Running head: RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Risk Management Literature Review

Ian Henley

Concordia Texas University

RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Abstract

This paper will attempt to review the pertinent issues in four areas of risk management. The first

area is on the history of violent acts and crimes relating to major sporting events. The second

area discusses the changes and improvements that have been made for stadium security and risk

management operations for major sporting events and venues. The third area discusses the legal

aspects of risk management for major sport venues. The final area discusses is the current issues

of risk management and security for major sport venues. These four areas discussed will provide

a background in the risk management and security operations for major sport venues. The

information provided will relate to the spectator’s perceptions and expectations of safety and

security provided at high school and college football games.

KEYWORDS: Risk Management, safety, security, football, sporting events, history, spectators
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 3

Risk Management Literature Review

This review of literature focuses on four areas of risk management for sporting events at

the professional and collegiate level. The first area is on the history of violent acts and crimes

relating to major sporting events. The second area discusses the changes and improvements that

have been made for stadium security and risk management operations for major sporting events

and venues. The third area discusses the legal aspects of risk management for major sport

venues. The final area discusses is the current issues of risk management and security for major

sport venues. These four areas discussed will provide a background in the risk management and

security operations for major sport venues. The information provided will relate to the

spectator’s perceptions and expectations of safety and security provided at high school and

college football games.

History of Violence and Crimes at Major Sporting Events

Due to a series of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 the risk management and

security operations for major sporting events has changed drastically (Hall, Marciani, Cooper, &

Phillips, 2010). Though September 11, 2001 is one of the main contributors for initiating the

progression of change and improvements of risk management and security at major sport venues,

it is not the only one. There have been 168 major acts of violence associated with major sporting

events between 1972 and 2004 (Toohey & Taylor, 2008). One of these earlier violent acts took

place in 1972 during the Munich Olympic Games. During the games 11 Israeli athletes were

held hostage. In the end 11 hostages, 5 terrorists, and a police officer were killed. (Hall, Cooper,
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 4

Marciani, & McGee, 2012) One major example of acts of violence in during a major sporting

event on U.S. soil was during the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. A pipe-bomb blast at Centennial

Olympic Park killed one and another 110 people were injured (Hall, Cooper, Marciani, &

McGee, 2012). In 2002 before a European Championship League football match a car bomb

planted outside of a stadium in Madrid exploded injuring 16 people (Taylor & Toohey, 2007).

At the college and university level there have also been major acts of violence. In 2005 a student

at the University of Oklahoma prematurely detonated a bomb strapped to his body outside of a

stadium that held at the time approximately 84,000 people attending a football game (Hall S. ,

2006 ). The previously listed acts of violence may be classified as extreme and catastrophic since

they caused large amounts of damage, injury, and sometimes even death. Other events,

considered to be less life threatening, are also associated with violence and safety occurring at

major sporting events. One such event happened in 2005 when Louisiana State University fans

threw bottles at the University of Tennessee bus after a game in which Tennessee came back to

win in overtime. In 2006 Florida International and the University of Miami football teams

engaged in an on-field altercation. This altercation only came to an end with the assistance of

approximately two dozen police officers. In the end there were 31 player suspensions as a result.

Another incident happened in February 2007 when fans attending a Vanderbilt University

basketball game rushed the court after their team upset No. 1 Florida. During this time a Florida

Gators basketball player was caught on camera punching a Vanderbilt fan (Hall, Marciani,

Cooper, & Phillips, 2010). As you can see based off these past events in history there are many

different types of violent acts with ranging levels of risk associated with them. This puts a great

deal of pressure on sport managers and event operations personnel to be prepared for all types of

threats and risks that may be present for a major sporting event.
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 5

Changes in Security and Stadium Operations

Due to this history of violent acts and crimes associated particularly with major sporting

events there have been many changes and improvements made to security at major sport venues.

As previously stated the attacks on September 11, 2001 generated a major change in major sports

event and stadium security. Following these attacks, the National Football League promptly

developed a guide of best practices that provided recommendations of security measures for the

teams. In 2005 the National Collegiate Athletic Association issued a guideline of security-

planning options for its members (Hall S. A., 2013). The NFL requested the Federal Aviation

Administration restrict airspace above NFL Stadiums. Some universities also made similar

requests to the FAA immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The University of

Michigan had a request accepted by the FAA to declare a no-fly zone over their stadium for a

game against Western Michigan in September 2001. Another type of security change came

when Pennsylvania State University no longer allowed re-entry to the stadium during games as

well as enforcing the towing of illegally parked cars. Mississippi State decided to ban back-packs

in their stadium (Hall S. , 2006 ). Recently a clear-bag policy at stadiums has been frequently

enforced at college and university stadiums. Prior to the beginning of the 2016 athletics season,

clear-bag policies were in effect at 31 of 65 universities comprising the Power 5 conferences.

Although the clear-bag policy has been enforced at more stadiums, some universities still decide

to prohibit bags all together. Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State are four Big

Ten schools that decided to prohibit bags altogether (Attwood, 2016). Most universities also

increased the amount of security presence inside and outside the stadium grounds (Hall S.,

2006). The first pat-down search policy by the NFL was implemented for Super Bowl XXVII in

February 2002. In 2005 the NFL expanded their pat-down policy to include all league games
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 6

(Miller, Wendt, & Young, 2010). Recently the use of metal detectors at games has also been

implemented at several universities. In 2014 Boise State is believed to have been the first major

university to have metal detectors at its football stadium. The university made the decision since

a new Idaho law that allows individuals with enhanced concealed-carry permits to carry weapons

on the campus was passed (Goldman, 2015). Recently the Southeastern Conference voted to use

metal detectors at league sporting events by 2020. The University of Alabama will begin using

metal detectors at their Bryant-Denny Stadium, where they play their football games, during the

2018 season (Associated Press, 2018). There has also been an urgency placed on the increase and

improvement of training for security personnel. The National Center for Spectator Sports Safety

and Security (NCS4) urges stadium security personnel to train on incident management, risk, and

evaluation annually. The NCS4 provides these trainings about 60 times a year around the country

(Finkel, 2015). There have been many changes and improvements to risk management and

security operations at many levels of sporting events. Though there have been many changes at

individual venues and programs, there are still many differences to the amount and types of

security that each provide. This means that it is currently up to the sport managers and security

operations personnel, at each individual program and venue, to determine the types of security

and procedures that they will provide.

Legal Aspects of Risk Management and Security Operations

An organization should provide the proper security and procedures to prevent or deter

potential threats due to their legal obligations. If a threatening circumstance arises, written

security and risk management plans, emergency response, and evacuation plans may come under

close examination. Stadium owners, sport managers, and operations personnel have a duty of

care to provide a proper level of safety to the sport spectators (Hall, Marciani, Cooper, &
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 7

Phillips, 2010). Under certain conditions, organizations have a responsibility, or duty of care, to

protect and warn of potential threats to those who attend or use their stadiums. Premises liability

is where a duty of care is imposed on the owners or sport managers of sport venues. Premises

liability holds owners of a property liable for injuries occurring on the property (Miller &

Gillentine, 2006 ). This duty of care requires the owners or sport managers of a sport venue to

use reasonable care in preventing harm to participants and spectators resulting from activities

within their venue (Baker, Connaughton, & Zhang, 2007). One Section F of the Restatement

(Second) Torts has been interpreted by most courts to establish duty on the part of the owner to

protect customers from foreseeable acts of third parties. Understanding foreseeability is

important to the owners since its existence is vital for a plaintiff to win a case against the owners

and sport managers of a sport venue if a third party’s actions were to impose destruction and

harm (Baker, Connaughton, & Zhang, 2007). Since fans who go onto a property and pay to

watch any athletic event are considered business invitees, the owner and sport manager of the

property have a greater level of duty to protect the attending patrons from negligent behavior

(Miller & Gillentine, 2006 ). An athletic organization has a required duty to protect these paying

patrons against negligent behavior when it is reasonably foreseeable that a third party could

potentially inflict harm. In most states when hosting an athletic event, the organization has a duty

to use reasonable care for the safety and protection of their paying patrons. They also have a

duty to employ the type of care that a prudently reasonable person would use in the same

position in similar circumstances (Miller & Gillentine, 2006 ). Owners and sport managers for

venue also have a duty to use reasonable care in keeping up the property in a reasonably safe

condition as well as the duty to warn of dangers (Miller & Gillentine, 2006 ). This means it is

important to know of any dangers that may cause harm within a venue. In some cases, the courts
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 8

have held that the sport manager for the venue bear the responsibility of acting on a threat of

violence as if it has already occurred. The courts hold that if the owner and sport managers of the

venue knew of a credible threat and still refrained from taking reasonable preventive steps then

they are liable (Baker, Connaughton, & Zhang, 2007). It is important for owners and sport

managers of a sport venue to pursue the use of additional means of protection against liability.

Previous research claims that upper administrators are aware of the potential impact that risk

management plans and procedures have on reducing liability (Schneider, Stier, Kampf, Haines,

& Gaskins, 2008). Some additional means of protection include providing AEDs in emergency

action plans, staff member certifications such as first aid and CPR, communication strategies,

surveillance systems, and appropriate supervision (Schneider, Stier, Kampf, Haines, & Gaskins,

2008). These additional means should add to the safety of the participants as well as the

spectators. There are also times when a security procedure is put into place that intend to

provide a safer experience for the spectators but may be seen by some as a violation. Pat-down

searches are intended to keep spectators from bringing in any item that may be harmful to

themselves or others. Though the intention is to provide safety some have explained that this

type of increased security has impeded the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment rights

to patrons’ individual privacy due to the invasiveness of pat-downs. Another factor considered is

the reasonableness of the search. In a court case State v. Iaccarino (2000) it stated the Fourth

Amendment guarantees “…the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures” (Miller,

Wendt, & Young, 2010). Due to the many legal aspects of risk management and security

operations it is important for the owners and sport managers as well as operations personnel to

understand what their legal responsibilities and duties during an event at a sport venue.

Spectators should feel comforted to know that the government have their best interests at heart.
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 9

With the law on their side it should create pressure on owners and sport managers to provide the

safest operations and facilities possible.

Current Issues in Risk Management and Security Operations

Security and safety of spectators attending sporting events has become a major priority

for sports managers and operations personnel. For this reason, many sport managers and

operations personnel for major sports venues have spent numerous hours on the planning and

training for sporting events. Even with the amount of changes and improvement in security over

the years, especially since the attacks on September 11, 2001, there still seem to be issues with

the risk management and security operations for major sports venues. Professional and college

sports leagues and associations have worked with the International Association of Assembly

Managers Safety and Security Task Force to create the Best Practice Planning Guide- Arenas,

Stadiums, and Amphitheaters. This guide provides measures that can be taken by sport venue

managers to protect from acts of violence. In addition to this guide many sports leagues and

associations have issued security recommendations to be considered by the managers at their

venues. Although these guides and recommendations are provided sports leagues and

associations like the NFL and NCAA do not enforce security policies to the venues within them.

This means that the sport managers for the venues have no obligation to adopt these measures

that have been provided (Baker, Connaughton, & Zhang, 2007). In addition to the lack of set

security standards for U.S. Colleges there is also the issue of there being no sport specific event-

security training and programs for educating sports venue managers (Hall, Marciani, Cooper, &
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 10

Phillips, 2010). According to one study done on risk management practices of NCAA Division I

football stadium managers 87% of Division IA football stadiums had written emergency plans.

Only 84% of these plans were reviewed annually and 75% of the stadiums had not practiced the

Emergency Action Plan. Other findings from the study found that 80% of those who responded

designated responsibilities of dealing with threats and acts of violence to their employees and

90% have designated the responsibility of consulting with the appropriate public agencies that

monitor these threats. Finally, only 13% of respondents claim to provide formal training

regarding threats and acts of violence safety to their employees (Baker, Connaughton, & Zhang,

2007).

Conclusion

It is apparent that there have been many strides taken in creating guidelines and

recommendations for security planning and operations but there are still sport managers and

operations personnel that are not utilizing these tools. It is also apparent that there is a lack of

training for managers and employees. Having the proper plan in place is just one step in

providing the appropriate safety and security for spectators attending a sporting event. Having

the proper training would only increase the preparedness and efficiency of these plans.

Spectators want to be assured that they will be safe while attending a major sporting event. If

there is proper planning and training is being provided to the employees, it can ensure the

spectator feels safe and comfortable while attending a sporting event.

RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 11

References

Attwood, E. (2016, November). Clear-Bag Policies Become Standard in College Athletics .

Athletic Business.
Baker, T. A., Connaughton, D., & Zhang, J. J. (2007). Perceived Risk of Terrorism and Related
Risk Management Practices of NCAA Division IA Stadium Managers. Journal of Legal
Aspects of Sport, 27-51.
Finkel, E. (2015, October ). Anatomy of Stadium Security, 21st Century Style. Security
Magazine , pp. 52-54.
Goldman, S. (2015, September ). How Metal Detectors Provide a Safer College Football
Environment. Athletic Business .
Hall, S. (2006 ). Effective Security Management of University Sport Venues. The Sport Journal ,
1-10.
Hall, S. A. (2013). Managing the Threat of Terrorism in Sport: Importance and Performance
Analysas (IPA) of Safety and Security Preparedness for NCAA Sport Facilities.
International Journal of Sport Management , 479-501.
Hall, S. A., Cooper, W. E., Marciani, L., & McGee, J. A. (2012). Security Management for
Sports and Special Events : An Interagency Approach to Creating Safe Facilities.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics .
Hall, S., Marciani, L., Cooper, W., & Phillips, J. (2010). Needs, Concerns, and Future
Challenges in Security Management of NCAA Division I Football Events: An
Intercollegiate Facility Management Perspective . Journal of Venue and Event
Management, 1-16.
Miller, J. J., Wendt, J. T., & Young, P. C. (2010). Fourth Amendment Considerations and
Application of Risk Management Principles for Pat-Down Searches at Professional
Football Games. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 107-134.
Miller, J., & Gillentine, A. (2006 ). An Anlalysis of Risk Management Policies for Tailgating
Activities at Selected NCAA Division I Football Games . Journal of Legal Aspects of
Sport , 197-215.
Press, A. (2018, July 16). Alabama to use metal detectors at Bryant-Denny Stadium. ESPN.
Schneider, R. C., Stier, W. F., Kampf, S., Haines, S., & Gaskins, B. (2008). Factors Affecting
Risk Management of Indoor Campus Recreation Facilities . Recreational Sports Journal ,
114-133.
Taylor, T., & Toohey, K. (2007). Perceptions of Terrorism Threats at the 2004 Olympic Games:
Implications for Sport Events . Journal of Sport & Tourism, 99-114.
RISK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Toohey, K., & Taylor, T. (2008). Mega Events, Fear, and Risk: Terrorism at the Olympic
Games. Journal of Sport Management, 451-469.