Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Sport entrepreneurship and value co-creation in times of crisis: The

covid-19 pandemic
Vanessa Ratten a, *, Vitor Lélio da Silva Braga b, Carla Susana da Encarnação Marques c
a
La Trobe University, Australia
b
School of Technology and Management – Institute Polytechnic of Porto, CIICESI, Portugal
c
University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on sport entrepreneurship and service-dominated logic theory, this paper explores the association be­
Collaboration tween networks, value co-creation and crises in the articulation of sport entrepreneurial ecosystems. Recently the
COVID-19 sport industry has had to rapidly innovate due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so the aim of this study is to un­
Coronavirus
derstand how it affects the dynamism of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. This means focusing on the opportunities
Crisis management
Entrepreneurial ecosystems
for value co-creation necessitated in times of crisis through the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. The
Entrepreneurship data was collected through semi-structured interviews of sport managers within the sport entrepreneurial
Service-dominant logic ecosystem during the COVID-19 crisis. This enabled detailed data to be obtained on how sport entrepreneurs
Sport entrepreneurship were responding to change based on altering contextual conditions. The paper offers a way to understand the
Sport industry unique nature of the sport industry and the intricate nature of sport entrepreneurial ecosystems in times of crisis.
Value co-creation Thereby the findings provide important insights into how the sport industry has responded to the COVID-19
pandemic through the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This highlights that in times of crisis, the sport
industry can utilise their unique entrepreneurial ecosystem in order to encourage proactive collaboration leading
to value co-creation.

1. Introduction research agenda that embeds a COVID-19 perspective.

COVID-19 presents an opportunity but also obligation to reinvent the
field of sport entrepreneurship by taking a transformational perspective
(Ratten, 2020a). Due to the ongoing nature of COVID-19, the future is
uncertain so a careful consideration and critical assessment of new
research trends is required (Alon, Farrell & Li, 2020). This will
contribute to the existing literature on sport entrepreneurship that views
entrepreneurship as a change agent by broadening the conversation to
incorporate crisis management approaches (Pellegrini, Rialti, Marzi &
Caputo, 2020). Thus, a paradigm shift is needed at this time in order to
incorporate more sport entrepreneurial ecosystem research that dis­
cusses the ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic. This will help
advance sport entrepreneurship research as a whole by taking a more
progressive and societal point of view. To achieve this aim, this paper
reviews the effects of COVID-19 on sport entrepreneurship and chal­
lenges existing research assumptions that were made prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic occurring. A number of suggestions are then made
with the goal of building a transformative sport entrepreneurship
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was first reported in Wuhan,
China and quickly spread worldwide (Kraus et al., 2020). Compared to
other coronaviruses, COVID-19 has had a global effect due to its highly
contagious nature that is spread through human-to-human transmission
(Ratten, 2020a). As a result, there is a high level of public pressure
particularly from the sport industry to develop medical and technolog­
ical innovations in order to return to normal (Escamilla-Fajardo, Nunez-
Pomar, Calabuig-Moreno, & Gomez-Tafalla, 2020). Due to COVID-19
becoming widespread there is now a greater emphasis being placed on
cooperation between global scientists and sport businesses to find so­
lutions (Kuckertz et al., 2020). These efforts require a coordinated effort
using best practices to provide current and up-to-date information. The
exponential effects of COVID-19 mean that the sport industry requires
entrepreneurship in order to cope with the changes (Hammerschmidt,
Durst, Kraus, & Puumalainen, 2020). This means focusing on medical
science in terms of immunology, microbiology and pathology but also on
social sciences in terms of behavioural alterations. As medical cures do
not currently exist for COVID-19, non-medical interventions in the form

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: v.ratten@latrobe.edu.au (V. Ratten), vbraga@estg.ipp.pt (V.L. da Silva Braga), smarques@utad.pt (C.S. da Encarnação Marques).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.001
Received 31 July 2020; Received in revised form 27 April 2021; Accepted 1 May 2021
Available online 13 May 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
V. Ratten et al.
of border controls, self-isolation and social distancing have been used
that have impacted all industries but most notably the sport industry
(Hall, Scott & Gossling, 2020).
Sport entrepreneurship research has already provided valuable ways
to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic (Ratten, 2020a). However, more
sport entrepreneurship research that has an interdisciplinary perspec­
tive in terms of incorporating research from the value co-creation and
ecosystem literature is required (Steinbrink, Berger & Kuckertz, 2020).
This will enable better ways of tackling the complex problems caused by
COVID-19. Moreover, insights from disciplines different to the sport
management discipline can provide a clear understanding of how
COVID-19 has changed society. As epidemiology is being used to predict
patterns in COVID-19 transmission rates adding an economic or
ecological perspective can be helpful (Sheth, 2020). Interdisciplinary
approaches can also provide a more holistic perspective about the role of
sport institutions and politics in dealing with the COVID-19 situation.
Thus, the global and widespread effect of COVID-19 leads itself to an
interdisciplinary perspective (Ratten, 2020b). Currently much research
on COVID-19 tends to focus on one disciplinary perspective such as
biochemistry or virology without embedding a sport entrepreneurship
approach. This needs to change due to a rapid need to help society deal
with the consequences of the virus (Ratten, 2020b). COVID-19 has
already resulted in significant economic effects for the sport industry
with cancelled tournaments and a de-internationalisation trend but
more emphasis is needed on the sport industry affects. This has attracted
the attention of sport policy makers and the public due to its far-reaching
impact (Parnell, Widdop, Bond, & Wilson, 2020).
The COVID-19 crisis is unlike other crises due to its health-related
impact that has caused changes in individual behaviour and business
activity and therefore can be referred to as a pandemic (Ansell & Boin,
2019). The term ‘pandemic’ generally refers to the transmission of a
disease with a wide geographic reach (Kuckertz et al., 2020). Health
pandemics rarely occur but when they do, they have severe economic
consequences. Donthu and Gustafsson (2020) suggest that pandemics
mostly occur at 10-to-20-year intervals when a new virus emerges in the
community. This is evident with past pandemics including the Spanish
flu, which occurred between 1918 and 1920 and had a significant effect
on the global economy. Hall et al. (2020:5) provides statistics about the
affect by stating “the Spanish flu affected one third of the world’s pop­
ulation and claimed the lives of 1–5% of (the) world’s population far
exceeding the death toll of WW1”. The effects of the current COVID-19
pandemic are similar to the Spanish flu due to its effect on the world’s
population. Other notable pandemics include the Hong Kong flu of
1968–1969 that was spread largely due to air travel (Hall et al., 2020).
However, these prior pandemics were mostly confined to specific
geographic regions and did not involve global repercussions like the
current COVID-19 pandemic has had on the global economy.
Previous crisis such as the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and the
Great Depression of the 1930′ s had severe economic effects that resulted
in societal change but did not affect the sport industry like the current
COVID-19 crisis has. Other crisis including the September 11 terrorism
attacks, Gulf wars and World wars were the result of political warfare
and had more economic effects rather than the cancellations of sport
events and closure of sport facilities due to social distancing re­
quirements from the COVID-19 crisis (Ratten, 2020c). Thus, the COVID-
19 crisis is likely to surpass other crises affecting the sport industry due
to it being a health pandemic that then resulted in economic and social
turmoil. Given the need for a rapid understanding of how sport entre­
preneurship can help alleviate problems from the COVID-19 crisis, this
paper aims to answer the following research question: “How do sport
enterprises create value through entrepreneurial ecosystems from the
COVID-19 crisis?”. The next section will detail further the conceptual
and theoretical underpinnings of this paper based on sport entrepre­
neurship and value co-creation theory.
266
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
2. Literature review
2.1. Sport entrepreneurship
Sport entrepreneurship is a relatively new area of entrepreneurship
that combines sport management with innovative behaviour (Ratten,
2012). It was originally developed by Ratten (2011) in terms of
combining a sport perspective with entrepreneurship studies. In Ratten’s
(2011) original conceptualisation of sport entrepreneurship she sug­
gested that there were a number of sub-categories including social,
technological and international entrepreneurship that affected the
development of entrepreneurship in the sport industry. More recently,
there has been an increased emphasis on sport entrepreneurship due to
the realization that sport has an inherent entrepreneurial nature that
differentiates it from other industries (Escamilla-Fajardo, Núñez-Pomar,
& Gómez-Tafalla, 2020). This means it is important to understand cur­
rent contextual events from the COVID-19 pandemic by taking a sport
entrepreneurship approach. In this study, we define sport entrepre­
neurship as entities that have an emphasis on innovation, proactiveness
and futuristic thinking in a sport context.
Sport entrepreneurship can be viewed broadly as an entrepreneurial
orientation that focuses on identifying new opportunities in the sport
marketplace (Ratten, 2018). This makes it particularly relevant in the
context of crises like the COVID-19 pandemic as it enables sport orga­
nisations to solve problems but also serve new market needs (Ratten,
2020a). Recent research by Parnell et al. (2020) has echoed this view by
finding that in the COVID-19 environment, networks are crucial to the
effectiveness of sport organisations. This means that sport entrepre­
neurship is a necessity in the global competitive marketplace that is
characterised by change and disruption. Therefore, as a theory, sport
entrepreneurship is relevant for understanding how changing environ­
mental conditions due to the COVID-19 crisis affect the sport industry.
This is important in moving both the sport management and entrepre­
neurship disciplines into a more interdisciplinary perspective (Ratten,
2018).
More research is using sport entrepreneurship theory as a way to
understand COVID-19 related changes. For example, Hammerschmidt
et al. (2020) in a study of European football clubs found that it is useful
to take a sport entrepreneurship theoretical approach to analyse the
changes occurring from the COVID-19 pandemic. Another study by
Escamilla-Fajardo, Núñez-Pomar, and Gómez-Tafalla (2020) also used a
sport entrepreneurship theory to understand the way Spanish non-profit
sport clubs have handled the COVID-19 crisis. Thus, this paper builds on
previous studies on sport entrepreneurship and COVID-19 but goes
further by taking a value co-creation and ecosystem approach. Thereby
offering a novel and more positive way to view the changes that have
occurred in the sport industry as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This supports research by Ratten (2019) who suggested that entrepre­
neurial ecosystems provide a useful way of studying sport entrepre­
neurship. Moreover, Ratten (2020a) suggests that the sport
entrepreneurship literature provides a useful theoretical framework to
study the effects of COVID-19 on sport organisations.
2.2. COVID-19 crisis and entrepreneurship
The COVID-19 crisis has fundamentally changed society, so it is
important to understand how entrepreneurship has been used to cope
with this change. The COVID-19 pandemic has been very socially and
economically disruptive due to it being a global crisis felt by all in­
dustries regardless of geographic location (Chesbrough, 2020). The
terms ‘crisis’ and ‘pandemic’ are hard to grasp due to the different
connotations they have in society (He & Harris, 2020). For some in­
dustries notably the medical industry, they represent a time of expansion
but for other industries like the sport industry they are considered a
difficult event. This means to fully understand the impact of COVID-19
the industry context needs to be considered. Due to the COVID-19 crisis
V. Ratten et al.
being a health issue and pandemic it can be considered in both an
analytical and intuitive way (Brinks & Ibert, 2020). In sport entrepre­
neurship literature, much of the existing research focuses on financial
crises without considering health crises (Ratten, 2018). This means that
more research by sport entrepreneurship scholars is needed on COVID-
19 in order to explore its innovative dimension. Whilst financial crises
are an ongoing feature of a free market economy, health crises occur less
frequently (Doern, Williams & Vorley, 2019). In addition, the general
emphasis on entrepreneurship research on sustainability and climate
change has meant a body of literature exists on natural disasters but not
much on health crises. This means research is needed from a sport
entrepreneurship perspective in order to provide insights on the eco­
nomic, political, social and technological associations from the COVID-
19 crisis.
A crisis involves some kind of problem that has an uncertain element
to it (Wenzel, Stanske, & Lieberman, 2020). This means the observed
events are not what normally occurs in society. This results in uncer­
tainty due to future events not being able to be predicted. Brinks and
Ibert (2020) stress that the “uncertainty is caused by a lack of knowledge
(e.g. about the ways of infections, dark figures of a a-symptomatic
cases), ambiguous signals (e.g. unspecified symptoms), a lack of viable
means to counter the epidemic (e.g. the absence of an effective medicine
and vaccination) and undetermined timeframes (e.g. when will a
vaccination be available)”. Thus, the uncertainty created in a crisis
means there is a necessity to act but this is hard to do due to unease
about the right kind of action required (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2011).
Swift action is needed by entrepreneurs to respond to the changes
caused by the COVID-19 crisis. There is a need for strategic action by
sport entrepreneurs to prepare for the new normal. Entrepreneurs need
to engage in crisis management strategies in order to gain a better un­
derstanding of consumer responses (Heyden, Wilden & Wise, 2020).
This means it is vital that sport entrepreneurs collaborate and share
knowledge. This is an ideal or utopian view that focuses on overall so­
cietal benefit from collective action. However, this is not always possible
due to the high levels of profits some entrepreneurs can make in times of
a crisis. Therefore, a value co-creation that emphasises collaboration
needs to be taken in order to understand the effects of the COVID-19
crisis on sport entrepreneurship (Grohs, Wieser & Pristach, 2020).
2.3. Value co-creation
Value co-creation is a result of multiple interactions based on trust
(Brodie et al., 2019). Babu et al (2020:16) suggests that “value co-
creation represents the collaboration amongst a range of firms and
their stakeholders (ie actors) in developing successful innovations,
design and developing products, and identifying new business oppor­
tunities”. This means there can be a range of reasons why firms engage in
value co-creation based on their motivations and need to engage in new
market needs. Research by Pera et al. (2016) found that in order to
enable value co-creation amongst stakeholders there needs to be an
emphasis on inclusiveness and openness in business transactions. This
means that each participant in the value co-creation process inputs some
form of knowledge into the transaction (Storbacka et al., 2016). Wind­
rum et al. (2016) proposes that interactions amongst stakeholders en­
ables innovation to be diffused to the broader business community.
Therefore, in order for value co-creation to lead to innovation there
needs to be some form of participation in integrating resources to other
ecosystem partners (Voorberg et al., 2015). Ryu (2018) proposes that in
order to strengthen the level of value co-creation, alliance partners
should be carefully selected based on their expertise. Thus, stakeholders
need to be resource integrating in an ecosystem environment in order to
create value (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). This means organisations
in an ecosystem need to be motivated to collaborate for co-creation
reasons (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). To do this involves emphasising the
way organisations can collaborate on mutual projects based on value co-
creation reasons (Payne et al., 2008).
267
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
The experiential nature of sport requires some form of co-creation in
order to facilitate the development of new innovations (Ratten, 2018).
As this study takes an entrepreneurship and service-dominant logic, the
sport industry is viewed from a service ecosystem perspective. This
means focusing on how value co-creation is an umbrella term that in­
corporates many different issues related to the process of sport collab­
oration for benefit. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2003:16) suggest that
there are “three co-creators of value: the company and its network, the
consumer and the consumer community”. Each of these co-creators are
important in developing entrepreneurship in the sport industry.
Increasingly sport entities are embracing an experience-centric view of
innovation that results in co-creation. In the service dominant approach,
entities take an active role in co-creating value. Therefore, to meet the
needs of consumers, business and government in times of the COVID-19
pandemic, sport organisations are increasingly focusing on how they can
co-create value through entrepreneurship.
Assiouras, Skourtis, Giannopoulos, Buhalis, and Koniordos (2019)
define value co-creation as “the actions of multiple actors, who are often
unaware of each other, that contribute to each others well being”. This
means that value needs to be understood based on its context (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016). The co-production of value occurs when entities share
information and become involved in the decisions (Chan et al., 2010).
Co-creation typically involves three main processes of knowledge
sharing, equity and interaction (Ranjan & Read, 2016). Sharing means
making suggestions and ideas known to others, which helps to bring
ideas to the forefront and promotes innovation. Sharing knowledge is a
way to interact with others and invokes a sense of community. Equity
involves sharing the decision making process in terms of making it more
inclusive. This enables the exchanging of ideas in an open forum.
Interaction involves others engaging in conversations about innovation.
This can help create a dialog that evolves based on the input of others in
the sport industry.
Value is a dynamic concept that emerges when consumers experi­
ence a certain context. This means a consumer’s own experience in a
situation will influence their perception of value. Ranjan and Read
(2016) suggest that value is based on experiences, relationships and
personalization. Experience means the affective liking or disliking of an
event. This shapes an individual’s cognition about a product or service.
Personalisation means shaping the value based on individual need.
Value co-creation is complex in the sport context due to the involvement
of different environmental affects. This means value co-creation exists in
a number of ways in sport from the spectator, fan, consumer, player and
company perspective.
Sport is a growing source of experience through which individuals
construct their own narrative and create value (Jones, Jones, Williams-
Burnett & Ratten, 2017). Increasingly sport entities are included as
partners in the process of designing a sport product, through feedback
mechanisms. This means that the co-creation experience in a sport
context can lead to entrepreneurship occurring. Thus, the context of the
co-creation experience is an important determinant of the type of value
co-creation that will occur. Binkhorst & Dekker (2009:315) describes
this as “the co-creation experience, results from the interaction of an
individual at a specific place and time and within the context of a spe­
cific act”. Other research by Buhalis and Sinarta (2019) suggest that co-
creation is increasingly being conducted in real time due to technolog­
ical advances. This is due to sport consumers and businesses wanting
their needs to be acknowledged. The COVID-19 pandemic is an unex­
pected event that requires real-time innovation. This means sport con­
sumers expect sport entities to create for them value in times of crisis.
The next section will discuss in more detail the methodology used to
understand the process of value co-creation in sport entrepreneurship.
3. Methodology
In order to answer the research question, an interpretative qualita­
tive methodology was used. We conducted qualitative expert interviews
V. Ratten et al. Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274

in order to answer and understand our research question (Graebner The interviews took place via Skype or Zoom and consisted of sub­
et al., 2012). Qualitative research approaches are useful in under­ sequent calls to clarify issues. Table 1 provides an overview of the
standing emergent processes (Neergaard & Ulhøi, 2007). Whilst interview respondents. Most interviews were recorded except for par­
research on sport entrepreneurship and crisis management exists, as ticipants who requested not to due to privacy concerns (Corbin &
seen in the literature review, its linkage in a COVID-19 situation is still Strauss, 2014). Therefore, notes were also taken during the interview in
new (Ratten, 2020a). This means a qualitative methodology is helpful in order to record key points (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The interviews
extending existing theory to a new context (Bansal & Corley, 2012). We were conducted by the authors of the paper who were familiar with the
utilised sport entrepreneurship as the existing theoretical lens in order to sport industry and COVID-19 context. This enabled sensitivity about
understand new processes. This enabled a process of theory elaboration certain topics to be considered when conducting the interviews (Doz,
in order to extend existing knowledge (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). 2011).
Employing a qualitative interview approach enabled us to capture the
sport manager’s subject experiences during COVID-19 (Gioia et al.,
3.3. Data collection
2013). As a subjective approach was utilised we searched for specific
reasons rather than ad-hoc reactions to the COVID-19 crisis (Miles et al.,
To ensure commonality in the questions asked, an interview protocol
2014). The interviews enabled real time information to be captured that
was used (Doz, 2011). This helped make sure each participant was asked
provided a rich understanding about the research phenomenon (Eisen­
the same questions about the sport entrepreneurship ecosystems value
hardt, 1989). Sport managers were considered suitable for this study as
co-creation and crisis management. The interview schedule consisted of
they have the necessary knowledge of the topic under investigation.
the three broad areas of entrepreneurial development including the
Semi-structured interviews were utilised as they provide a flexible way
context through the formation and management of an ecosystem envi­
of ordering the questions (Kirk et al., 1986). Given the exploratory na­
ronment, the process of value co-creation and the impact of the COVID-
ture of the study, both a deductive and inductive approach was utilised
19 pandemic on sport entrepreneurship. The interviews followed a
(Corbin & Strauss, 2014). This enabled the sport entrepreneurship
narrative approach enabling participants to tell their stories (Eisenhardt
theoretical framework to be utilised but also the opinions of the in­
& Graebner, 2007). This enabled more in-depth information to emerge
terviewees to be considered (Guest et al., 2006). Thereby the in­
about what was happening due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Moreover,
terviewees enabled adjustments and changes to be recorded (Boddy,
by focusing on personal experiences it enabled a historical perspective to
2016). This allowed for a better understanding about the participants
emerge (Graebner, Martin & Roundy, 2012). Participants were
experiences during a time of crisis and how this influenced sport
encouraged to discuss sport entrepreneurship and value co-creation in
entrepreneurship. Moreover, by taking into account the participants
detail. This enabled a process of sensemaking to occur in terms of
sense of experience, it prioritizes the context and how this changed
explaining individual circumstances. This generated data about experi­
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This will enable the social and
ences that could be compared to others (Kirk, Miller & Miller, 1986).
business realities of sport entrepreneurs to be understood in terms of
The role of the sport industry in the COVID-19 pandemic was an issue
how they used entrepreneurship to cope with change (Ratten, 2020c).
stressed. This made the participant guide the listener to delve deeper
into certain issues. The impact of the COVID-19 on the sport industry
3.1. Empirical setting
and the participants perceptions of its effects was discussed. In order to
ensure validity of the findings, Leitch, Hill, and Harrison (2010),
The sport industry is known for its entrepreneurship and ability to
adjust to new market conditions (Ratten, 2018). However, previous
Table 1
crises have tended to be financial and political events rather than health
provides an overview of the respondents.
related (Kraus et al., 2020). This means the sport industry represents a
good context to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced Interviewee Location Foundation Size of Profit/ Length of
number year sport club non- interview
business. As entrepreneurship activities are growing in sport it provides
(number of profit (minutes)
a unique way to assess the competencies of business in times of a crisis employees)
(Ratten, 2020a). Currently, there is limited research on sport entrepre­
1 Melbourne 1972 45 Profit 28
neurs in pandemics so this study contributes to the advancement of the 2 Melbourne 1980 12 Non- 52
literature. Therefore, the sport industry is an ideal setting in which to profit
explore the potential of entrepreneurship at times of crisis. 3 Melbourne 2005 57 Non- 44
profit
4 Melbourne 2000 22 Non- 50
3.2. Sample characteristics profit
5 Adelaide 2010 50 Profit 22
A theoretical sampling strategy was adopted in order to focus on how 6 Melbourne 2005 75 Profit 30
sport entrepreneurs adjusted to the new conditions caused by COVID-19 7 Sydney 2018 25 Profit 42
8 Sydney 1970 8 Non- 40
(Ratten, 2019). The focus is on theoretical development of the sport
profit
entrepreneurship literature as opposed to generalizability to other in­ 9 Melbourne 1985 31 Profit 30
dustries. The sampling method followed a purposive sampling approach 10 Melbourne 1970 10 Profit 41
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). As the present study involved a homoge­ 11 Melbourne 2000 7 Profit 30
nous population (Saunders & Townsend, 2018) twenty interviews were 12 Melbourne 2007 10 Profit 22
13 Melbourne 2000 7 Profit 20
considered appropriate. The interviews lasted between 20 and 52 min 14 Sydney 2010 22 Profit 42
and were conducted in English. The interviews took place from March 15 Melbourne 2015 20 Profit 52
2020 to July 2020. To identify participants a snowball sampling 16 Melbourne 1990 41 Profit 45
approach was used to identify sport managers. Care was taken to 17 Brisbane 1995 30 Non- 40
profit
incorporate different types of entrepreneurs including profit and non-
Non-
profit. In order to qualify as a participant, individuals needed to have profit
founded their own business and be the key decision maker. There is 18 Melbourne 2000 7 Profit 27
some heterogeneity in terms of the types of sport businesses with some 19 Brisbane 1993 12 Profit 30
product-based whilst others being technology focused. This is reflected 20 Melbourne 1980 32 Non- 20
profit
in the variety of enterprises related to sport in the global economy.

268
V. Ratten et al. Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274

McAdam, Crowley, and Harrison (2020) suggestions regarding inter­ This involved a process of open coding then the formation of tree nodes
pretivist research in entrepreneurship were followed. Table 2 below to show interrelationships (Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006). This
states the interview protocol that was adhered to. enabled theoretical categories then aggregate theoretical dimensions to
In order to make the research design more transparent, there is a emerge, which are shown in table 3. This involved an iterative ongoing
traceable chain of evidence that details each step of the methodology process through which feedback helped improve understanding about
(Kirk et al., 1986). This enables other researchers to assess the reliability the data (Locke, 1996). Thereby the process-oriented way the data was
of the research design and replicate it if needed in future studies (Leitch, examined took an analytic approach (McAdam et al., 2020). The
Hill & Harrison, 2010). In addition, in order to ensure quality of the important themes emerging from the data were then analysed in light of
research design process, the theory was linked to the interview protocol the COVID-19 crisis and how this has affected the sport industry
in order to ensure consistency (Locke, 1996). This enabled the data to developed more of an entrepreneurial mindset (Ratten, 2020a). This
better reflect an understanding of the linkages between key concepts and involved storytelling and narratives to be used as a way of under­
the context of the sport industry (Ratten, 2018). standing experiences. Furthermore, triangulation was used to supple­
ment existing findings with other existing information sources such as
reports and websites (Graebner et al., 2012). This enabled follow up
3.4. Data analysis
discussions to occur that corroborated the interpretations of the data
(Morse, 1991). Table 3 states the way the data was structured and
The data was analysed by firstly developing a detailed understanding
analysed.
about the experience of each sport entrepreneur then comparing their
experience to others (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014). This enabled
4. Findings
similar or conflicting experiences to bet better understood (Kirk et al.,
1986). This process utilised the technique proposed by McAdam et al.
The findings are now presented in terms of the aggregate theoretical
(2020) in their qualitative study of women entrepreneurs. In order to
dimensions (value co-creation, crisis management and sport entrepre­
improve the likelihood of reliable theory development a comparative
neurship ecosystems). This enables each of the theoretical categories to
approach was used. To do this the steps suggested by Eisenhardt (1989)
be discussed in detail in terms of providing illustrative quotes. Quotes
to ensure validity were used. This involved utilizing a sequential coding
provide a good way to show the emotions and details of a story. This
process that focuses on analysing the data in iterative steps. By aggre­
helps explain the narrative and provide insightful evidence (Pratt,
gating theoretical categories then dimensions it provided a better un­
2009). In entrepreneurship studies using qualitative data quotes are
derstanding of what the participants were saying. To do this, initial
advocated as a way to represent data (McAdam et al., 2020).
provisional categories were used to focus on broad topics emerging from
the data. This enabled key ideas to be grouped together under provi­
sional topics. The approach suggested by Strausss and Corbin (1990) 4.1. Value co-creation
was utilised in order to identify ways the topics related to each other.
4.1.1. Collaborative idea identification
The sport context played a significant role in the way collaboration
Table 2
Interview protocol.
occurred. This is evident with interviewee 15 stating “the sport industry
is known for its collaborative orientation to most endeavours due to the
Business background
interest in sport but also to make the sport industry better”. The social
What other business experience do you have?
How many other businesses have you started and to what extent has been your networks and activities in sport provided a source of collaboration. As a
involvement? result of the focus on the sport context it was event that the sport context
How long have you been involved in the sport industry? provided a way for entrepreneurs to generate new market opportunities
How many years has the business been in operation? (Jones, Ratten & Hayduk, 2020). The sport entrepreneurs drew on their
What funding sources were needed?
Do you sell online and if so what are your main markets?
experiences in the sport industry to access social networks in order to
What future ideas do you have for the business? develop business ideas. This meant the identification of ideas was
dependent on the sport entrepreneurs’ linkage to others within the
The sport industry ecosystem
What kind of connections do you use in the sport industry to help the business?
What types of sport are your main market? Table 3
How do the institutions and government agencies in sport influence the business? Data structure and analysis categories.
What kind of networking in the sport industry are you involved in?
Do you use social media to connect with other sport entities? Provisional categories Theoretical Aggregate theoretical
What challenges or opportunities are there in the sport industry? (eg trust, solidarity, categories dimensions
mutual respect, common customers, developing network capabilities) Comments about the value co- Value co-creation
creation process in terms of Collaborative idea
Crisis challenges identifying ways to identification
What key challenges have you faced during the COVID-19 crisis? collaborate, communicate Co-creation
How have other sport entities helped create value during the crisis? ideas and be involved in joint opportunities
How have you maintained or changed your business operations? projects
Please discuss key events that have occurred during the crisis and how you managed
these challenges in terms of being part of the sport ecosystem. Comments about the crisis in Crisis management
terms of changing trends and
Entrepreneurial ecosystems and value co-creation
opportunities to identify new Crisis
How do others in the sport ecosystem connect?
market needs and developing development
How entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial are entities in the sport industry?
business activity. techniques
How supportive are other sport entities?
Crisis and
Does being involved in sport differ to other industry segments?
business Sport entrepreneurship
What kind of entrepreneurial expectations are there in the sport industry?
Comments about the sport and entrepreneurial
How do sport entities create value?
industry and being an ecosystems
Reflection entrepreneur, navigating
Is there anything else you would like to discuss about entrepreneurship in sport, the regulatory frameworks, Relationship
crisis or value co-creation? instigating change in sport and management
What advice would you give others about handling a crisis and being part of the sport inspiring others Interwoven
industry? relationships

269
V. Ratten et al.
industry. For example, interviewee 2 developed a new sport app as a
response to the lack of information about playing conditions. They said
“to develop the app we needed input from others in the industry. This
included working with athletes, players and clubs to see where they are
playing. We wanted to develop something new, that was not done before
so we asked others what they have and are currently doing with regards
to their specific sport”. Many of the participants discussed how the sport
industry was naturally collaborative due to the high level of public/
private partnerships. This was evident in participants discussing the
need to work with others particularly local councils to access sport fields
and other public facilities. As interviewee 10 said “we need to work with
others to gain access to facilities. We do not operate in a vacuum. We
need help and the use of the specific environments in order to survive”.
This collaborative sentiment is echoed in the sport entrepreneurship
literature that highlights the uniqueness of sport. This means unlike
other industries in the sport industry much of the entrepreneurship is
based on collaboration between different entities (Ratten, 2018). This
means that any kind of sport venture will normally involve different
kinds of participants depending on the type of business (Escamilla-
Fajardo, Núñez-Pomar, & Gómez-Tafalla, 2020). As there is a high level
of amateur and community sport clubs, the non-profit or social sector
needs to be considered in sport entrepreneurship. This means collabo­
ration does not always occur for profit reasons but also non-profit mo­
tives. Thus, the sport context clearly provides the collaborative
environment that can lead to business ideas circulating. This underlies
the importance of a collaborative approach that premises interactivity
and feedback amongst participants during times of crisis (Sheth, 2020).
Collaboration refers to the importance of including multiple sport
stakeholders depending on the business context that can be used to
understand the entrepreneurial possibilities that will arise (Ratten,
2019).
4.2. Co-creation opportunities
Co-creation was a key characteristic of all the sport enterprises dis­
cussed by the interviewees. Sport entrepreneurs utilise co-creation as a
way to obtain feedback during the entrepreneurship process (Ratten,
2019). Sport enterprises are not tied to just one person but rather require
the input of others. This is inline with the general sentiment of the sport
entrepreneurship literature that emphasises collaboration amongst
profit and non-profit entities. Sport enterprises depending on their level
of intellectual property normally flourish from the input of consumers
and fans (Ratten, 2011). This is particularly evident in times of crisis that
requires the interaction with others. As interviewee 1 remarked, “we
could not do this without the feedback. We need the advice of others
particularly professional athletes to test and then provide suggestions.
This enables improved services to be developed that lead to better
performance outcome”. The co-creation process enables others to come
out of their comfort zone by providing useful suggestions. This means
that co-creation can be used as a way to contextualise business oppor­
tunities. As the COVID-19 situation restricts movement, there seemed to
be more willingness of others to engage in joint projects. This was due to
others having more time to focus on new projects. Co-creation through
sport entrepreneurship offers significant potential to players and clubs
particularly in times of downtimes (Ratten & Babiak, 2010).
4.3. Crisis management
4.3.1. Crisis development techniques
Sport entrepreneurs by definition are skilled at adapting to change by
seeing business opportunities (Ratten, 2011). This means that in times of
a crisis they should be able to pivot in order to concentrate on emerging
business issues (Kraus et al., 2020). Many of the sport entrepreneurs
viewed the crisis as a way to focus on new business ventures. That does
not mean though that the crisis was viewed from a purely positive
perspective as many of the interviewees indicated there were associated
270
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
hardship issues. This is reflected in this statement by interviewee 11
saying “I love business but this current crisis is hard to handle. There is
so much uncertainty associated with it that is hard to predict. I do not
know what will happen in the future so it is important to consider
alternative points of view and think about how we can all help each
other in this crisis”. Crises are valued by entrepreneurs as a source of
inspiration for change (Ratten, 2020a). This means sport entrepreneurs
can benefit from a crisis by developing techniques to identify business
opportunities (Ratten, 2018). To do this, interviewee 8 discussed how
the sport industry constantly evolves and this provides a way to handle
the crisis. They stated “the sport industry continues to change and this
crisis is no different to other types of change. However, the social
distancing and closure of sport services has really changed how we
connect with others”.
Many of the interviewees chose to focus on the digital technology in
sport that can be used during the crisis. Interviewee 5 said “more digital
technology is needed now. Less physical presence and more electronic
gaming. I am developing my business ideas around digital technology.
Because I need to stay at home and the gym is closed I have tried to
introduce new digital content to connect with my customers”. This
meant the general consensus amongst the respondents was that the sport
industry was mutually suited to developing business opportunities based
on crisis. This is in line with the idea that sport entrepreneurship is well
suited to changing environmental conditions. Interviewee 11 said that
“the sport industry is inherently competitive and well suited to change.
COVID-19 has really impacted us in a way never seen before. We have
had to rethink everything we took for granted and to find new market
solutions”.
4.4. Crisis and business
The findings indicated a mixed response from the sport entrepre­
neurs about whether the crisis was good for business. The central debate
within the discussions was dependent on the type of business that the
sport entrepreneur was involved with. Accordingly, we demonstrate that
generally a crisis presents opportunities and challenges for any type of
entrepreneur but due to the current crisis being health related it affects
the sport industry differently. As Interviewee 7 said, “the whole sport
industry has shut down. Sports cannot be played. No physical group
activity is allowed. This is a major crisis for the sport industry. We do not
know what will happen and whether we will survive. It is unthinkable
that sport clubs have had to close. Never before have we had to do this”.
This means the playing of group sport is curtailed in the crisis whilst only
outdoor individual sports are allowed. This significantly curtails the
sport industry although there are business opportunities in other areas.
Interviewee 12 suggested that “the leisure wear industry was gaining
from the current restrictions. More people are wearing comfy sports
clothes at home although they cannot play sport. The leisure wear or
track suit pants market is a new market we are looking into”. Thus, sport
entrepreneurship research can be advanced through greater consider­
ation about the type of crisis and impact on business.
4.5. Sport entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems
4.5.1. Relationship management
The findings demonstrate that relationships matter in times of crisis
in terms of developing sport entrepreneurship. During times of uncer­
tainty, sport entrepreneurs must directly engage with their stakeholders
in terms of pursuing innovation. By engaging with others, the sport
entrepreneurs are advancing their business ideas. In a crisis, action is
required otherwise the situation will escalate. This means dithering and
indecision can result in the crisis worsening (Kirk & Rifkin, 2020). As
Interviewee 2 explains “most sport clubs are in the same situation.
Wanting to play games but not able to due to the COVID-19 situation.
This has meant they have had to be creative in developing alternatives.
We have partnered with some government agencies and local
V. Ratten et al.
government entities in order to try and make new sport content whilst
people are at home”. Creativity seems to be a common way sport en­
terprises are adapting to the crisis. To do this more clubs, athletes and
players are utilising their relationships to pursue new business ventures.
Hence, in navigating the crisis, sport entrepreneurs are becoming agents
of change. A key strategy used by sport entities is entrepreneurship in
order to utilise creativity in times of hardship. As explained by Inter­
viewee 3 “I realized that we needed to think about what others are
needing as well as us during this time of crisis. Group sport cannot be
played but we can do online group activities. This makes it important to
stay engaged with others anyway we can. By providing online content
we still connect with others”. Our findings support the view that sport
entrepreneurship occurs as a result of various entities combining their
efforts. This means an ecosystem focused on sport entrepreneurship
develops as a means to realise new opportunities (Ratten, 2019). This is
reflected in the following statement “sport clubs and athletes function on
the basis of others. Nothing is done alone but is rather the result of others
becoming involved in the process. We need others to survive. Helping
and supporting others especially during COVID-19 is really part of the
sport industry”. Therefore, one of the greatest benefits of entrepre­
neurship engagement is the existence of a platform for sport activities.
This enables sport entities to interact with each other within their
particular sport or geographic region. This is encapsulated in the
following statement by Interviewee 11 “there is a sport community that
functions on the basis of interaction. This enables communication and
engagement about entrepreneurship. The community is linked by our
love of sport but also the social sentiment existing in terms of helping
others in times of need”.
4.6. Interwoven relationships
The findings indicate that the sport industry has many interwoven
relationships that make it a fertile ground for entrepreneurship. This
means relationships are crucial for sport entrepreneurship as they enable
new ideas to gain traction in the marketplace. Although all of the in­
terviewees were part of the sport industry, the way they utilised re­
lationships differed. This meant managing various relationships was
necessary in order to validate their decision to be a sport entrepreneur.
As Interviewee 2 said “I have contacts in the sport industry from my
previous experiences as an athlete and coach that have helped me in this
new business”. Therefore, the success of sport entrepreneurs came from
networking, which was viewed as a critical activity. This validates the
need for an entrepreneurial ecosystem to exist in the sport industry that
is based on interconnectivity. Interviewee 12 said “I utilised my contacts
in sport to find retailers and others that would take my product. This
made it easier to enter the industry”. The real benefit of networking was
in mutual support provided by others in the sport industry. As inter­
viewee 4 suggested “my friends and colleagues drive me to be entre­
preneurial. They act as a sounding board and source of support”.
5. Discussion
Based on the research findings, we argue that the potential of sport
entrepreneurship is dependent on the contextual situation with events
like crises influencing participation rates. In the COVID-19 context,
there are numerous constraints faced by sport entities that can lead to
new busines opportunities being found. Specifically, we highlight how
sport entrepreneurial ecosystems can enable value co-creation in times
of crises (Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011). This means the restrictive
economic and social conditions can lead to new entrepreneurial op­
portunities. In this study, we respond to Ratten’s (2019) call for more
empirical studies on sport entrepreneurship that focus on new contexts.
The COVID-19 crisis is a new context previously not studied in a sport
entrepreneurship setting. This study has focused on understanding how
collaboration between entities regarding sport projects can produce
entrepreneurial affordances.
271
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
The enactment of sport entrepreneurial opportunities is the result of
new conditions existing in the marketplace. Hemme et al. (2017) writing
on sport entrepreneurship argues that the sport industry produces new
types of entrepreneurship. This is significant for sport entrepreneurs
who can utilise evolving market conditions based on political, cultural
and social needs. In this study, the sport context was shown to be
conducive to entrepreneurship. This supports the call for more industry
focused studies of entrepreneurship that focus on sport (Ratten, 2018).
The sport entrepreneurs in the study drew on their risk-taking nature by
pursuing new opportunities. As sport entities in the COVID-19 era faced
significant change, an entrepreneurial orientation was needed. This
research highlights how sport entities are best positioned to understand
how to evolve based on the COVID-19 crisis (Parnell, Widdop, Bond, &
Wilson, 2020). The sport entrepreneurs enable market disruption by
adjusting how activities are carried out. This is needed during times of
crisis as new conditions meant that industry was significantly affected
(Liu, Shankar & Yun, 2017). Online activities were seen as particularly
useful for entrepreneurs as they provided new market categories. In fact,
digital technologies increased significantly during the crisis with most
sport clubs unable to operate as normal. This meant interacting in a new
online condition allowed sport entities to overcome social distancing
requirements. Moreover, hygiene requirements meant that online rather
than physical activity was preferred. This consequently meant more
interactivity in the sport ecosystem environment that led to value co-
creation (Ratten, 2011).
Our study complements prior research on sport entrepreneurship
that emphasises the need for an ecosystem environment (Ratten, 2019).
Calabuig-Moreno, Gonzalez-Serrano, Alonso-Dos-Santos, Gómez-Tafalla
(2020) suggests that knowledge spillovers amongst sport entities are
needed to foster an entrepreneurial ecosystem. More specifically, Bjar­
sholm (2017) finds that sport entrepreneurs emphasise collaboration
relative to other entrepreneurs particularly those taking a social or non-
profit form. Our findings extrapolate the need for collaboration by
suggesting that value co-creation is the objective of any sport enterprise
participating in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Whilst much research
exists on entrepreneurial ecosystems, there are few studies focused on
the sport context (Ratten, 2019). Therefore, this study has added to the
literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems by taking a sport industry
focus. In addition, much of the literature on value co-creation takes a
service dominant logic approach and does not consider the sport context
so this study has helped to fill a gap. Entrepreneurs in sport are likely to
need to collaborate with government and on-profit entities if they
choose to develop new business.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Our study is the first empirical work linking sport entrepreneurship
to entrepreneurial ecosystems in the context of COVID-19. The findings
contribute to current literature in the following ways.
5.1.1. Sport entrepreneurship
The findings of this study has shown that sport entrepreneurship is
needed during the COVID-19 crisis given its ability to deal with uncer­
tainty and change. Our study supports the findings of Hammerschmidt
et al. (2020) who found that sport entrepreneurship in football clubs is
needed during the COVID-19 crisis. The sport managers interviewed
viewed entrepreneurship as being particularly relevant in times of crisis
as it enables proactive and innovative thinking to occur (Ratten, 2020a).
The interviewees acknowledged that taking a co-creation approach to
sport entrepreneurship is needed in times of crisis. This complements
research by Ratten (2019) who found that sport entrepreneurial eco­
systems function based on the knowledge spilled over from collaborative
activities. This study goes further by highlighting the need for collabo­
ration to link to value co-creation in the form of crisis management. Our
findings further emphasise how sport managers are frequently affected
by unexpected events (Steinbrink et al., 2020). This lets us to conclude
V. Ratten et al.
that they are aware that the entrepreneurial emphasis in sport activities
is needed in order to deal with environmental uncertainty (Jones et al.,
2020).
Theoretically, this paper adds to the fields on sport entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial ecosystems and crisis management. Much of the litera­
ture on these areas is still in a nascent stage so linking these disparate
areas helps to build new theory. The network process amongst sport
entrepreneurs is critical in entrepreneurial ecosystems with an unde­
veloped network (Ratten, 2020a). The analysis contributes to a network
view of sport entrepreneurial ecosystems that function based on viability
of networks. This helps to explain why sport entrepreneurial ecosystems
need crucial connections particularly with policy makers whilst others
do not. In addition, the process of forming and maintaining networks
that were described in this paper such as those between the sport
entrepreneur and technology providers, between sport companies and
athletes; and between sport entrepreneurs and government officials. By
forming these networks, sport entrepreneurs are required to adapt to the
context and the current market conditions that are occurring in times of
crisis.
5.1.2. Entrepreneurial ecosystems
Based on the findings it can be concluded that entrepreneurial eco­
systems are necessary in times of crisis for the sport industry. This
finding supports Calabuig-Moreno et al. (2020) who found that entre­
preneurial ecosystems are naturally embedded in the sport sector. The
findings point out that it is advisable for sport firms to choose partners
that complement their goals. This means focusing on value co-creation
activities that can be activated in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Since
entrepreneurship is important in the sport industry for competitive
reasons (Hemme et al., 2017), in times of crisis our findings suggest that
the ecosystem environment becomes more important. Thus, sport firms
should not only focus on entrepreneurship in normal environmental
circumstances but emphasise entrepreneurship in times of crisis. In
addition, our results show that sport firms in the COVID-19 crisis
benefitted from partnering with other firms in value co-creation activ­
ities. However, the COVID-19 crisis has caused significant social and
economic consequences for the sport industry that differ to other in­
dustries (Ratten, 2020a). This is due to the close physical contact
required for many sport activities that makes social distancing difficult
in the COVID-19 environment. Many of the interviewees reported that
they expected to rely on their relationships in times of crisis. Some in­
terviewees felt a strong social bond with other entities in their ecosystem
due to their common bond. Hence, our findings support previous
research (Escamilla-Fajardo et al., 2018) that the level of entrepre­
neurial orientation in the sport industry is based on collaboration needs.
To overcome perceptions of network problems in an entrepreneurial
ecosystem in order to facilitate knowledge transfer there should be more
focus on value co-creation. The most effective support mechanisms for
value co-creation is knowledge and learning about its benefit. This
means that value creation is a systemic process that occurs in a well
functioning ecosystem. All stakeholders in an ecosystem can benefit
from supportive mechanisms especially as network intermediaries.
5.1.3. Value co-creation
The findings indicate that creating value is crucial in the sport in­
dustry but especially in times of crisis. This means there is potential for
more value co-creation occurring during crisis times or periods of
environmental uncertainty. Value co-creation activities such as capi­
talising on new opportunities due to the COVID-19 crisis are important.
The interviewees expressed the view that a combination of sport
entrepreneurship and value co-creation was required in times of crisis.
Recent literature has emphasised the link between sport entrepreneur­
ship and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Ratten, 2019; Calabuig-Moreno
et al., 2020) but this study has added a crisis and value co-creation
perspective. The findings have shown that sport entrepreneurship
potentially works differently in crisis times based on the success of an
272
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
entrepreneurial ecosystem. This supports the idea for value co-creation
to be the main objective of sport firms involved in COVID-19 related
entrepreneurship.
The analysis also found that value co-creation requires some
brokerage amongst participants. The process of value co-creation drives
the success of a sport entrepreneurial ecosystem which serves as a
beneficial infrastructure for future business ventures. This means there
needs to be network ties amongst stakeholders in the sport ecosystem in
order to create value. This finding support claims about the importance
of shared trust and cultural conditions existing in sport. When facili­
tating a beneficial exchange, sport entrepreneurs are more likely to
broker relationships between other entrepreneurs and sport firms
(Ratten, 2020a). Sport entrepreneurs that benefited from this exchange
are furthermore likely to reproduce the facilitating actions for value co-
creation. However, evaluating value is difficult due to the need for
cultural conditions amongst a strong network.
5.2. Practical implications
Sport entrepreneurs themselves have a good reason to engage in
ecosystem building. The fostering of network connections amongst sport
entrepreneurs is beneficial to an ecosystem as it adds to value co-
creation. Information dissemination is the most effective support
mechanism for building a network amongst sport entrepreneurs. This
can be done relatively cheaply through networking events that facilitate
social connections. By facilitating meetings and discussion between
stakeholders in an ecosystem it can lead to effective networking. Hold­
ing regular events and gatherings is a way for sport entrepreneurs to
meet others. Sport events are increasingly being designed for this pur­
pose and help sparks connections in the ecosystem. Often these events
are open to everyone and provide an easy way to connect. In addition,
online forums about sport entrepreneurship brings people together
regardless of location.
Other ways to strengthen the network amongst sport entrepreneurs is
to actively engage in social media. Increasingly social media is becoming
the norm for posting information about events. From a network
perspective, social media can be beneficial as a way to directly engage
with others. To build ties with others can be a time consuming process so
social media can help facilitate the development of connections. Social
networks enable opportunities to learn about sport entrepreneurship.
This contributes to overcoming weak network problems by encouraging
a community of practice to emerge. Having a sense of belonging
amongst sport entrepreneurs is important and can lead to peer learning
or mentoring. Therefore, participating in social media and online com­
munities is useful.
6. Conclusion
Since academic research on sport entrepreneurship and COVID-19 is
still emerging and limited, this study seeks to advance our understand­
ing of how the COVID-19 crisis has affected the sport industry through a
value co-creation perspective. The findings of the study reveal that
collaboration through finding co-creation opportunities is a common
strategy during times of crisis in the sport industry. Sport managers are
open-minded towards working with other sport organisations especially
in times of crisis. This means they proactively embrace collaboration and
focus on ways to co-create value. Entrepreneurial ecosystems facilitate
this collaboration as they foster connections and an entrepreneurial
spirit in the community. Thereby enabling cooperation in the form of
assistance in marketing activities, joint product development and
internationalisation to exist. Sport entrepreneurial ecosystems enable
both profit and non-profit entities to work together on sport projects.
Please refer to Fig. 1 for the main findings of the study graphically
represented.
This paper has some limitations, which give rise to future research
ideas. First, all the interviewees were located in the same geographical
V. Ratten et al.
Fig. 1. Study’s main findings.
area being Australia that limits the generalisability of the results. Due to
the nature of the study being exploratory and focusing on new topics of
inquiry, a single geographic area was used. This enables the acquisition
of more in-depth information that enabled a better understanding of
sport entrepreneurship. Thus, future research needs to replicate the
study in other geographical locations. This would enable a comparison
of sport entrepreneurial ecosystems based on cultural and societal
conditions.
Another limitation is the contextual nature of the sport industry. Due
to its competitive nature and rapid uptake of technological innovation,
the sport entrepreneurial ecosystem was studied. This means that there
might be some specific limitations that affect its generalisability to other
industries. This might not be a weakness as the focus on many in­
novations are on sport. However, it can be useful to compare other in­
dustry specific entrepreneurial ecosystems like tourism or education to
see if the same network processes exist.
Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the data means there is a limi­
tation in terms of the dynamics of the sport industry not being
addressed. This makes it important for future research to study in a
longitudinal way how sport entrepreneurial ecosystems change over
time. This would help to understand how crises like the COVID-19
pandemic have affected the development of an ecosystem. One could
argue that entrepreneurs regardless of their industry context are
receptive to crises due to their orientation being on finding new market
opportunities.
References
Alon, I., Farrell, M., & Li, S. (2020). ‘Regime type and COVID -19 response. FIIB Business
Review, 1(1), 1–9.
Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2019). Taming deep uncertainty: The potential of pragmatist
principles for understanding and improving strategic crisis management.
Administration & Society, 51(7), 1079–1112.
Assiouras, I., Skourtis, G., Giannopoulos, A., Buhalis, D., & Koniordos, M. (2019). Value
co-creation and customer citizenship behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 78(1),
102742–102742.
Babu, M. M., Dey, B. L., Rahman, M., Roy, S. K., Alwi, S. F. S., & Kamal, M. M. (2020).
Value co-creation through social innovation: A study of sustainable strategic alliance
in telecommunication and financial services sectors in Bangladesh. Industrial
Marketing Management, 89(1), 13–27.
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ—Part 7: What’s different about
qualitative research? Briarcliff Manor, NY: American Society of Nephrology.
Binkhorst, E., & Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research.
Journal of Hospitality, Marketing & Management, 18(1), 311–327.
Bjarsholm, D. (2017). Sport and social entrepreneurship: A review of a concept in
progress. Journal of Sport Management, 31(1), 191–206.
Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 19(4), 426–432.
273
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
Brinks, V., & Ibert, O. (2020). From Corona virus to corona crisis: The value of an
analytical and geographical understanding of crisis. Tijdschrift voor economische en
sociale geografie, 111(3), 275–287..
Brodie, R. J., Löbler, H., & Fehrer, J. A. (2019). Evolution of service-dominant logic:
Towards a paradigm and metatheory of the market and value co-creation? Industrial
Marketing Management, 79(1), 3–12.
Buhalis, D., & Sinarta, Y. (2019). Real-time co-creation and nowness service: Lessons
from tourism and hospitality. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(5), 563–582.
Calabuig-Moreno, F., Gonzalez-Serrano, M. H., Alonso-Dos-Santos, M., & Gómez-
Tafalla, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, knowledge spillovers, and their
embeddedness in the sport field: A bibliometric and content analysis. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 1–19.
Calabuig-Moreno, F., Gonzalez-Serrano, M. H., Alonso-Dos-Santos, M., & Gómez-
Tafalla, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, knowledge spillovers, and their
embeddedness in the sport field: a bibliometric and content analysis. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 19(1), 65–83.
Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K., & Lam, S. S. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a
doubleedged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures.
Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64.
Chesbrough, H. (2020). To recover faster from COVID-19, open up: Managerial
implications from an open innovation perspective. Industrial Marketing Management,
88(1), 410–413..
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative
inquiry (pp. 1–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Doern, R., Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2019). Special issue on entrepreneurship and
crises: Business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5–6), 400–412.
Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID -19 on business and research.
Journal of Business Research, 117(1), 284.–284.
Doz, Y. (2011). Qualitative research for international business. Journal of International
Business Studies, 42(5), 582–590.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research. New York:
Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities
and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Escamilla-Fajardo, P., Núñez Pomar, J. M., & Prado Gascó, V. J. (2018). Does the level of
competition influence the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and
service quality? Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 18(3), 1306–1315.
Escamilla-Fajardo, P., Núñez-Pomar, J. M., & Gómez-Tafalla, A. M. (2020). Exploring
environmental and entrepreneurial antecedents of social performance in Spanish
sports clubs: A symmetric and asymmetric approach. Sustainability, 12(10), 4234.
Escamilla-Fajardo, P., Nunez-Pomar, J., Calabuig-Moreno, F., & Gomez-Tafalla, A.
(2020). Effects of the COVID -19 pandemic on sports entrepreneurship. Sustainability,
12(20), 8493–8493.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in
inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research
Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
Graebner, M. E., Martin, J. A., & Roundy, P. T. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without
a recipe. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 276–284.
Grohs, R., Wieser, V., & Pristach, M. (2020). Value co-creation at sport events. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 20(1), 69–87.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
V. Ratten et al.
Hall, C. M., Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: Be
careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies, 1–22.
Hammerschmidt, J., Durst, S., Kraus, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2020). Professional football
clubs and empirical evidence from the COVID -19 crisis: Time for sport
entrepreneurship? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165(1),
120572–120572.
He, H., & Harris, L. (2020). The impact of COVID -19 pandemic on corporate social
responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of Business Research, 116, 176–182.
Hemme, F., Morais, D. G., Bowers, M. T., & Todd, J. S. (2017). Extending sport-based
entrepreneurship theory through phenomenological inquiry. Sport Management
Review, 20(1), 92–104.
Heyden, M., Wilden, R., & Wise, C. (2020). Navigating crisis from the backseat? How top
managers can support radical change initiatives by middle managers. Industrial
Marketing Management, 88, 305–313.
Jones, P., Jones, A., Williams-Burnett, N., & Ratten, V. (2017). Let’s get physical: Stories
of entrepreneurial activity from sports coaches/instructors. The International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(4), 219–230.
Jones, P., Ratten, V., & Hayduk, T. (2020). Sport, fitness, and lifestyle entrepreneurship.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–11.
Kirk, C. P., & Rifkin, L. S. (2020). I’ll trade you diamonds for toilet paper: Consumer
reacting, coping and adapting behaviors in the COVID -19 pandemic. Journal of
Business Research, 117(1), 124–131.
Kirk, J., Miller, M. L., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Korsgaard, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value
creation. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 135–151.
Kraus, S., Clauss, T., Breier, M., Gast, J., Zardini, A., & Tiberius, V. (2020). The
economics of COVID -19: initial empirical evidence on how family firms in five
European countries cope with the corona crisis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 1067–1092.
Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A., &
Berger, E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID -19
pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13(1). e00169–e00169.
Leitch, C., Hill, F., & Harrison, R. (2010). The philosophy and practice of interpretivist
research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation and trust. Organizational Research
Methods, 13(1), 67–84.
Liu, Y., Shankar, V., & Yun, W. (2017). Crisis management strategies and the long-term
effects of product recalls on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 81(September), 30–48.
Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of
Management Inquiry, 5(3), 239–245.
McAdam, M., Crowley, C., & Harrison, R. (2020). Digital girl: Cyberfeminism and the
emancipatory potential of digital entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Small
Business Economics, 55(1), 349–362.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological
triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123.
Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in
entrepreneurship. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Parnell, D., Widdop, P., Bond, A., & Wilson, R. (2020). COVID -19, networks and sport.
Managing Sport and Leisure, 0(0), 1–7.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing co-creation of value. Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96.
Pellegrini, M. M., Rialti, R., Marzi, G., & Caputo, A. (2020). Sport entrepreneurship: A
synthesis of existing literature and future perspectives. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 1–32.
Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation
in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business
Research, 69(10), 4033–4041.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 12–18.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing)
qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. J. (2010). The power of co-creation: Build it with them to
boost growth, productivity, and profits. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290–315.
Ratten, V. (2011). Sport-based entrepreneurship: Towards a new theory of
entrepreneurship and sport management. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 7(1), 57–69.
274
Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 265–274
Ratten, V. (2012). Guest editor’s introduction: Sports entrepreneurship: Towards a
conceptualisation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 4(1), 1–17.
Ratten, V. (2018). Sport entrepreneurship: Developing and sustaining an entrepreneurial sports
culture. Heidelberg: Springer.
Ratten, V. (2019). Sport entrepreneurial ecosystems and knowledge spillovers. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 1–10.
Ratten, V. (2020a). Coronavirus (COVID -19) and entrepreneurship: Changing life and
work landscape. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32(5), 503–516.
Ratten, V. (2020b). Coronavirus disease (COVID -19) and sport entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 26(6), 1379–1388.
Ratten, V. (2020c). Coronavirus (COVID -19) and social value creation. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1–10.
Ratten, V., & Babiak, K. (2010). The role of social responsibility, philanthropy and
entrepreneurship in the sport industry. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(4),
482–487.
Ryu, M. H. (2018). The value co-creation strategy for telecommunication carriers:
Focusing on the assessment of potential strategic alliance partners. Procedia
Computer Science, 139, 338–346.
Saunders, M. N. K. & Townsend, K. (2018). Choosing participants. In: C. Cassell, A.
Cunliffe, G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and
management research methods: history and traditions. (pp. 480–392), SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Steinbrink, K. M., Berger, E. S., & Kuckertz, A. (2020). Top athletes’ psychological
characteristics and their potential for entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 16(3), 859–878.
Sheth, J. (2020). Business of business is more than business: Managing during the COVID
crisis. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 261–264.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor
engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research,
69(8), 3008–3017.
Strausss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. London: Sage.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of
service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of
cocreation and co-production embarking on the social innovation journey. Public
Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance
in an age of uncertainty (Vol. 8). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Wenzel, M., Stanske, S., & Lieberman, M. (2020). Strategic responses to crisis. Strategic
Management Journal, 41(1), v7–v18.
Windrum, P., Schartinger, D., Rubalcaba, L., Gallouj, F., & Toivonen, M. (2016). The
cocreation of multi-agent social innovations: A bridge between service and social
innovation Research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(2), 150–166.
Vanessa Ratten is Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at La Trobe
University in Melbourne, Australia. She is a recognised expert on entrepreneurship and
innovation with a specific focus on sport entrepreneurship and technology innovation. She
has authored a number of books, including Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Smart Cities
(2017), and Frugal Innovation (2019). In addition, she has edited more than 20 books,
including Knowledge Spillover-based Strategic Entrepreneurship (2017), Sport Entrepreneur­
ship and Innovation (2016) and Transformational Entrepreneurship (2018).
Vitor Braga is an Associate Professor at the School and Technology and Management at the
Porto Polytechnic and a researcher at CIICESI. He holds a PhD from Middlesex University
Business School on Business Cooperation. His research interests also include international
business and economic geography. He is the Director of the MSc in International Man­
agement and the Head of the Business Sciences Department.
Carla Susana Marques is an Associate Professor (with habilitation) at the University of
Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Portugal. She currently coordinates the Innovation,
Markets and Organization Research Group at the UTAD’s Centre for Transdisciplinary
Development Studies (CETRAD). Her research on innovation and entrepreneurship has
been presented at numerous international conferences and journals. Her research interests
include innovation, management of change and entrepreneurship.