Author
Listed:
- Hunter Fujak
- Carl Driesener
- David Shilbury
Abstract
Although niching has been well explored across the marketing, strategy, and consumer behaviour literature, its application in the sport context to date has been atheoretical, resulting in pervasive inconsistencies within the sport marketing literature. Such inconsistency has derived from sport scholarship’s adoption of anecdotal and subjective descriptions of “niche sports.” This shortcoming is addressed first through an analysis of extant niche literature, to articulate a conceptual framework to realign and guide future niche marketing sport research. This framework is underpinned by marketing’s empirical generalisations and Dirichlet modelling, offering a parsimonious methodology to identify niche brands. An analysis of Australian sport participation is then performed, to empirically test for the presence of niche sports utilising the advocated framework. Data was obtained from Australia’s large-scale national population tracking survey AusPlay, with a final sample of 70,858 respondents and included 124 discrete sport and recreational activities. The empirical analysis reveals several sports and recreation activities to exhibit characteristics of niche positioning: Crossfit, Mixed Martial Arts, Equestrian, and Walking. These activities feature a base of participants who exhibit an exceedingly high participation frequency, elevated rates of sole loyalty to the respective activity and a disposition for the chosen activity to fulfil a disproportionate share of their overall product category requirements. In practice, such niche sport brands require divergent marketing strategies focused upon product quality, maintaining customer relationships and reinforcing internal dynamic capabilities. The study concludes with a discussion of niche sport’s potential idiosyncratic features, to provide a roadmap for future research.
Suggested Citation
Hunter Fujak & Carl Driesener & David Shilbury, 2025.
"Empirically testing for niche sports,"
Sport Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 51-72, January.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rsmrxx:v:28:y:2025:i:1:p:51-72
DOI: 10.1080/14413523.2024.2395578
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsmrxx:v:28:y:2025:i:1:p:51-72. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rsmr .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.