“It’s a fine balancing act”: exploring the effects of managing competing sponsorship responsibilities on sport employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale/purpose This study explores the effects of competing team and event sponsorship programs on employees hosting the CFL Grey Cup. Specifically, we examine the influence of competing team and event sponsorship responsibilities on host team employees’ perceptions of and experiences with stress.Research design Data collection was composed of two phases: first, participant observation of event employees throughout event staging; then, a series of semi-structured interviews with employees following the event’s conclusion.Findings Our findings indicate that host team employees experienced stress when faced with conflicting sponsorship responsibilities incurred by individuals’ dual roles servicing team and event partners. This stress was mitigated through experience, task cohesion, and strong internal group identification, illustrative of the important role internal sponsee management plays in partnership delivery.Practical implications This study outlines the role that experience, group cohesion, and task clarity play on employee stress and well-being when managing sponsorship programs. The findings provide important insight into sponsorship management and servicing for different team and event sponsors, and host team employee well-being and intra-departmental management.Research contribution The findings advance sponsorship servicing scholarship and expands upon our understanding of stress, group cohesion, and sponsorship servicing from theoretical and practical perspectives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".