Journal of Physical Education and Sport (JPES), 17(1), Art 37, pp. 248 253, 2017 [630417]

Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), 17(1), Art 37, pp. 248 – 253, 2017
online ISSN: 2247 – 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN – L = 2247 – 8051 © JPES

248 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
Corresponding Author JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE, E-mail: [anonimizat] Original Article

Influence of quality attributes on the general satisfaction of participants during a
European sporting event

LEONOR GALLARDO1; JOSÉ LUIS FELIPE2; JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE3; PABLO BURILLO4; ESTHER
UBAGO-GUISADO5; ÁLVARO FERNÁNDEZ-LUNA6; MERVE ALTUN7; JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-
SÁNCHEZ8; FERRAN CALABUIG9
1,2,3,4,5,6,8 IGOID Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, SPAIN
2,3,4,6,8 School of Sport Science, European University, SPAIN
3,7, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Middle East Technical University, TURKEY
4,9 Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte, Universitat de València, SPAIN

Published online: March 31, 2017
(Accepted for publication February 09, 2017)
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2017.01037

Abstract:
The aim of this study was to determine different dimensions of quality and to assess their influence on the
overall satisfaction of athletes during a European sporting event. In total, 828 participants from Italy, Spain,
Hungary, Cyprus, and Ireland participated in the study. An ad hoc self-administered questionnaire was used to
assess the perception of the influence of the quality of event on activities, specific materials, human resources,
sport practice area, general organization, and general satisfaction. A significant relationship was identified
between the nationality of participants and their perception of the quality of the event. The general event
organization was the factor with the highest influence on the satisfaction of participants, followed by the specific
materials.
Key Words: Satisfaction, perceived quality, health, habits, sport services, sporting event

Introduction
Sport practice has become a fundamental main stone in society, depending on its undeniable health
benefits (Blair & Morris, 2009; Friedenreich, Neilson, & Lynch, 2010; Wen, Wai, Tsai, Chan, & Wu, 2011), and
it is constantly evolving with the objective of satisfying the users’ needs, those who are more demanding in
physical activity (Calabuig, Burillo, Crespo, Mundina, & Gallardo, 2010).
However, physical activity has lots of benefits, the percentage of European citizens who usually make
exercise is 9%, and on the contrary 39% of population assert that they never practice physical activities
(European Comission, 2010). In this regard, physical inactivity has become one of the biggest problems for
public health. Warburton, Nicol and Bredin (2006) indicated that physical inactivity increased the risk of certain
chronic health problems; including obesity, osteoporosis, high blood pressure and depression. Furthermore these
problems lead an additional economic cost, due to the medical care, the workers’ compensation and productivity
lost (Chenoweth & Leutzinger, 2006). In the last years, physical activity practice seems to have reached a
standstill in many European countries (Spain, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, and Austria) and has begun to decline
in others, such as The Netherlands, Italy, and England (Van Bottenburg, 2005). A European Commission (2010)
report found that 60% of the European population does not do sports or does so rarely.
Therefore, many countries and professionals perform different strategies with the aim of increasing
sports participation to make better health, economic and social conditions (Crosnoe, 2002; Wang, Pratt, Macera,
Zheng, & Heath, 2004). Recently, the organization of sport events is becoming a vehicle to promote tourism and
city investment in which these events can be used as a powerful tool to establish, and develop image and
international promotion (Chalip & Costa, 2005; Task, Green, Misener, & Chalip, 2014; Parra, Añó, Ayora, &
Núñez-Pomar, 2012). Following Lera-López and Rapún-Gárate (2011), sports participations is mainly
constrained by economic, sociological and psychological variables. For these authors, the positive factors are
female, age, number of sporting activities and some motivational factors, while the negative determinants
include time availability. According to Ruseski, Humphreys, Hallmann and Breuer (2011), hours worked does
not affect participation confirming that physical activity is leisure time activity, so that the time allocated to
physical activity derives from the non-work hours. Time is also included in the neoclassical approach in relation
to sport as a major constraint in sport participation (Downward, 2007). In the family environment, Becker’s
theories suggest that distribution of activities among household members affects individual allocation of time
(Downward, 2004).

LEONOR GALLARDO; JOSÉ LUIS FELIPE; JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE; PABLO BURILLO; ESTHER UBAGO-
GUISADO; ÁLVARO FERNÁNDEZ-LUNA; MERVE ALTUN; JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-SÁNCHEZ; FERRAN CALABUIG
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
JPES ® www.efsupit.ro 249Recent researches have focused on the variables that encourage the participants or spectators’
sustainability on sport events (Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2010; 2012). According to Andreff (2001) and Baade and
Matheson (2008), the high economic impact of managing a sport event based on the economic succeeds of the
municipality. Gillet and Kelly (2006) indicated that managing sport events improved the economic situation of
the town owing to tourism. Additionally, Highan (1999) affirmed that managing ‘small-scale sport’ events are
better hand managing ‘large-scale’ events such as Olympics. This way, Barajas, Coates and Sánchez-Fernández
(2016) there are a lack in small and medium scale events compare to mega-events.
Generally, quality is one of the most important aspects in the management of any organization or
business (Golder, Mitra, & Moorman, 2012), and the same case happens in the management of the sport events
(Calabuig-Moreno, Prado-Gascó, Crespo-Hervás, Nuñez-Pomar, & Añó Sanz, 2015). Clemes, Brush, and
Collins (2011) asserted that spectators of a sport event perceived the strong influence of perceived value and
service quality on the satisfaction. Previous researches identified that the quality of service is regarded as a
precedent of satisfaction (Brady, Cronin, & Brand, 2002); while Hightower, Brady, and Baker (2002) argued that
the influence of quality of service was perceived by the value of consumers. Furthermore, the participants’
gender affected the satisfaction in the sport event (Calabuig et al., 2010).
The researches on service quality at sport events have increased in the recent years, and have generated
a set of measures to improve the quality of the event. Several authors focused their research in measuring the
spectators’ perception of quality in different sport events such as; the study of Theodorakis and Alexandris
(2008) and Yusof and See (2008) were specialized in football, while Hyun-Duck et al. (2006) in basketball,
Hightower et al. (2002) in baseball and Greenwell et al. (2002) in hockey. However, few instruments found to be
evaluated satisfaction of participants in a sport event. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine
the perceived value of participants in the different dimensions of quality and assess their influence on overall
satisfaction in European sports event.

Material & methods
Sample
This is a descriptive and cross-sectional study. The sample was composed of 856 participants, from
where 828 were selected for the final sample. Participants were classified in gender, age and nationality (Table
1). Their nationalities were Spanish, Italian, Cypriot, Irish and Hungarian.

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample
Characteristics N %
Gender
Male 410 49.5
Female 418 50.5
Age (years)
Children (12-17) 127 15.5
Young (18-29) 182 22.2
Adult (30-64) 450 54.9
Elderly (+ 65) 61 7.4
Nationality
Italy 175 21.1
Spain 198 23.9
Hungary 182 22.0
Cyprus 87 10.5
Ireland 186 22.5
Questionnaire design
For the recollection of data we used a self-administrable questionnaire. The questionnaire was design
using a selection of different questions from other studies about sport habits (Calabuig, Mundina, & Crespo,
2010; Rodríguez-Romo, Boned-Pascual, & Garrido-Muñoz, 2009). Subsequently, every question was revised for
the needs and the specifications of the research. After the design of the questionnaire, it was review by a group
of experts who made very useful modifications and commentaries for the final design. The pilot questionnaire
was applied to 30 spectators for every country to guarantee the absence of confusion and ambiguity of the
questions. Finally, the questionnaire was revised and approved by the institutional ethics committee of Valencia
University.
The questionnaire was structured in different sections with the following questions: ‘a’ demographic
data (gender age and nationality) ‘b’ Quality of the event, using a 1-5 likert scale (1 very poor, 5 excellent) with
questions about perception of activities’ quality, material and human resources, space for sport practice and
general organization. Section ‘c’ evaluates the general satisfaction with the event using a 1-10 likert scale

LEONOR GALLARDO; JOSÉ LUIS FELIPE; JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE; PABLO BURILLO; ESTHER UBAGO-
GUISADO; ÁLVARO FERNÁNDEZ-LUNA; MERVE ALTUN; JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-SÁNCHEZ; FERRAN CALABUIG
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
JPES ® www.efsupit.ro 250(Murray & Howat, 2002) and the emotional satisfaction with four closet answers (interesting, boring, funny, do
not participate actively).
The reliability analysis of satisfaction scale was performed using Combrach’s alpha test (Spain = .729,
Italy = .698, Hungary = .712, Cyprus = .734, Ireland = .709), and average variance extracted (AVE). The validity
was tested first using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
using structural equation modeling. All tests showed a satisfactory reliability and validity of the questionnaire,
exceeding the recommended minimum values.

Data analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS package v 19.0.0 (IBM, Chicago) and EQS6.1 software.
In first term, results are presented as mean (SD), if not otherwise stated. ANOVA test and Student’s T test were
performed comparing values of different variables. Finally, we compared the influence of quality variables on
the prediction of general satisfaction using a multiple regression model. P < .05 was used as the level of
significance.

Results
Assessment of quality and general satisfaction
We found differences in satisfaction indicators depending on nationality of participants as it is shown in
Table 2. Through the initials we can observe the relation between participants from different nationalities. The
results are based on two-side tests assuming equal variances with significance level p < .05. We can observe as
indicators of "activities" and "general organization", show no difference between nationalities.

Table 2. Differences between nationalities in quality perception
Italy (A) Spain (B) Hungary (C) Cyprus (D) Ireland (E)
mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)
Activities 3.83 (.75) 3.83 (.79) 3.79 (.87) 3.78 (.98) 3.77 (.87)
Activities’ specific materials 3.64 (.70) C 3.54 (.76) 3.31 (.80) 3.78 (.97) C 3.71 (.88) C
Human resources 3.82 (.79) 3.91 (.80) C 3.63 (.87) 4.20 (.87) AC 3.97 (.83) C
Sports practice area 4.04 (.77) B 3.60 (.81) 4.07 (.90) B 3.89 (.91) 3.91 (.85) B
General organization 3.84 (.76) 3.79 (.85) 3.85 (.78) 3.89 (.90) 4.00 (.85)
General satisfaction 8.12 (.80) D 8.09 (.86) D 7.92 (.91) 7.65 (1.22) 8.08 (.02) D
Note: A,B,C,D,E p < .05
The perception of quality shows significant difference according to nationality Respect to the quality of
materials (F (4. 807) = 7.85, p < .001), Hungary shows differences with Italy (p < .01), Cyprus (p < .001) and
Ireland (p < .001) whose had lower scores. Respect to human resources we found an effect of nationality as well
(F (4.805) = 7.91, p < .001). So Cyprus had a higher score than Italy (p < .05) and Hungary has significant
differences compared to Spain (p < .05), Cyprus (p < .001) and Ireland (p<0.05). Analyzing the Sport practice
area used we also found differences according to nationality (F (4.807) = 9.009, p < .001). In this case, Spain has
significant lower scores than Italy (p < .01), Hungary (p < .01) and Ireland (p < .05). Finally, we can observe
significant differences in general satisfaction related to nationality (F (4.806) = 7.90, p < .001). Since Cyprus
shows differences with Italy, Spain and Ireland (p < .001).
Predicting the general satisfaction of spectators
In the analysis of general satisfaction of spectators we can observe how assistants to the event show
high scores in satisfaction. So 53.9% (n = 438) of participants argue that they had fun in the event, 39.4% (n =
320) of participants considered the event interesting, and only 1.5% (n = 12) of participants feel boring during
the event 3.1% (n = 25) of participants participated actively and 2.2% (n = 18) did not answer.
Differences in quality perception depending on the participation
Using the variance analysis (ANOVA) it has been observed the existence of differences in the level of
previous participation in this kind of events and the quality of event’s features. Results shown a main effect
depending on the participation in sport events F (2.814) = 3.60, p < .05. Only the quality of activities was
significant different between the participants that never had participated in this kind of events and the
participants that participated often who perceived higher quality in the event activities (p < .05).
Influence of events features in general satisfaction
The correlation matrix about the effect of event’s features on general satisfaction (Table 3) shows how
general satisfaction and quality features are significant (p < .05). The feature with the highest correlation with
general satisfaction is general organization (r = .577). Human Resources is the feature with less correlation (r =
.448). The rest of correlations are significant as well (p < .05).

LEONOR GALLARDO; JOSÉ LUIS FELIPE; JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE; PABLO BURILLO; ESTHER UBAGO-
GUISADO; ÁLVARO FERNÁNDEZ-LUNA; MERVE ALTUN; JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-SÁNCHEZ; FERRAN CALABUIG
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
JPES ® www.efsupit.ro 251Table 3. Correlation matrix between quality score and general satisfaction variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 General satisfaction 1
2 Activities .517* 1
3 Activities’ specific materials .538* .565* 1
4 Human resources .448* .483* .598* 1
5 Sports practice area .502* .490* .471* .445* 1
6 General organization .577* .602* .597* .629* .609* 1
Note: * p < .01
Linear multiple regression was used to analyse the relation between the different satisfaction variables
and the general satisfaction of the sport event. The five variables of satisfaction caused by the features were
introduced as independent variables and general satisfaction as dependent. Durbin Watson value test confirmed
the residuals terms were uncorrelated or independent (D = 1.901). Tolerance and the variance inflation factor
(VIF) values showed no multicollinearity. The p-p graphic showed that distribution of residuals was normal. The
regression model was significant (F (5) =120.99, p < .001) (it should be like this R = .290, R2 = .84, F (5-188) =
1.192, p < .01) indicating that a 10% of variance in the level could be predicted by respondents’ team
identification level.), indicating that a 42.9 % of variance in general satisfaction could be predicted by activities,
activities’ specific materials, sports practice area, and general organization.
As it can be seen in Table 4, general organization explains the higher variable ( β = .25, t = 5.901, p <
.001) followed by activities’ specific materials ( β = .22, t = 5.997, p < .001). The human resources were not a
significant relation with the general satisfaction of the sport event. ( β = .01, t = .275, p < .001).
Table 4. Linear Regression Results for the Participant’s General Satisfaction of the Sport Event
B SE. B β T VIF
(Constant) 4.202 .187 22.518*
Activities .220 .051 .154 4.327* 1.780
Activities’ specific materials .325 .054 .224 5.997* 1.948
Human resources .014 .052 .010 .275 1.907
Sports practice area .233 .048 .167 4.835* 1.662
General organization .360 .061 .248 5.901* 2.463
R2 = .433, R2 Adj. = .429
Note: * p< .001
Dicussion
Knowing the perceived satisfaction of users involved in major sport events is a basic indicator that can
guide sport managers to the improvement of these events. A sport event is a set of different elements where a
proper organization, management and distribution ensure a general satisfaction of participants, who are being
ready to come back in next events. The analysis of different variables of the event can help to encourage public
authorities to make strategies and politics that increase the sport practice oriented to the improvement of health
for all ages. In this regard, previous researches focused on spectators’ view, to reveal the necessity of applying
different variables of satisfaction in this context. (Alexandris et al., 2004; Bodet, 2006; Schoefer & Ennew, 2005;
Shonk & Chelladurai, 2008). There are few studies that focused on participants (Park, Lee, & Kim, 2016).
In this study, it can be seen that the total percentage of participants of both sexes is similar, being slightly higher
for women (50.5%) compared to men (49.5%). This differed from many researches in which observed the
participation in this type of events was higher for men compared to women (Calabuig et al., 2010; European
Commission, 2010; Lera-López & Rapún-Garate, 2005; Berger, O'Reilly, Séguin, Parent, & Hernández, 2008).
According to the findings of this study, several differences between perception of quality and general
satisfaction were found in the terms of nationalities, highlighting the lower general satisfaction in Cyprus respect
to Italy, Spain and Ireland. However, there were not significant differences between the perceived quality of
activities and general organization with respect to nationalities. This fact could be explained by the need of
focusing in these aspects to get a higher perceived quality and a homogeneous general satisfaction in
international events. The results indicated that variables related to the tangible (specific sport materials and sport
practice area) were crucial to explain the satisfaction of attendees to the sport event. These results are largely
consistent with other related studies (Calabuig et al., 2010; Greenwel et al., 2002; Theodorakis et al., 2001), in
which they indicated that the quality and safety offered by these elements were motivations of participants to
attend next events. However, distinct from the previous studies (Calabuig et al., 2010), human resources
variables were not significant predictor on general satisfaction. This difference can be explained by the sample of

LEONOR GALLARDO; JOSÉ LUIS FELIPE; JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE; PABLO BURILLO; ESTHER UBAGO-
GUISADO; ÁLVARO FERNÁNDEZ-LUNA; MERVE ALTUN; JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-SÁNCHEZ; FERRAN CALABUIG
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
JPES ® www.efsupit.ro 252current study was included participants in various sports activities, aiming the promotion of physical activity,
different from previous studies focused on spectators.
This affirmation suggest that sport events oriented to spectacle, the quality of staff and the interaction
between participants is a key factor predicting general satisfaction, while in sport events oriented to physical
activity promotion, the staff is less relevant, and other elements become more important as activities’ specific
materials and sport practice area, because participants have a direct interaction with them. Moreover, the events
with competitive nature produce a higher final satisfaction of participants than the events where the participants
only act like spectators (Van Leeuwen, Quick, & Daniel, 2002). Depending on the classification of participative
service or spectator service (Chelladurai & Chang, 2000), this type of event should locate between both groups,
as it encourages the spectator to participate physical activity. However, it shares many of the unique features of
sport events, mainly related to participation as a spectator. Therefore, this research may be defined as new part of
the evaluation of the quality in sport services and events, working on a new field of action of great importance to
the promotion of physical activity and sport.

Conclusions
Measuring the satisfaction of participants in sport events becomes necessary to improve the quality of
the service offered, serving as a support to enhance strengthen weaknesses and strengths. The participants who
usually take part in this kind of events have a higher satisfaction than users who only participate sometimes. The
aspects that affect more to the final satisfaction of the event are specific sport materials (specially their quality
and security), and the area where the sport event take place (accessibility, parking, environment, etc.) However,
the human resources have not any influence on the general satisfaction of the participants in the event.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the European Commission under grant project Euro Sport Health EAC/21/2009.

References
Andreff, W. (2001). The correlation between economic underdevelopment and sport. European Sport
Management Quarterly , 1, 251-279.
Alexandris, K., Zahariadis, P., Tsorbatzoudis, C., and Grouios, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of the
relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction and psychological commitment in a health club
context. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 36-52.
Baade, R. A., and Matheson, V. A. (2008). Selling the Game: estimating the economic impact of professional
sports through taxable sales. South Econ J, 74, 794-810.
Barajas, A., Coates, D., & Sanchez-Fernandez, P. (20 16). Beyond retrospective assessment sport event economic
impact studies as a management tool for informing event organization. European Research on
Management and Business Economics, 22, 124-130.
Berger, I. E., O’Reilly, N., Parent, M. M., Séguin, B., and Hernandez, T. (2008). Determinants of sport
participation among Canadian adolescents. Sport Management Review, 11, 277-307.
Blair, S. N., and Morris, J. N. (2009). Healthy Hearts and the Universal Benefits of Being Physically Active:
Physical Activity and Health. Annual Epidemiology, 19, 253-256.
Bodet, G. (2006). Investigating customer satisfaction in a health club context by an application of the tetraclass
model. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6, 149-165.
Brady, M. K., Cronin Jr, J. J., and Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: a
replication and extension. J Bus Res, 55, 17-31.
Calabuig, F., Burillo, P., Crespo, J., Mundina, J. J., and Gallardo, L. (2010). Satisfaction, quality and perceived
value in spectators of athletics. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el
Deporte, 10, 577-597.
Calabuig, F., Mundina, J., and Crespo, J. (2010). Eventqual: a measure of perceived quality of sporting
events`spectators. Retos. Nuevas tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación, 18, 66–70.
Calabuig, F., Prado-Gascó, V., Crespo Hervás, J., Nú ñez-Pomar, J., & Añó Sanz, V. (2015). Spectator emotions:
Effects on quality, satisfaction, value, and future intentions. Journal of Business Research , 68(7), 1445-
1449.
C
halip, L., and Costa, C. A. (2005). Sport event tourism and the destination Brand: Towards a general theory.
Sport Soc, 8, 218-237.
Chelladurai, P., and Chang, K. (2000). Targets and standards of quality in sport services. Sports Management
Review, 3, 1-22.
Chenoweth, D., and Leutzinger, J. (2006). The economic cost of physical inactivity and excess weight in
American adults. J Phys Act Health, 3,148-163.
Clemes, M. D., Brush, G. J., and Collins, M. J. (2011). Analysing the professional sport experience: A
hierarchical approach. Sport Management Review, 14, 370-388.
Crosnoe, R. (2002). Academic and health-related trajectories in adolescence: The intersection of gender and
athletics. J Health Soc Behav, 43, 317-335.

LEONOR GALLARDO; JOSÉ LUIS FELIPE; JORGE GARCÍA-UNANUE; PABLO BURILLO; ESTHER UBAGO-
GUISADO; ÁLVARO FERNÁNDEZ-LUNA; MERVE ALTUN; JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-SÁNCHEZ; FERRAN CALABUIG
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
JPES ® www.efsupit.ro 253Downward, P. (2004). On leisure demand: a Post Keynesian critique of neoclassical theory. J Post Keynes Econ,
26, 371-394.
Downward, P. (2007). Exploring the economic choice to participate in sport: Results from the 2002 general
household survey. International Review of Applied Economics, 21, 633–653.
European Commission. (2010). European Commission 2010-14 . Brussels: Office for official publications of the
European Communities.
Friedenreich, C. M., Neilson, H. K., and Lynch, B. M. (2010). State of the epidemiological evidence on physical
activity and cancer prevention. Eur J Cancer, 46, 2593-2604.
Gillet, P., and Kelly, S. (2006). ‘Non-local’ master games participants: an investigation of competitive active
sport tourist motives. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11, 239-257.
Golder, P. N., Mitra, D., and Moorman, C. (2012). What is quality? An integrative framework of processes and
states. J Mark, 76, 1-23.
Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., and Pastore, D. L. (2002). Assessing the influence of the physical sports facility on
customer satisfaction within the context of the service experience. Sport Management Review, 5, 129-148.
Higham, J. (1999). Commentary-Sport as an avenue of tourism development: An analysis of the positive and
negative impacts of sport tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 2, 82-90.
Hightower, R., Brady, M. K., and Baker, T. L. (2002). Investigating the role of the physical environment in
hedonic service consumption: An exploratory study of sporting events. J Bus Res, 55, 697-707.
Hyun-Duck, K., LaVetter, D., and Jeoung-Hak, L. (2006). The influence of service quality factors on customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention in the Korean professional basketball league. International Journal
of Applied Sports Sciences, 18, 39-58.
Kaplanidou, K., and Gibson, H. J. (2010). Predicting behavioral intentions of active event sport tourists: The
case of a small-scale recurring sports event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15, 163-179.
Kaplanidou, K., and Gibson, H. J. (2012). Event image and traveling parents’ intentions to attend youth sport
events: a test of the reasoned action model. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12, 3-18.
Lera-López, F., and Rapún-Gárate, M. (2005). Sports Participation Versus Consumer Expenditure on Sport:
Different Determinants and Strategies in Sports Management. European Sport Management Quarterly , 5,
167-186.
Murray, D., and Howat, G. (2002). The relationships among service quality, value, satisfaction, and future
intentions of customers at an Australian sports and leisure centre. Sport Management Review, 5, 25-43.
Park, K. W., Lee, C. W., & Kim, M. J. (2016). Effect of serious leisure experience on the leisure satisfaction
among senior sport games participants. Journal of Physical Education and Sport , 16, 584.
P
arra, D., Añó, V., Ayora, D., and Núñez-Pomar, J. (2012). Social perception of a sporting event impact. Journal
of Sports Economics & Management, 2, 34-51.
Rodríguez-Romo, G., Boned-Pascual, C., and Garrido-Muñoz, M. (2009). Reasons for and barriers to exercising
and sports participation in Madrid. Rev Panam Salud Publica, 26, 244-54.
Ruseski, J.E., Humphreys, B.R., Hallmann, K., and Breuer, C. (2011). Family structure, time constraints, and
sport participation. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act, 8, 57-66.
Schoefer, K., and Ennew, C. (2005). The impact of perceived justice on consumers' emotional responses to
service complaint experiences. Journal of Services Marketing, 19, 261-270.
Shonk, D. J., and Chelladurai, P. (2008). Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Intent to Return in Event Sport
Tourism. J Physic Educ Sport Manag, 22, 587-602.
Taks, M., Green, B. C., Misener, L., & Chalip, L. (2 014). Evaluating sport development outcomes: the case of a
medium-sized international sport event. European sport management quarterly , 14(3), 213-237.
T
heodorakis C W. (2001). Integration of genotoxic and population genetic endpoints in biomonitoring and risk
assessment. Ecotoxicology, 10, 245-256.
Theodorakis, N. D., Kambitsis, C., Laios, A., and Koustelios, A. (2001). Relationship between measures of
service quality and satisfaction of spectators in professionals sports. Managing Service Quality, 11, 431-
438.
Van Bottenburg, M. (2005). Sport participation in the EU: trends and differences . Brussels: Mulier Institute–
Centre for Research on Sports in Society.
Van Leeuwen, L., Quick, S., and Daniel, K. (2002). The sport spectator satisfaction model: A conceptual
framework for understanding the satisfaction of spectators. Sport Management Review, 5, 99-128.
Wang, G., Pratt, M., Macera, C. A., Zheng, Z. J., and Heath, G. (2004). Physical activity, cardiovascular disease,
and medical expenditures in U.S. adults. Ann Behav Med, 28, 88-94.
Warburton, D. E. R., Nicol, C. W., and Bredin, S. S. (2006). Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence.
Can Med Assoc J, 174, 801-809.
Wen, C. P., Wai, J. P. M., Tsai, M. K., Chan, H. T., and Wu, X. (2011). Minimum amount of physical activity
for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study. Lancet, 378, 1244-1253.
Yusof, A., and See, L. H. (2008). Spectator perceptions of physical facility and team quality: A study of a
Malaysian super league soccer match. Research Journal of Internat

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.