL players
(RQ2). The survey instruments for player identification did vary between fantasy players
and non-fantasy players. For fantasy players, the survey instrument was designed to
measure identification with the subjects’ “favorite fantasy player”; for non-fantasy
players, the survey instrument was designed to measure identification with the subjects’
“favorite NFL player.” In either case (see Appendices D and F to compare), data from the
Sports Spectator Identification Scale adjusted for NFL team identification were collapsed
to provide a mean score for each subject, which the results refer to as “player
identification.” The word ‘football’ was added to more clearly differentiate in this study
between those subjects who play the fantasy game and the athletes who are fantasy
football players.

The Points of Attachment Index (PAI) designed by Robinson and Trail (2001)
was used to evaluate the subjects’ attachment with a number of aspects of NFL football
(RQ3). Based on the Team Identification Index (TII; Trail & James, 2001a), the PAI has
predominantly been used in sports marketing studies and is designed to measure not only
identification with particular teams, but also additional points of attachment with which
fans may identify. The 21, 7-point, Likert-style items constitute seven subscales of
identification including team, player, coach, community, sport, university, and the level
of sport. The PAI has shown “good internal consistency, good convergent validity, and
[has] adequately represented the theorized constructs” in previous use (Robinson & Trail,
2001, p. 65). For this study the assessment of the university and community were omitted
from the index. The university index was omitted due to its obvious irrelevance with
relation to the NFL, while the community index was omitted due to difficulty wording
applicable statements within the constructs of the index for the purposes of this study.

Finally, a number of questions were included in the survey following the scales
(see Appendices D, E and F) to ascertain additional information that was of interest to the

16

researcher. These questions, which included Likert-style, multiple choice and short
response items, sought to find information related to the habits of fantasy players with
respect to subjects like NFL viewership, Internet use for fantasy football, playing fantasy
football for money and the use of fantasy players in situations which may produce
conflict with traditional fandom. These findings are described above in the sample
section, as well as in the discussion.
Reliability Analysis
Since alterations were made to the SSIC for RQ2, and because the reliability of
this scale with respect to player identification had not been tested in previous research,
the researcher completed reliability analyses of the scales for both the fantasy and non-
fantasy versions to ensure their internal consistency. Table 1 shows the Chronbach’s
alpha coefficients for both the scales were acceptable. In only one case did the alpha co-
efficient for the scale increase when a scale item was removed (Fantasy Player
Identification, Question 1); because this increase was negligible, all items were retained.
This suggests that not only was each scale internally consistent, but that nearly all items
were integral in the reliability of the scale. As a result, the researcher determined the
adjustments to the SSIC for RQ2 were appropriate for evaluating the subjects’
identification with their favorite fantasy football players and favorite NFL players.
Reliability analyses for the scales and indices used in RQ1 and RQ3 are also included in
Table 1, though the reliability of both the Sport Spectator Identification Scale (Wann &
Branscombe, 2003) and the Points of Attachment Index (Robinson & Trail, 2001) had
been established in previous research. The internal consistency is again supported in
these results.

17

TABLE 1
Reliability Analyses for All Scales and Indices

Scale

Standard
Alpha
Alpha if
Mean
Deviation
Coefficient
Deleted

Identification with Favorite NFL Team

.935
(Sport Spectator Identification Scale; RQ1)

How important to you is it that your favorite NFL team wins?
5.28 1.64
.927

How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite NFL team?
5.13 1.62
.918
How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite NFL

4.72 1.82
.918
team?
During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite NFL team

via ANY of the following: a) in person or on television, b) on the
4.93 1.69
.925
radio, c) television news or a newspaper d) on the internet?

How important is being a fan of your favorite NFL team to you?
4.79 1.89
.917

How much do you dislike your favorite NFL team’s greatest rivals?
4.87 1.99
.937
How often do you display your favorite NFL team’s name or insignia at

3.70 1.96
.912
your place of work, where you live, or on your clothing?

Fantasy Subject Identification with Favorite Fantasy Player

.865

(Sport Spectator Identification Scale; RQ2)

How important to you is it that your favorite fantasy football player wins

3.21 2.24
.853
his actual NFL game?
How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite fantasy

4.65 1.79
.833
football player?
How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite fantasy

4.05 1.85
.825
football player?
During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite fantasy

football player via ANY of the following: a) in person or on
5.68 1.54
.883
television, b) on the radio, c) television news or a newspaper d) on
the internet?
How important is being a fan of your favorite fantasy football player to

4.02 1.95
.823
you?
How much do you dislike your favorite fantasy football player’s greatest

3.08 2.01
.840
rivals?
How often do you display your favorite fantasy football player’s name or

2.00 1.54
.853
insignia at your place of work, where you live, or on your clothing?

18

TABLE 1 – continued.
Reliability Analyses for All Scales and Indices

Non-Fantasy Subject Identification with Favorite NFL Player

.935

(Sport Spectator Identification Scale; RQ2)

How important to you is it that your favorite NFL player wins?
4.50 1.85
.928

How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite NFL player?
4.20 1.78
.920
How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite NFL

3.67 1.88
player?
.930
During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite NFL player

via ANY of the following: a) in person or on television, b) on the
3.74 1.69
.925
radio, c) television news or a newspaper d) on the internet?

How important is being a fan of your favorite NFL player to you?
3.67 1.85
.920

How much do you dislike your favorite NFL player’s greatest rivals?
3.66 2.01
.943
How often do you display your favorite fantasy football player’s name or

2.75 1.76
insignia at your place of work, where you live, or on your clothing?
.938

Attachment with NFL Players

.840

(Points of Attachment Index; RQ3)

I identify with the individual players in the NFL.
3.75 1.85
.931
I am a big fan of specific NFL players.
5.17 1.66
.686
I consider myself to be a fan of certain players in the NFL.
5.29 1.61
.707

Attachment with NFL Teams

.931

(Points of Attachment Index; RQ3)

I consider myself to be a “real” fan of a particular NFL team.
4.93 1.95
.922
I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of that NFL team.
4.10 2.30
.905
Being a fan of that team is very important to me.
4.49 2.06
.870

Attachment with NFL Coaches

.896

(Points of Attachment Index; RQ3)

I am a big fan of a specific NFL coach.
3.96 1.99
.951
I follow a particular NFL team because of their coach.
2.84 1.79
.807
I am a fan of a particular NFL team because of their coach.
2.85 1.80
.795

Attachment with Football

.717

(Points of Attachment Index; RQ3)

First and foremost I consider myself a football fan.
4.97 2.03

.589
Football is my favorite sport.

4.55 2.24

.590
I am a football fan at all levels (e.g. high school, college, professional).
4.95 1.96

.695

19

TABLE 1 – continued.
Reliability Analyses for All Scales and Indices

Attachment with NFL Level of Play

.709

(Points of Attachment Index; RQ3)

I am a fan of NFL football regardless of who is playing.
4.45 1.85

.829
I don’t identify with one specific NFL team or player, but with NFL
3.29 1.77

.545
football in general
I consider myself a fan of NFL football, and not just one specific team
3.59 1.82

.423
or player.

20

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

RQ1: How do fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ in the extent of
identification with their favorite NFL teams?

Data from the Sports Spectator Identification Scale adjusted for favorite NFL
team identification were collapsed to provide a mean score for each subject. Then an
independent t test was used to compare the mean scores of the dependent variable, team
identification, between fantasy (M = 5.61, SD = 1.31) and non-fantasy players (M = 4.26,
SD = 1.44). Table 2.1 shows that this independent t test revealed a significant difference
(t[280] = 7.85, p < .001) in the mean scores of the two groups at the 95% confidence
interval (p ≤ .05), the standard by which significant results were evaluated for the
remainder of this study. Since gender differences had not been found for team
identification in prior research (Robinson & Trail, 2005), the researcher did not look for
such differences in this study.

TABLE 2.1
T test comparing fantasy and non-fantasy players with respect to team identification (RQ1)

Std.

Sig.
Measurement Variable
Grouping
N
Mean
Deviation
t
(2-Tailed)

Team Identification (RQ1)
Fantasy Players

106 5.61
1.31 7.85
.000
Non-Fantasy
174 4.26
1.44
Players

Subjects were then grouped as either low, moderate or highly identified with their
favorite NFL team, with a frequency analysis of their mean identification scores used to
establish two equal cut-points at 4.00 and 5.86. A crosstabulation of fantasy and non-
fantasy players against each identification level found the low identification group (M =
3.26, SD = .82) to be highly composed of non-fantasy players (42.5% of non-fantasy
players) compared to fantasy players (14.2%). Conversely, the high identification group
(M = 6.64, SD = .26) was composed largely of fantasy players (59.4%) compared to non-

21

fantasy players. A chi-square test of this crosstabulation (see Table 2.2) revealed that
significant differences in distribution existed between fantasy and non-fantasy players
with respect to the identification level groupings, χ2(2, N = 280) = 50.99, p < .001.
Therefore, considering both the t test and chi-square test, the data suggest that fantasy
players identify at higher levels with their favorite NFL teams than do non-fantasy
players.

TABLE 2.2
Crosstabulation and chi-square test for fantasy and non-fantasy
players with respect to team identification level (RQ1)
Fantasy Player or Non-Fantasy Player

Fantasy Player
Non-Fantasy Player

Count
Column N %
Count
Column N %
Chi-square
Sig. (2-sided)
Team Identification
Low
15
14.2%
74
42.5%
Level
Moderate
28
26.4%
67
38.5%
50.99
.000

High
63
59.4%
33
19.0%

RQ2: Do fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ in the extent of identification
with favorite fantasy players and favorite NFL players, respectively?

The same analyses for RQ1 were used for RQ2, substituting the dependent
variable of team identification with player identification. The t test (see Table 2.3) for
player identification scores between fantasy players (M = 3.81, SD = 1.38) and non-
fantasy players (M = 3.74, SD = 1.57) revealed no significant differences in the two
groups, t(280) = .38, p = .702.

TABLE 2.3
T test comparing fantasy and non-fantasy players with respect to player identification (RQ2)

Std.

Sig.
Measurement Variable
Grouping
N
Mean
Deviation
t
(2-Tailed)

Player Identification (RQ2)
Fantasy Players

106 3.81
1.38 .38
.702
Non-Fantasy
174 3.74
1.57
Players

22

Using a three-way split (as in RQ1), subjects were again classified as either low,
moderate or highly identified with their favorite fantasy player or favorite NFL player
with mean cut-points identified at 2.95 and 4.43. A crosstabulation (see Table 2.4) of
subjects in each identification level grouping showed each level to be well distributed
with both fantasy players and non-fantasy players. The percentage of subjects within each
grouping (fantasy or non-fantasy) that fell into the three identification levels varied little
for both fantasy (8.5% variance) and non-fantasy players (1.7%). A chi-square test
revealed no significant differences between fantasy and non-fantasy players with respect
to their distribution among the three identification levels, χ2(2, N = 280) = 1.02, p = .601.
Therefore, considering both the t test and chi-square test, the data suggest that fantasy
players identify at similar levels with their favorite fantasy players than do non-fantasy
players with their favorite NFL players

TABLE 2.4
Crosstabulation and chi-square test for fantasy and non-fantasy
players with respect to team identification level (RQ2)
Fantasy Player or Non-Fantasy Player

Fantasy Player
Non-Fantasy Player

Count
Column N %
Count
Column N %
Chi-square
Sig. (2-sided)
Player Identification
Low
33
31.1%
60
34.5%
Level
Moderate
41
38.7%
57
32.8%
1.02
.601
High
32
30.2%
57
32.8%

RQ3: Do fantasy players and non-fantasy players differ with respect to other points of
attachment for NFL football?

Data from the Points of Attachment Index was collapsed into mean scores for
each point of attachment: player, team, coach, sport and the NFL level of play. Then,
independent t tests (see Table 2.5) were used to compare the mean scores of each index
for fantasy players and non-fantasy players, the independent variable. All points of

23

attachment yielded significant differences (p < .001) in the mean scores for fantasy
players and non-fantasy players, except for attachment to the NFL level of play (p =
.059).

TABLE 2.5
T tests comparing fantasy and non-fantasy players with respect to each point of attachment (RQ3)

Std.

Sig.
Measurement Variable
Grouping
N
Mean
Deviation
t
(2-Tailed)

Player Point of Attachment
Fantasy Players

106 5.48
1.02
(RQ3)
6.92
.000
Non-Fantasy
173 4.30
1.55
Players
Team Point of Attachment
Fantasy Players

106 5.70
1.60
(RQ3)
8.93
.000
Non-Fantasy

173 3.78
1.82
Players
Coach Point of Attachment
Fantasy Players

106 3.72
1.51
(RQ3)
4.00
.000
Non-Fantasy
173 2.91
1.73
Players
Sport Point of Attachment
Fantasy Players

106 5.37
1.49
(RQ3)
4.42
.000
Non-Fantasy
173 4.49
1.68
Players
NFL Point of Attachment
Fantasy Players

106 3.99
1.29
(RQ3)
1.90
.059
Non-Fantasy
173 3.65
1.52
Players

Two equal cut-points were established for each point of attachment, identifying
each subject as low, moderate or highly attached to that aspect of NFL football. Chi-
square tests identified significant differences between fantasy and non-fantasy players in
their distribution among the low, moderate and high attachment levels for each of these
points of attachment (p < .050). With respect to every point of attachment other than the
NFL level of play, non-fantasy players in the low attachment grouping represented a
greater percentage of the non-fantasy sample than those subjects in the high identification
grouping. Conversely, fantasy players in the low attachment grouping never represented
more than 20% of fantasy subjects for any of the points of attachment. Additionally,

24

fantasy subjects in each high attachment grouping represented at least 40% of the fantasy
sample. Therefore, considering both the t test and chi-square test, the data suggest that
fantasy players have higher levels of attachment with NFL teams, players, coaches and
the sport of football than do non-fantasy players. The groups exhibited similar attachment
for the NFL level of play.

TABLE 2.6
Crosstabulation and chi-square tests for fantasy and non-fantasy
players with respect to each point of attachment (RQ3)
Fantasy Player or Non-Fantasy Player

Fantasy Player
Non-Fantasy Player

Count
Column N %
Count
Column N %
Chi-square
Sig. (2-sided)
Player Attachment
Low
11
10.4%
80
46.0%
Level
Moderate
53
50.0%
62
35.6%
40.23
.000

High
42
39.6%
32
18.4%

Team Attachment
Low
14
13.2%
73
42.0%
Level
Moderate
22
20.8%
69
39.7%
65.81
.000

High
70
66.0%
32
18.4%

Coach Attachment
Low
12
11.3%
57
32.8%
Level
Moderate
46
43.4%
67
38.5%
17.83
.000

High
48
45.3%
50
28.7%

Sport Attachment
Low
17
16.0%
62
35.6%
Level
Moderate
36
34.0%
67
38.5%
20.30
.000

High
53
50.0%
45
25.9%

NFL Attachment
Low
20
18.9%
58
33.3%
Level
Moderate
43
40.6%
49
28.2%
8.10
.017

High
43
40.6%
67
38.5%

Finally, a number of additional questions were asked of the research participants.
Although these questions had no bearing on the research questions explored above, some
of the responses were of interest to the researcher. Fantasy players stated that they
watched an average of 4.45 NFL games (SD = 2.70) during a typical regular season week
compared to 2.86 (SD = 2.00) for non-fantasy players. An independent t test found this
difference to be statistically significant, t(269) = 6.66, p < .001. Of fantasy players, 75%

25

(n = 79) also stated that they watched more than one game at a time “often” or “whenever
possible” compared to just 26% (n = 45) for non-fantasy players. A chi-square test found
the differences between fantasy and non-fantasy players in response to this question to be
statistically significant, χ2(4, N = 278) = 74.13, p < .001. This greater level of viewership
for fantasy players is further reflected in subscription rates for NFL Sunday Ticket, the
television package that allows fans to watch every NFL game. A greater number (n = 40)
of fantasy players said they (or the location they watch football) subscribe to this service
than non-fantasy players (n = 20). Conversely, many more non-fantasy players (n = 121)
stated that they did not subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket than fantasy players (n = 60).
These differences were also statistically significant, χ2(1, N = 242) = 21.77, p < .001.

26

CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION

This study sought to evaluate whether fantasy players and non-fantasy players
differed in their level of identification with a number of the aspects of NFL football. The
two groups were compared based on identification with their favorite teams,
identification with their favorite NFL and fantasy players, as well as their attachment to
the coaches, the sport and the level of play exhibited by the NFL game.

A review of the literature regarding fantasy sports revealed a limited body of
scholarly work, but expansive coverage and commentary in the media was available.
Fantasy sports were found to encompass a broad range of competitions that satisfy the
interests of sports fans outside of the traditional fan experience. These competitions are
diverse in nature, including, but not limited to, home board games played with cards and
dice, historical simulations of real and imaginary teams, as well as interactive Internet
sites with millions of users. In addition, fantasy sports are available for just about every
sport imaginable, from soccer and baseball to wrestling and cricket (Lomax, 2006).
Fantasy football is the most popular fantasy sport in the U.S. by a 2 to 1 ratio
(Indiana University, 2000), and it has grown immensely over the past decade with the
development of the Internet. An estimated 10 to 30 million Americans play fantasy
football each fall, many of them contributing significant time and money in the
maintenance of their fantasy teams. The NFL says that fantasy players spend, on average,
two to three more hours per week watching its games (Baltin, 2003).
Articles and commentary in the media have propagated the contention that
individuals that play fantasy football, in comparison with their non-fantasy football
playing counterparts, tend to lack allegiance for their favorite NFL teams. This argument
is based largely on generalizations from personal observations and anecdotal evidence.
As the story goes, fantasy players obsess over the performances of individual athletes at
the expense of their team allegiance.
Wann (2006) provided a history and description of both group identification and
team identification, defining the phenomena as “the extent to which a fan feels a

27

psychological connection to a team and the team’s performances are viewed as self-
relevant” (Wann, 2006, p. 332). Considering the depictions of fantasy players by some
members of the mass media, as well as Wann’s explanation of team identification as a
social phenomenon, the researcher advanced the first research question: Do fantasy
players and non-fantasy players differ in the extent of identification with their favorite
NFL teams?
Although a one-tailed hypothesis was not advanced, statistically significant results
suggested that fantasy players identify with their favorite NFL teams at higher levels than
do non-fantasy players (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Fantasy players more often than non-
fantasy players fell into the category of “high identification” with their favorite team after
a tripartite split of the identification score sample means. Conversely, non-fantasy players
were classified as having “low identification” with their favorite NFL team more often
than fantasy players. A chi-square test revealed the differences between fantasy and non-
fantasy players with respect to these groups to be statistically significant.
These results ran contrary to contentions of members of the mass media that
fantasy players have “fractured” team allegiances. It should be pointed out that the Sport
Spectator Identification Scale is designed to measure an individual’s psychological
connection to a team, or identification. Some of the scale’s items, such as how closely an
individual follows a team and how often that that team’s jersey or insignia are displayed
at home or work, do gauge the behavioral characteristics of an individual. This is because
previous research (Wann & Branscombe, 1990, 1993) has shown that such scale items
correlate significantly with the psychological connection representative of team
identification. The journalists quoted in the literature review suggest that the behavioral
characteristics of fantasy players, as evidenced in their observations, represent a lack of
commitment or allegiance to their favorite NFL teams; however, those specific
behavioral characteristics, such as interest in a number of NFL games, are not addressed
by the SSIS. In fact, fantasy football players could very well exhibit outward evidence of
“skewed loyalties” (Sandomir, 2002) in their behavior while still maintaining very high
identification with their favorite NFL teams. Further, Wann (2006) has argued that
conceptualizations of team identification, commitment and loyalty are “highly similar”
(p. 332) as supported by research on their measures (Wann & Pierce, 2003) and their

28

operational definitions. Indeed, the Sports Spectator Identification Scale used in this
study employs a number of items that expressly address team commitment and loyalty. It
is this researcher’s position, therefore, that while behavioral characteristics of fantasy
football players may suggest “skewed loyalties,” fantasy football players seem to be
every bit as loyal to, committed to, and identified with their favorite NFL teams as those
individuals that do not play fantasy football, if not more so. The best explanation of these
findings may be that fantasy players have higher levels of identification with their
favorite NFL teams prior to ever becoming involved in fantasy football. Lomax (2006)
notes that fantasy sports serve as an extension of sport for individuals that crave more
from their sporting experience than normal fanship can provide. Therefore, for many,
strong fanship and team identification may be prerequisite to playing fantasy football.
Further, the literature review found that fans may identify with specific athletes as
well as specific teams. Since fantasy football teams are composed of a collection of
individual NFL players, it was presumed that some level of identification may exist
between the fantasy player and the individual athletes on his or her fantasy football team.
This led the researcher to advance the second research question: Do fantasy players and
non-fantasy players differ in the extent of identification with their favorite fantasy
football players and favorite NFL players, respectively?
Results suggested no significant differences in the mean identification levels of
the two groups (see Table 2.3), suggesting that fantasy players may identify with their
favorite fantasy football players at similar levels to non-fantasy players’ identification
with their favorite NFL players. Following a tripartite split of the subjects into low,
moderate and highly identified levels, a crosstabulation (see Table 2.4) showed that
fantasy and non-fantasy players were both well represented in the low and high
identification levels.
Taken together, these results suggest that fantasy players and non-fantasy players
may identify at similar levels with their favorite fantasy football players and favorite NFL
players. These results are somewhat surprising. While fantasy players have been found to
engage in the game largely for “friendship and camaraderie” purposes, one study has
shown that the “thrill of competition, including bragging rights and the challenge of
running a team” is an important reason for participation (Indiana University, 2000). In

29

order for a participant to put together a successful fantasy team, it could be assumed that
identification in the forms of commitment and loyalty to an individual athlete would be
counterproductive to the success of that team. Staying loyal to an individual athlete that
consistently plays poorly, for instance, does no benefit to a fantasy player’s team.
Therefore, it is surprising that little difference may exist between fantasy players’
identification with their favorite fantasy football players and a non-fantasy players’
identification with their favorite NFL players. This may be the result of fantasy players
identifying strongly with their favorite fantasy football players; however, a more likely
explanation is that fantasy players may select (or draft) athletes that they already identify
strongly with. In fact, of the 106 fantasy players surveyed, 77% said that they select
players from their favorite team at least “sometimes,” while no subjects stated that they
“never” do.
The similarity in player identification between fantasy and non-fantasy players
could be especially important from a sports marketing perspective. The past year
produced record numbers for direct-to-consumer sales for NFL Shop, the NFL’s official
catalog and online store at NFLShop.com. A large amount of NFL Shop’s business is the
online sale of “authentic, replica and customized jerseys” (Chicago Bears win Super
Bowl ‘Click-Off’, 2006, ¶ 1-2). While much of the impetus for merchandise sales has
been attributed to identification with a specific team (Wann, 2006), the immense sales of
particular star athletes suggests that identification with individual players may drive
jersey sales beyond just the fans for particular teams. If this is the case, this study
provides justification for sports marketers to reach out to fantasy players in marketing the
merchandise of individual athletes.
The literature review also found that some researchers in the field have sought to
evaluate multiple points of attachment for sports spectatorship. Findings have suggested
that while team identification may be the driving factor for sports spectatorship, other
points of attachment can provide an impetus for spectatorship (Robinson & Trail, 2003).
Therefore the researcher advanced the final research question: Do fantasy players and
non-fantasy players differ with respect to other points of attachment for NFL football?
Results suggested that fantasy players and non-fantasy players may differ in their
level of attachment with the teams, players, and coaches of the NFL, as well as football

30

as a sport. No significant differences were found in levels of attachment with the NFL
level of play (see Table 2.5). Mean scores for attachment with teams, players, coaches
and football as a sport all suggest that levels of attachment for each may be greater for
fantasy players than non-fantasy players. These findings were supported by the
crosstabulation and chi-square analyses of each point of attachment (see Table 2.6). It can
be assumed from the data that fantasy players have a greater level of attachment with
NFL teams, players and coaches as well as the sport of football than non-fantasy players.
With respect to each point of attachment, higher identification with a particular
NFL team is consistent with the findings for RQ1, suggesting good construct validity for
both measures. It may seem perplexing that significant differences were found in RQ3
regarding identification with individual players and not in RQ2. That may be explained in
the nature of the dependent variables for each question. For RQ2, identification is
measured for a fan’s identification with his or her “favorite fantasy football player” or
“favorite NFL player.” For RQ3, the player point of attachment is based on that subject’s
identification with “specific NFL players.” These variables are clearly different concepts,
the first measuring identification with a favorite player, and the second with specific NFL
players. Therefore, significant differences in attachment with individual athletes are
possible between fantasy and non-fantasy players. Considering higher mean scores for
attachment with a particular NFL team and a specific NFL player, it is not surprising that
mean scores are also higher for a specific coach. Since fantasy players may identify at
higher levels with their favorite NFL teams as shown in RQ1, it is not surprising that they
would have also have higher attachment with specific players and coaches on those
teams. The significant mean score difference in attachment with football as a sport and
lack thereof the NFL level of play was interesting. It seems odd that fantasy players
would have a higher level of attachment with football than non-fantasy players, but not
for the NFL level of play. This may suggest that fantasy players have attachments with
collegiate and high school football in addition to NFL football.
A number of additional questions were also asked of each participant, providing
some interesting results. Fantasy players stated that they watched, on average, almost two
more games each week during the regular season than non-fantasy players. This supports
the claim of the NFL that fantasy players watch more games, on average, than non-

31

fantasy players (Baltin, 2003). The results also showed that fantasy players were more
likely to watch more than one game at a time and subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket or
watch football somewhere that subscribes to NFL Sunday Ticket. Taken together, these
findings suggest that NFL programming consumption may be “fractured,” to use
Sandomir’s (2002) term. The attention of fantasy players may be distributed over more
games than non-fantasy players; however, this may not have the affect on allegiance or
identification that he suggests, as evidenced in RQ1.
Limitations

A discussion of the limitations for this study cannot proceed without first
evaluating the validity of the instrumentation. While previous studies and reliability
testing showed that the scales and indices used in this study were internally consistent,
measurement validity for any study cannot be described statistically, it can only be
conceptualized and scrutinized. The most obvious concern with respect to validity was
that of RQ2. While fantasy players may have an athlete that they describe as their
“favorite fantasy football player,” there was no guarantee that identification with such an
athlete reflects the same type of psychological connection a fan may have had with his or
her “favorite NFL player.” This represents a potential inconsistency in content validity,
since identification measures for a subject’s favorite fantasy player may not have been
consistent with the psychological connection characteristic of identification.
Additionally, the substitution of “favorite fantasy player” for “favorite team”
could conceivably have threatened the instrumentation’s construct validity since scores
for “favorite fantasy player” on the SSIS may not relate in logical ways to the scores for
“favorite team” as the SSIC was designed. For instance, a subject that is a fantasy player
may have reported closely following his or her favorite fantasy football player for
question four, producing a higher mean score overall for RQ2. While such a response
could be described as evidence of identification with a subject’s favorite NFL player, a
high score may not represent the same psychological connection with a subject’s favorite
fantasy football player because that subject may have a strong desire to closely follow the
athlete simply in hopes of running a successful fantasy team.
Other questions were more effectively crafted, such as question one from the
same scale which clearly put a premium on the subject’s psychological commitment with

32

his or her favorite fantasy player since a win for that athlete in his actual NFL game does
not necessarily require a successful performance for the subject’s fantasy team too. The
scales and indices for the other two research questions seemed to exhibit good validity.
Another concern was with regard to the difference between sports spectators and
sports fans. As Wann (2001) explained, the two concepts may seem similar, yet they
cannot be used interchangeably. A flaw in this study that should be addressed in any
future research was that fandom was not first established for RQ1 and RQ2. It’s possible
that some of the low mean identification scores, especially for non-fantasy players, may
have been a result of those subjects not having a “favorite team” or “favorite player,”
making them exclusively NFL spectators. For RQ3, this was not a concern as such
“favorite” qualifiers were not applied.

Further, the researcher did not attempt to create any sort of deceptive structure for
the study since the research questions that were advanced did not warrant such practices.
Relatedly, the blunt nature of questions in each scale provided the opportunity for
subjects to engage in evaluation apprehension, a legitimate possibility considering the
socially favorable nature of strong team identification. To mitigate this factor, the oral
introduction to the lectures, the e-mail sent to the online subjects and the consent form
provided to all disclosed the purpose of the study as a “research study to better
understand how people identify with their favorite sports teams and players.” This
disclosure of the dependent variable was provided and stressed to ensure that if
evaluation apprehension was to occur (which the Sports Spectator Identification Scale
almost ensures for some subjects) that it would do so across the board, meaning that
fantasy and non-fantasy players would ideally be affected equally.

The external validity of the study was limited by the sampling method. A
convenience sample was gathered from students at large lectures in the College of
Communication at Florida State University and from Florida State University students on
the social networking Web site Facebook.com that identified themselves as fantasy
0H0H0H
football players. The nonrandom nature of a convenience sample means that the findings
cannot be generalized to the larger population.
Future Research

33

While this study has provided insight on fantasy sports and team identification,
scholarly research on fantasy sports is still in its infancy. One particular areas of interest
for future research are the uses and gratifications of media with relation to fantasy sports.
While the contentions of the mass media may not hold water as far as team identification
is concerned, their observations provide the impetus for study of how and why individuals
play fantasy sports. The descriptive study of Indiana University (2000) and the qualitative
work of Hiltner and Walker (1996) are a start, but there is still much to investigate.

Additionally, two new books have suggested that fantasy sports may have
addictive qualities similar to sports gambling. Their evidence is anecdotal, but the titles,
Why Fantasy Football Matters: (And our Lives do not) (Amant, 2006) and Committed:
Confessions of a Fantasy Football Junkie (Barmack & Handelman, 2006), suggest
powerful consequences that may be of concern to researchers.
Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that fantasy football players identify with their
favorite NFL teams at higher levels than do those NFL fans that do not play fantasy
football. This runs contrary to the contentions of some members of the mass media that
suggest fantasy football players lack allegiance for their favorite teams. While fantasy
football players may exhibit behavioral characteristics that imply such a lack of
allegiance, identification with their favorite NFL teams is actually stronger, on average,
for fantasy players than non-fantasy players. It is likely that this strong level of
identification is due to high team identification levels prior to ever becoming involved in
fantasy football; however, this factor was not assessed in the study.

Further, the study also evaluated identification differences between fantasy and
non-fantasy players with respect to individual athletes. Findings suggest that fantasy
players identify with their favorite fantasy football players at similar levels to non-fantasy
players’ identification with their favorite NFL players. This was somewhat surprising;
however, it may be due to many fantasy players selecting athletes from their favorite
NFL teams.

Finally, fantasy and non-fantasy players were compared with respect to their
attachment to a broader range of NFL football points of attachment, including teams,
players, coaches, the sport of football, and the NFL level of play. Findings suggest that

34

with respect to each of these points of attachment except the NFL level of play, fantasy
players exhibit greater levels of attachment than do non-fantasy players.

35

APPENDIX A
LECTURE CONSENT FORM

The Florida State University
Department of Communication
Researcher: Thomas Corrigan

Understanding Sports Team and Player Identification

Dear participants,

My name is Thomas Corrigan and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication at Florida
State University. I am conducting a research study to better understand how people identify with their
favorite sports teams and players.

I am requesting your participation, which will involve you completing a few questionnaires related to
professional football. The questionnaires are not invasive and should pose no risks to you.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study
at any time, there will be no penalty (e.g., it will not affect your grade). The questionnaire is completely
anonymous; we are not asking you to provide your name or any other information that can be used to
identify you specifically on the questionnaire. The sign-in sheet will only be used to report your
participation to the instructor for whose class you are seeking credit and will be destroyed after the
instructor confirms that he/she receives that information. In other words, we have no way to connect you
personally to any of the information you provide us on the questionnaire. The results of the study may be
published but your name will not appear in any reports of the results. Data gathered from this research will
be stored by the researcher for one year after publication in a peer review outlet.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact Thomas Corrigan at 850.345.7864,
by e-mail at tfc8542@fsu.edu, or c/o Thomas Corrigan, Department of Communication, Florida State
1H1H1H
University, Mail Code 2664. Also, if you have any other questions or concerns about your participation in
this research, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board,
through the Vice President for the Office of Research at 850.644.8633.

Sincerely,

Thomas Corrigan

I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THIS RESEARCH STUDY AND PROVIDE THE
NECECESSARY CONSENT TO CONTINUE AS A PARTICIPANT.

Signature ___________________________ Date _______________________________

36

APPENDIX B
ONLINE CONSENT FORM

Greetings,

My name is Thomas Corrigan and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication at Florida State
University. I am conducting a research study to better understand how people identify with their favorite sports
teams and players.

I am requesting your participation, which will involve you completing a brief questionnaire related to professional
football. This questionnaire is not invasive and should pose no risks to you.

Your participation in this study is voluntary, however it would be greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is
completely anonymous; we are not asking you to provide your name or any other information that can be used to
identify you specifically on the questionnaire. We have no way to connect you personally to any of the
information you provide us on the questionnaire. The results of the study may be published but your name will
not appear in any reports of the results. Data gathered from this research will be stored by the researcher for one
year after publication in a peer review outlet.

Your e-mail address will be deleted after you are sent an e-mail debriefing you on the purpose and results of the
research following the completion of the study. You will not be sent any e-mails that are not related to this study.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact Thomas Corrigan at 850.345.7864, by
e-mail at tfc8542@fsu.edu, or c/o Thomas Corrigan, Department of Communication, Florida State University,
Mail Code 2664. Also, if you have any other questions or concerns about your participation in this research, you
can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President
for the Office of Research at 850.644.8633.

Sincerely,

Thomas Corrigan

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLOSE THIS WINDOW NOW.

IF YOU DO WISH TO PARTICIPATE PLEASE CLICK THE FOLLOWING: *

I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THIS RESEARCH STUDY AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY
CONSENT TO CONTINUE.

Please contact TFC8542@fsu.edu if you have any questions regarding this survey.
2H2H2H

3H3H3H
Online Surveys Powered By SurveyPro.com
4H4H4H

37

APPENDIX C
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

38

APPENDIX D
LECTURE SURVEY FOR FANTASY PLAYERS

Please bubble one for each of the following questions:

How important to you is it that your favorite NFL team wins?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite NFL team?

Not At All A Fan

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite NFL team?

Not A Fan At All

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite NFL team via ANY of the
following: a) in person or on television, b) on the radio, c) television news or a
newspaper d) on the internet?

Never

Almost Every Day
O O O O O O O

How important is being a fan of your favorite NFL team to you?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How much do you dislike your favorite NFL team’s greatest rivals?

Do Not Dislike

Dislike Very Much
O O O O O O

O

How often do you display your favorite team’s name or insignia at your place of work,
where you live, or on your clothing?

Never

Always

39

O O O O O O

O

Please bubble one for each of the following statements:

Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree

I identify with the individual players in the NFL.

O O O O O O O

I am a big fan of specific NFL players.

O O O O O O O

I consider myself to be a fan of certain players in the NFL.

O O O O O O O

I consider myself to be a “real” fan of a particular NFL team.

O O O O O O O

I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of that NFL team.

O O O O O O O

Being a fan of that team is very important to me.

O O O O O O O

I am a big fan of a specific NFL coach.

O O O O O O O

I follow a particular NFL team because of their coach.

O O O O O O O

I am a fan of a particular NFL team because of their coach.

O O O O O O O

First and foremost I consider myself a football fan.

O O O O O O O

Football is my favorite sport.

O O O O O O O

I am a football fan at all levels (e.g. high school, college, professional).

O O O O O O O

I am a fan of NFL football regardless of who is playing.

O O O O O O O

I don’t identify with one specific NFL team or player, but with NFL football in general.

O O O O O O O

I consider myself a fan of NFL football, and not just one specific team or player.

O O O O O O O

40

Please bubble one for each of the following questions:

How important to you is it that your favorite fantasy football player wins his actual NFL
game?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite fantasy football player?

Not At All A Fan

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite fantasy football player?

Not A Fan At All

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite fantasy football player via
ANY of the following: a) in person or on television, b) on the radio, c) television news or
a newspaper d) on the internet?

Never

Almost Every Day
O O O O O O O

How important is being a fan of your favorite fantasy football player to you?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How much do you dislike your favorite fantasy football player’s greatest rivals?

Do Not Dislike

Dislike Very Much
O O O O O O

O

How often do you display your favorite fantasy football player’s name or insignia at your
place of work, where you live, or on your clothing?

Never

Always
O O O O O O

O

41

How many NFL games do you watch in a typical week during the regular season? _________

Where do you usually
O Your
O A Friend’s
O Bar or
O Common Area
watch NFL football?
Home
Home
Restaurant
(Dorm or Apartment)

How often do you watch
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often Whenever Possible
more than one NFL game
O
O
O
O
O
at a time?

Do you or the location that
O Yes
O No
O Don’t know
you watch NFL football
subscribe to NFL Sunday
Ticket?

How many hours in a typical week would you say you spend involved in some way with fantasy football?
(Line-up changes, trades, researching, stat checking, watching players) __________

Do you play any fantasy
O Yes
O No
If yes, which other fantasy sports do you play?
sports other than NFL
Please list:
football?
_________________________________

_________________________________
_________________________________

Do you play fantasy
O Yes
O No
football through an
If Yes, what site(s)?
If No, how do you play?
Internet site?
______________________
___________________________

Who do you play fantasy
O Friends
O Family
O Co-workers
O Strangers
football with?
(Bubble all that apply)

How many fantasy football leagues do you play in? __________

Do you play fantasy
O Yes
O No
If Yes, what are the
football for money?

stakes per team? ________

How often do you select
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
fantasy players from your
O
O
O
O
O
favorite NFL team?

How often do you root for
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
a fantasy player that is
O
O
O
O
O
playing against your
favorite NFL team?

42

Sex:
O Male
O Female

Ethnicity:
O American Indian/
O Asian
O Black/ African
O Hispanic/
Alaska Native
American
Latino

O Native American/ Other
O White/
O Other: __________________
Pacific Islander
Caucasian

Age:
_______

Classification
O Freshman
O Sophomore
O Junior
O Senior
O Graduate
(By Credit Hour):

43

APPENDIX E
ONLINE SURVEY FOR FANTASY PLAYERS

Please answer the following questions in regard to your favorite NFL team.

Not
Very

Important

Important
How important to you is it
that your favorite NFL team

wins? *

Not At
Very

All A
Much A
Fan

Fan
How strongly do you see
yourself as a fan of your

favorite NFL team? *

Not At
Very

All A
Much A
Fan

Fan
How strongly do your friends
see you as a fan of your

favorite NFL team? *

Almost

Every
Never

Day
During the season, how
closely do you follow your
favorite NFL team via ANY of
the following: a) in person or
on television, b) on the radio,

c) television news or a
newspaper d) on the internet?
*

Not
Very

Important

Important

44

How important is being a
fan of your favorite NFL

team to you? *

Dislike

Do Not
Very
Dislike

Much
How much do you dislike your
favorite NFL team's greatest

rivals? *

Never

Always
How often do you display
your favorite team's name or
insignia at your place of work,

where you live, or on your
clothing? *

Please answer the following set of questions with reference to the National Football
League.

Strongly
Strongly
Disagree

Agree
I identify with the individual players in the NFL. *

I am a big fan of specific NFL players. *

I consider myself to be a fan of certain players in the NFL. *

I consider myself to be a "real" fan of a particular NFL team. *

I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of that NFL team. *

45

Being a fan of that team is very important to me. *

I am a big fan of a specific NFL coach. *

I follow a particular NFL team because of their coach. *

I am a fan of a particular NFL team because of their coach. *

First and foremost I consider myself a football fan. *

Football is my favorite sport. *

I am a football fan at all levels (e.g. high school, college, professional). *

I am a fan of NFL football regardless of who is playing. *

I don't identify with one specific NFL team or player, but with NFL football in general. *

I consider myself a fan of NFL football, and not just one specific team or player. *

Please answer the following questions in regard to your favorite fantasy football player.

Not
Very

Important

Important
How important to you is it
that your favorite fantasy
player wins his actual NFL

game? *

46

Not A
Very

Fan At
Much A
All

Fan
How strongly do you see
yourself as a fan of your
favorite fantasy player outside

of the fantasy game? *

Not A
Very

Fan At
Much A
All

Fan
How strongly do your friends
see you as a fan of your
favorite fantasy player outside

of the fantasy game? *

Almost

Every
Never

Day
During the season, how
closely do you follow your
favorite fantasy player via
ANY of the following: a) in
person or on television, b) on

the radio, c) television news
or a newspaper d) on the
internet? *

Not
Very

Important

Important
How important is being a
fan of your favorite fantasy

player to you? *

Dislike

Do Not
Very
Dislike

Much
How much do you dislike your
favorite fantasy player's

greatest rivals? *

47

Never

Always
How often do you display
your favorite fantasy player's
name or insignia at your place

of work, where you live, or on
your clothing? *

How many NFL games do you watch in a typical week during the regular season? *

Where do you usually watch NFL football? *

Your home
A friend's home
Bar or restaurant
Common area (dorm or appartment)

How often do you watch more than one NFL game at a time? *

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Whenever
possible

Do you or the location that you watch NFL football subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket? *

Yes
No
Don't Know

How many hours in a typical week would you say you spend involved in some way with fantasy
football? (Line-up changes, trades, researching, stat checking, watching players) *

48

Do you play any fantasy sports other than NFL football? *

Yes
No

If YES, which other sports do you play? Please list:

Do you play fantasy football through an internet site? *

Yes
No

If YES, what site(s)?

If NO, how do you play?

Who do you play fantasy football with? (Select all that apply) *

Friends
Family
Co-workers
Strangers

How many fantasy football leagues do you play in? *

49

Do you play fantasy football for money? *

Yes
No

If YES, what are the stakes per team?

How often do you select fantasy players from your favorite NFL team? *

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always

How often do you root for a player that is playing against your favorite NFL team? *

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always

Please contact TFC8542@fsu.edu if you have any questions regarding this survey.
5H5H5H

6H6H6H
Online Surveys Powered By SurveyPro.com
7H7H7H

50

APPENDIX F
LECTURE SURVEY FOR NON-FANTASY PLAYERS

Please bubble one for each of the following questions:

How important to you is it that your favorite NFL team wins?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite NFL team?

Not At All A Fan

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite NFL team?

Not A Fan At All

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite NFL team via ANY of the
following: a) in person or on television, b) on the radio, c) television news or a
newspaper d) on the internet?

Never

Almost Every Day
O O O O O O O

How important is being a fan of your favorite NFL team to you?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How much do you dislike your favorite NFL team’s greatest rivals?

Do Not Dislike

Dislike Very Much
O O O O O O

O

How often do you display your favorite team’s name or insignia at your place of work,
where you live, or on your clothing?

Never

Always

51

Please bubble one for each of the following questions:

How important to you is it that your favorite NFL player wins his game?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite NFL player?

Not At All A Fan

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your favorite NFL player?

Not A Fan At All

Very Much A Fan
O O O O O O O

During the season, how closely do you follow your favorite NFL player via ANY of the
following: a) in person or on television, b) on the radio, c) television news or a
newspaper d) on the internet?

Never

Almost Every Day
O O O O O O O

How important is being a fan of your favorite NFL player to you?

Not Important

Very Important
O O O O O O

O

How much do you dislike your favorite NFL player’s greatest rivals?

Do Not Dislike

Dislike Very Much
O O O O O O

O

How often do you display your favorite NFL player’s name or insignia at your place of
work, where you live, or on your clothing?

Never

Always
O O O O O O

O

53

REFERENCES
Amant, M. (2006). Committed: Confessions of a fantasy football junkie. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Anderson, D., & Stone, G. (1981). Sport: A search for community. In S. Greendorfer &
A. Yiannakis (Eds.), Sociology of sport: Diverse perspectives (pp. 164–172).
West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Baltin, S. (2003, August 28). Staying in; In fantasy football’s grip. Los Angeles Times, p.
E24. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from the ProQuest database.

Barmack, E., & Handelman, M. (2006). Why fantasy football matters: (And our lives do
not). New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment.

Branscombe, N. & Wann, D. (1991). The positive social and self-concept consequences
of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115-127.

Chicago Bears win Super Bowl ‘click-off.’ (2007, January 30). PR Newswire. Retrieved
February 17, 2007, from the Lexis-Nexis Academic database.

Cialdini, R., Borden, R., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. (1976).
Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415.

Esser, L. (1994). The birth of fantasy football. Fantasy Football Index. Retreived
September 13, 2006, from http://www.fantasyindex.com/Birth.html

Fantasy Sports Trade Association (2006, March). Fantasy sports industry demographics
and 1st Annual Fan Choice Awards announced. [Press Release]. Retrieved
September 13, 2006, from
http://www.fsta.org/news/pressreleases/FSTA_2006_Post-
Conference_PressRelease.doc

Frey, L., Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to
research methods, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

55

Fink, J., Trail, G., & Anderson, D. (2002). Environmental factors associated with
spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: Gender and team
differences. Sports Marketing Quarterly, 11, 8-19.

Funk, D., Mahony, D., Nazakawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2000). Spectator motives
Differentiating among objects of attraction in professional football. European
Journal for Sport Management, 7 (Special Issue), 51-67.

Funk, D., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual
framework for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport.
Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150.

Funk, D., Mahony, D., Nazakawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2001). Development of the sport
interest inventory (SII): Implications for measuring unique consumer motives at
team sporting events. (Research Paper) International Journal of Sports Marketing
& Sponsorship, 3, 291-316. Retrieved August 18, 2006 from the GaleGroup
database.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hiltner, J. & Walker, J. (1996). Super frustration Sunday: The day Prodigy’s fantasy
baseball died; An analysis of the dynamics of electronic communication. Journal
of Popular Culture, 30, 103-117.

Indiana University Sports and Entertainment Academy, Kelley School of Business.
(2000). It’s football, friends and fun, but few women interested in sports fantasy
leagues, study finds [Press Release]. Retrieved September 13, 2006, from
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/OCM/releases/fantasy.htm

Kagan, J. (1958). The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 65, 296-305.

Kulish, N. (2006, October 22). Low Fidelity: The collision of loyalties in real and virtual
8H8H8H
football; [Editorial] New York Times. pg. 4.11. Retrieved November 24, 2006,
9H9H9H
from the ProQuest database.

Lomax, R. (2006). Fantasy sports: History, game types, and research. In Raney, A.A. &
Bryant, J (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 383-392). Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Manly, L. (2006, January 13). Strat-O-Matic, the throwback, endures the era of the X-
Boxes. New York Times, p. D1. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from the New York
Times database.

Matsuoka, H., & Fujimoto, J. (2002, May) Foci of fan’s psychological commitment.
Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society for Sport
Management, Canmore, AB, Canada.

56

Robinson, M., Trail, G., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and points of attachment of
professional golf spectators. Sport Management Review, 7, 167-192.

Robinson, M., & Trail, G. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points
of attachment and sport preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80.

Sandomir, R. (2002, September 13). Reality of fantasy football: Root, root, root for no
team. The New York Times, p. 1A. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from the ProQuest
database.

Sloan, L. (1979). The function and impact of sports for fans. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.),
Sports, games and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (1st ed., pp. 219-
262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Trail, G., & James, J. (2001a). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment
of the scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127.

Trail, G., & James, J. (2001b). An analysis of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of
Sport Behavior. 24, 107-127.

Trail, G., Robinson, M., Dick, R., & Gillentine, A. (2003). Motives and points of
attachment: fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 12, 217-227.

Wann, D. (2006). The causes and consequences of sports spectatorship. In Raney, A.A. &
Bryant, J. (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 331-352). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Wann, D., & Branscombe, N. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification
with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

Wann, D., & Branscombe, N. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: effects of
identification of BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 14, 103-117.

Wann, D., & Pierce, S. (2003). Measuring sport team identification and commitment: An
empirical comparison of the Sport Spectator Identification Scale and the
Psychological Commitment to Team Scale. North American Journal of
Psychology, 5, 365-372.

Wann, D. & Dolan, T. (1994). Attributions of highly identified sports fans. Journal of
Social Psychology, 134, 783-792.

57

Wann, D. & Wilson, A. (2001). The relationship between the sport team identification of
basketball spectators and the number of attributions they generate to explain their
team’s performance. International Sports Journal, 5, 43-50.

Wielenga, D. (1997, October 10). Armchair o
wners; Some hard-charging Orange County football fans get a kick from fantasy leagues.
Los Angeles Times, p. 1E. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from the ProQuest
database.

58

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Thomas Fitzpatrick Corrigan, or T.C., was born May 23, 1983 in Morristown
Corners, Vermont to Tom and Terri Corrigan. At the age of five, T.C. moved with his
family to Sarasota, Florida and graduated Magna Cum Laude in 2001 from Sarasota High
School. At Florida State University, T.C. majored in Communication and was Vice
President and Pledge Educator for his Fraternity, Phi Delta Theta. He received his B.S. in
Mass Media Communication in 2005, and continued within the College of
Communication in pursuit of his M.S. in Media and Communication Studies, which he
will receive this spring. T.C. has been accepted to the Mass Media Ph.D. program at Penn
State and will begin course work in the fall. His interests include Political Economy of
Communications, Sports and Media, and the use of Humor and Satire in Communication.

59