Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the catalyzing factors team managers of previously successful European football clubs could capitalize on in order to build or rebuild the brand identity of their respective team via the Europa League. Design/methodology/approach – The authors followed a case analysis method. The authors selected teams that have had a history of good performance in European competitions in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, before falling off the radar. A total of 19 teams, representing 15 countries, accepted the invitation. Findings – The managers underlined eight major catalyzing factors. The managers specifically emphasize the importance of branding and how it can crystallize the promise these teams articulate to their fans, on and off the football pitch. Moreover, the values that a team encapsulates and communicates through its daily actions seem to represent the essence of the brand. Research limitations/implications – One risk relates to the respondents who could very well know what a brand is and how a brand should be managed in theory, but it does not necessarily mean that they know how to do it at all. Practical implications – The paper highlighted the importance of shrewd management, especially when resources are scarce. A competition such as the Europa League might provide some room to maneuver but, above all, the organization must deliver the brand promise to its fans. Originality/value – This is one of the first studies looking at the leverage a European football competition could provide to previously successful clubs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".