View/Open - Lirias@Lessius

Stakeholder Conflicts in Professional Sports. A Case Study in
Professional Road Cycling.
Abstract paper
With respect to understanding stakeholder strategy (the strategy of the stakeholders of the
organization) from the stakeholder‟s perspective, stakeholder literature has traditionally centered
around the structural and demographic approach. The structural approach, on the one hand,
explains stakeholder strategy in terms of the relationship between the organization and the
stakeholder, the demographic approach, on the other hand, explains stakeholder strategy in
terms of stakeholder attributes. Despite recent claims in literature that both approaches
complement each other in explaining stakeholder strategy [Hendry, 2005 – Journal of Business
Ethics 61(1); Frooman and Murrell, 2005 – Business & Society 44(3)], little is known about how
both approaches interact and relate to stakeholder strategy. In this article we draw upon de
Bakker and den Hond‟s suggestion (2008) to integrate the concept of „time‟ in the analysis in
order to gain insights in the interplay of structural and demographic approaches with regard to
stakeholder strategy. We derive through a review of literature, two hypotheses on how changes
in resource dependency and interest intensity (structural and demographic factor, respectively)
relate to changes in stakeholder pathway and stakeholder instrument (two components of the
stakeholder strategy; Frooman, 1999). Consecutively, both hypotheses are tested through an
analysis of six stakeholders‟ strategies deployed during the competition reform in professional
road cycling. Based on interviews and document analysis we confirm that the structural and
demographic approaches are complementary in explaining stakeholder strategy but also that
both approaches relate to different components within a stakeholder strategy. Whereas the
focal organization‟s dependency on the stakeholder explains a stakeholder‟s choice of the initial
pathway (structural factor), changes in this pathway are explained by changes in interest
intensity (demographic factor). This demographic factor also explains changes in stakeholder
instrument. In addition, the data argue in favor of a stakeholder‟s universal tactical starting
position theorized already in stakeholder literature [den Hond and de Bakker, 2007 – Academy
of Management Review 32(3)].
Keywords
Interest intensity
Professional road cycling
Resource dependency
Sport management
Stakeholder attributes
Stakeholder instrument
Stakeholder pathway
Prepaper
Though stakeholder influence has received considerable attention in literature, it is only recently
that a number of studies have started to address the question of stakeholder influence from the
stakeholder perspective (de Bakker and den Hond, 2008). This approach is another step in the
evolution of the stakeholder theory from „a corporate-centric perspective into a more
1

comprehensive theory of the business-society interface‟ (Steurer, 2006: 56). Consequently, few
stakeholder theorists have studied from a stakeholders‟ vantage point the identities (Rowley and
Moldoveanu, 2003), the salience (Mitchell et al., 1997; Rowley, 1997; Frooman, 1999; Neville
and Menguc, 2006), the firm targeting decisions (Rowley and Berman, 2000; Rehbein et al.,
2004; Eesley and Lenox, 2005; Hendry, 2006) and the strategies of stakeholders (Frooman,
1999; Frooman and Murrell, 2005; Hendry, 2005; den Hond and de Bakker, 2007; Zietsma and
Winn, 2008). Frooman (1999: 191) argued that, in contrast to the question of who stakeholders
are and what they want, this latter question of „how‟ they try to obtain salience has received only
piecemeal attention and this despite the fact that stakeholder strategy is „a key element in
stakeholder theory‟.
With respect to explaining stakeholder strategy two approaches are distinguished in stakeholder
literature: a structural vs. a demographic approach (Frooman and Murrell, 2005; de Bakker and
den Hond, 2008). The structural approach, on the one hand, explains stakeholder strategy in
terms of the relationship between the organization and the stakeholder, the demographic
approach, on the other hand, explains stakeholder strategy in terms of stakeholder attributes
(Goodpastor, 1991; Clarkson, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1997; Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). In
other words, the structural approach deals with the relational setting of organizations (such as
the level of dependence of the stakeholder on the firm or the centrality of the firm within a
stakeholders‟ network - Rowley, 1997; Frooman, 1999; Frooman and Murrell, 2005) whereas
the demographic approach is all about stakeholder characteristics (such as among others
interest, past experience, identity and ideology of a stakeholder - Rowley and Moldoveanu,
2003; Frooman and Murrell, 2005; den Hond and de Bakker, 2007). Frooman and Murrell (2005:
5) highlight the difference between both approaches using terms of network theory: „instead of
concentrating on demographics (the node), the structural approach is all about relationships (the
tie between the nodes)‟.
This article contributes to stakeholder theory in four ways. First, by focusing on how
stakeholders influence organizations over time – how they act, given they are taking action –
and not on the factors influencing the likelihood stakeholders will mobilize, we take another
approach in stakeholder management (Savage et al., 1991; Frooman, 1999; Hendry, 2005;
Frooman and Murrell, 2005; den Hond and de Bakker, 2007; de Bakker and den Hond, 2008).
Second, this article links changes in structural and demographic factors to changes in
stakeholder pathway and stakeholder instrument. Again, another approach is taken as Frooman
(1999) and Frooman and Murrell (2005) did link structural factors (and not changes in these
factors) to stakeholder strategy (and not to changes in the strategy, nor to changes in the
2

stakeholder pathway or stakeholder instrument). Third, by deriving hypotheses on how changes
in both structural and demographic factors relate to changes in stakeholder pathway and
stakeholder instrument, we add to stakeholder theory. Fourth, by selecting the case of sport
league reform in professional road cycling, we contribute to the literature on stakeholder
strategy in sport management (Holt, 2007; Desbordes 2008; Morrow and Idle, 2008a & 2008b;
Senaux, 2008) which, despite the fact that professional sport is estimated to be the eleventh
largest industry in the United States (Danylchuk et al., 2008), has yet received little attention.
As argued by Hendry (2005) who claimed that an alternative theoretical model on stakeholder
strategy should be grounded in collected data, our findings are based on an analysis of the
strategies deployed by stakeholders since the introduction of the new Union Cycliste
International (UCI) ProTour competition (January 2005) in professional road cycling. There are
three reasons for devoting attention to stakeholder strategies in sport management. First, as
argued by Brewer (2002) and Morrow and Idle (2008b), professional sport is by nature a
representation of conflict in which multiple stakeholders are involved (Dauncey and Hare, 2003).
As such, sport provides an interesting „microcosm‟ that allows researching in detail stakeholder
strategies. Second, the issue of stakeholder strategies within sport management has been
largely left unattended in literature. Whereas Holt (2007) and Senaux (2008) addressed this
issue for football (soccer), it is only recently that the influence of stakeholders in competition
reforms in professional cycling has been addressed (Desbordes 2008; Lagae et al., 2008;
Morrow and Idle, 2008a & 2008b). As such, insights in how stakeholders behave when
reforming sport competitions can be valid for junior and senior management (Parks et al., 2007).
Finally, professional road cycling is not only understudied in comparison to other sports like
baseball, rugby, skiing, snowboarding or soccer (O‟Brien and Slack, 2003; Holt, 2007;
Gammelsaeter and Jakobsen, 2008; Kelly, 2008; Hanstad, 2008; Senaux, 2008; Steen-
Johnsen, 2008), professional road cycling is also characterized by a large and heterogeneous
set of stakeholders with various interest intensities and resource relationships with the focal
organization (Brewer, 2002; Desbordes, 2006; Morrow and Idle, 2008a & 2008b).
The following two-step approach was taken. First, stakeholders - „persons or groups that have,
or claim, ownership, rights or interest in a corporation and its activities, past, present or future‟
(Clarkson, 1995: 106) - have been inventoried through an extensive analysis of various UCI
documents with respect to the establishment of the ProTour competition: UCI correspondence,
minutes of meetings and press releases. The following six stakeholders did emerge out of the
analysis: riders (represented by CPA), ProTour teams (represented by first AIGCP and later on
by IPCT), professional continental teams (teams not granted a ProTour license), G3
3

(representing ASO, RCS and Unipublic which organize the three most important stage races -
Tour, Giro d‟Italia and Vuelta a España, respectively - as well as eight other ProTour races), the
other ProTour races organizers (ProTour16) as well as organizers of non ProTour races. These
various stakeholders will be discussed in more detail at the beginning of the next section. Our
selection of stakeholders therefore extends Morrow and Idle‟s inventory of stakeholders as we
did also include the IPCT, professional continental teams and the ProTour16 as additional
stakeholders (Morrow and Idle, 2008b). Following Morrow and Idle (2008b) and given that the
UCI (the world governing body in cycling) did initiate the new competition in professional road
cycling, the UCI was seen as the focal organization. Second, for each stakeholder, its strategy –
which includes the selection of both pathways (the allies chosen included) and stakeholder
instruments –, its resource dependency and interest intensity towards UCI were inventoried and
analyzed. These components were analyzed for the period January 2005 – July 15 th 2008. This
time period was guided by the following criteria. Whereas January 2005 refers to the start date
of the ProTour licenses for the teams and organizers, mid-July 2008 refers to the UCI
announcement that teams intended not to renew their ProTour licenses for 2009 (UCI, 2008).
For this second phase, the authors relied upon two sources: 17 semi-structured interviews with
representatives of the six stakeholders and a wide variety of written sources: minutes of
meetings, documents provided by the stakeholders, press releases, detailed study of cycling-
specific magazines and internet-based cycling sites such as Cyclingnews.com.
We derive through a review of literature, two hypotheses on how changes in resource
dependency and interest intensity (structural and demographic factor, respectively) relate to
changes in stakeholder pathway and stakeholder instrument (two components of the
stakeholder strategy; Frooman, 1999). Consecutively, both hypotheses are tested through an
analysis of six stakeholders‟ strategies deployed during the competition reform in professional
road cycling. We confirm that the structural and demographic approaches are complementary in
explaining stakeholder strategy but also that both approaches relate to different components
within a stakeholder strategy. Whereas the focal organization‟s dependency on the stakeholder
explains a stakeholder‟s choice of the initial pathway (structural factor), changes in this pathway
are explained by changes in interest intensity (demographic factor). This demographic factor
also explains changes in stakeholder instrument. In addition, the data argue in favor of a
stakeholder‟s universal tactical starting position theorized already in stakeholder literature [den
Hond and de Bakker, 2007 – Academy of Management Review 32(3)].
References
4

Brewer, B.D.: 2002. „Commercialization in Professional Cycling 1950-2001: Institutional Transformations
and the Rationalization of “Doping”, Sociology of Sport Journal, 19(3), 276-301.
Clarkson, M.B.E.: 1995, „A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social
Performance‟, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92-117.
Danylchuk, K.E., A. Doherty, M. Nicholson and B. Stewart: 2008, „International Sport Management:
Creating an International Learning and Teaching Community‟, International Journal of Sport
Management and Marketing 4(2/3), 125-145.
Dauncey, H. and G. Hare: 2003, The Tour de France, 1903-2003: a Century of Sporting Structures.
Meanings and Values, (Frank Cass, London).
De Bakker, F.G.A. and F. den Hond: 2008, „Introducing the Politics of Stakeholder Influence‟, Business &
Society 47(1), 8-20.
Den Hond, F. and F.G.A. de Bakker: 2007, „Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups
influence Corporate Social Change Activities‟, Academy of Management Review 32(3), 901-924.
Desbordes, M.: 2008, „The Future of the Tour de France: from an Independent Style of Organization to “A
Formula One Model?‟, in D. Arthur and S. Chadwick (eds.), International Cases in the Business of Sport,
(Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford), pp. 358-371.
Eesley, C. and M.J. Lenox: 2005. „Secondary Stakeholder Actions and the Selection of Firm Targets‟
(working paper), Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
Frooman, J. and A.J. Murrell: 2005, „Stakeholder Influence Strategies: the Roles of Structural and
Demographic determinants‟, Business & Society 44(3), 3-31.
Frooman, J.: 1999, „Stakeholder Influence Strategies‟, Academy of Management Review 24(2), 191-205.
Gammelsaeter, H. and S.-E Jakobsen: 2008, „Models of Organization in Norwegian Professional Soccer‟,
European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(1), 1-25.
Goodpastor, K.: 1991, „Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis‟, Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 53-71.
Hanstad, D.V.: 2008, „Drug Scandal and Organizational Change within the International Ski Federation: A
Figurational Approach‟, European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(4), 379-398.
Hendry, J.R.: 2005, „Stakeholder Influence Strategies: an Empirical Exploration‟, Journal of Business
Ethics 61(1), 79-99.
Hendry, J.R.: 2006, „Taking Aim at Business: What Factors lead Environmental Non-governmental
Organizations to Target Particular Firms‟, Business & Society 45(1), 47-86.
Holt, M.: 2007, „The Ownership and Control of Elite Club Competition in European Football‟, Soccer and
Society 8(1), 50-67.
Kelly, S.: 2008, „Understanding the Role of the Football Manager in Britain and Ireland: A Weberian
Approach‟, European Sport Management Quarterley, 8(4), 399-420.
Lagae, W., T. Benijts, B. Vanreusel and B. Vanclooster: 2008, „Spectator Sports as a Representation of
Conflict. The Case of Stakeholders‟ Conflicts in Professional Cycling‟, Book of Abstracts 16 th EASM
European Sport Management Conference (Heidelberg/Bayreuth), pp.114-116.
Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle and D.J. Wood: 1997, „Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Indentification and
Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What really Counts, Academy of Management Review 22(4),
853-886.
Morrow, S. and C. Idle: 2008a, „The Challenges of Modernizing a Professional Sport: a Case Study in
Professional Road Cycling‟, in D. Arthur and S. Chadwick (eds.), International Cases in the Business of
Sport, (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford), pp. 45-59.
Morrow, S. and C. Idle: 2008b, „Understanding Change in Professional Road Cycling‟, European Sport
Management Quarterly, 8(4), 315-335.
Neville, B.A. and B. Menguc: 2006, „Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of The Interactions
Between Stakeholders‟, Journal of Business Ethics 66(4), 377-391.
O‟Brien, D. and T. Slack: 2003, „An Analysis of Change in an Organizational field: the Professionalization
of English Rugby Union‟, Journal of Sport Management 17(4), 417-448.
Parks, J.B., J. Quarterman and L. Thibault: 2007, Contemporary sport management (3 rd edition), (Human
Kinetics, Champaign).
Rehbein, K., S. Waddock and S.B. Graves: 2004, „Understanding Shareholder Activism: which
Corporations are Targetted‟, Business & Society 43(3), 239-258.
Rowley, T.J. and M. Moldoveanu: 2003, „When Will Stakeholder Group Act? An Interest- and Indentity
Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization, Academy of Management Review 28(2), 204-219.
5

Rowley, T.J. and S. Berman: 2000, „A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance‟, Business &
Society 39(4), 397-418.
Rowley, T.J.: 1997, „Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: a Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences‟, Academy
of Management Review 22(4), 887-910.
Savage, G., T. Nix, C. Whitehead and J. Blair: 1991, „Strategies for Assessing and Managing
Stakeholders‟, Academy of Management Review 5(2), 61-75.
Senaux, B.: 2008, „A stakeholder Approach to Football Club Governance‟, International Journal of Sport
Management and Marketing 4, 4-17.
Steen-Johnsen, K.: 2008, „Networks and the Organization of Identity: the Case of Norwegian
Snowboarding‟, European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(4), 337-358.
Steurer, R.: 2006, „Mapping Stakeholder Theory Anew: From the Stakeholder Theory of the Firm to three
Perspectives on Business-society Relations‟, Business Strategy and the Environment 15(1), 55-69.
Zietsma, C. and M.I. Winn: 2008, „Building Chains and Directing Flows‟, Business & Society 47(1), 68-101.
6