Mega-events enable transmission of promotional messages to billions of people through television and other means of communication (Roberts, 2004) since the attraction of the media constitutes one of their main characteristics. Although the definitions of mega-events typically do not imply a specific theme and therefore include both sports and non-sports events (Heslop et al., 2013; Jago, Dwyer, Lipman, Lill, & Vorster, 2010; Müller, 2015; Roche, 2000), since the 1980s sports mega-events have become a synonym for this category of events (Lenskyj, 2015). Overall, a sports event image may be defined as a set of “mental representations sport tourism participants have about the organization, environment, physical activity, socialization, fulfillment, and emotional involvement with the event” (Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006, p. 5) or “cumulative interpretation of meanings or associations attributed to events by consumers” (K. Gwinner, 1997, p. 147). K. Gwinner (1997) proposes that the event’s image is shaped by: (a) the type of event; (b) characteristics of the event, such as the scope, its history, venues, and sponsorship; and (c) personal aspects.

Given that events may be considered as products, some authors have been treating the image of an event in an equivalent manner to that of the image of a brand (Grohs, Wagner, & Vsetecka, 2004; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006; Shin, Lee, & Perdue, 2018). Studies on the aspects of event image are becoming more relevant to the fields of marketing and tourism as the event image may be transferred to another entity, similar to what occurs with host cities (Heslop et al., 2013) and sponsors (K. Gwinner, 1997; Nadeau, O'Reilly, & Heslop, 2013). This happens through the transference of associations comprising that image (K. Gwinner, 1997).

Although unlikely (K. P. Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), the transfer of the image or associations from the host city or sponsor to the mega-event is also possible (Heslop et al., 2013). The possibility of the influence of the sponsor’s image on the event’s image is more common when the event is small and unknown (M. Walker, Hall, Todd, & Kent, 2011).

Given the behavioral and lifestyle changes and the development of means that allow for consumer marketing message avoidance, the market has realized a need for bringing brands to consumers with an objective of providing them with a friendlier experience. In this context, nontraditional indirect-marketing tools such as viral marketing, buzz, and product placement have developed and gained relevance in the last decades, with sponsorship becoming a tool of the greatest prominence and participation (Cornwell, 2008).

Sponsorship may be defined as the “provision of assistance either financial or in kind to an activity by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives” (J. A. Meenaghan, 1983, p. 9). Due to its worldwide popularity, sports sponsorship provides an opportunity for image exposure and for developing a positive relationship between the image of a certain brand and several kinds of properties, offering the possibility of transferring attributes and other associations to the sponsor’s brand (Farrelly, Quester, & Burton, 2006).

The increased interest in the sponsorship of mega-events, such as the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games, was not only due to the increase in their audiences, but also to the potential for global communication of these events, overcoming cultural and language barriers. In a moment when multinational companies were looking for ways to globalize their markets and offerings, sports mega-events provided an attractive communication platform (T. Meenaghan, 1991). Sponsoring companies seek to take advantage of the link established with the mega-event through the sponsorship agreement in an attractive context, such as the sport’s context, to transfer the positive image of the event to the brand (Nufer & Bühler, 2010).

Organizers of mega-events fund their events by selling sponsorship, broadcasting rights, and licensing of official products. The sponsorship revenue is the second largest source of income for these organizations, being surpassed only by broadcasting rights revenue (FIFA, 2015; International Olympic Committee [IOC], 2013). Both FIFA and the International Olympic Committee developed their sponsorship programs in the 1980s, including the concept of category exclusivity and different commercial rights packages for their organizations and mega-events sponsorship contracts (Chadwick & Burton, 2011).

The concept of congruence, although lacking a single and widely accepted nomenclature or definition, has been discussed in advertising and marketing literature since the 1980s. The theoretical discussion about this concept is related to the idea that people develop a perception that certain things match each other, while others clash. In consequence, this perception would influence their response to the stimuli coming from a marketing strategy that uses brand extensions, celebrity endorsement, co-branding, product placement, and sponsorship (Fleck & Quester, 2007).

Studies on the impact perception of congruence has on sponsorship results consider the psychological mechanisms underlying audience response to the sponsorship (Deitz, Myers, & Stafford, 2012). These are mainly based on two theories originating from Cognitive Psychology: Associative Network Theory and Schema Theory (Drengner, Jahn, & Zanger, 2011). According to Associative Network Theory, an individual’s memory is organized in such a way that the pieces of information are completely interconnected like the knots in a net. Each piece of information is linked to several other pieces of interconnected information. The strength of the connecting knots varies according to the importance of that connection for the comprehension of a concept (Collins & Loftus, 1975).

Schema Theory also presupposes that information is interconnected in human memory. Information is saved within schemes composed of preexisting suppositions about the ways the world operates (Singer, 1968). When individuals receive new information, they try to fit it into a scheme relying on the previously acquired facts and interpretations (Axelrod, 1973).

More specifically, in the sponsorship field, research on the influence perception of congruence between sponsor and sponsorship property has on consumer response include, for example, studies related to the sponsorship of causes (Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004), football clubs (Amorim & Almeida, 2015), university sports programs (Deitz et al., 2012), and mega-events (Biscaia & Rocha, 2018; Ko, Chang, Park, & Herbst, 2017).

Corporate reputation may be defined as “a relatively stable, issue specific aggregate perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future prospects compared against some standard” (K. Walker, 2010, p. 370); or “a collective assessment of a company’s ability to provide valued outcomes to a representative group of stakeholders” (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Sever, 2000, p. 243); or even “a set of cognitions based on both beliefs and attitudes in the mind of the general public or in various specific sub-groupings therefrom” (Clardy, 2012, p. 300). This collective perception regarding an organization may vary among stakeholder groups and might impact group attitudes towards this organization (Balmer & Greyser, 2006).

As it represents the perception of several individuals (Fombrun et al., 2000), the reputation can be more or less clear according to the homogeneity of the perceptions regarding a corporation within a group (Sjovall & Talk, 2004). Direct contact or the observation of an organization’s actions contribute to the development of perceptions by an individual, although perceptions are also shaped based on exposure to others’ impressions and opinions, such as those posted in the press or on social networks (Sjovall & Talk, 2004; Zheng, Liu, & Davison, 2018).

Literature regarding brand equity is ample and fragmented. First, brand equity can be measured from two perspectives: the financial one, which serves the purposes of accounting and corporate transactions; and the strategic one related to the perceptions about a brand based on the consumer’s perspective (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010; Oliveira & Luce, 2012).

Consumers’ perspectives and their responses to brand offers have a direct impact on revenues and market share, therefore, consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) precedes financial brand equity, or firm-based brand equity (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010; Oliveira & Luce, 2012). CBBE may be defined as the “differential effect of brand knowledge on the consumer’s response to the marketing of the brand” (Keller, 1993, p. 8). When a consumer responds differently to the same product attributes and marketing mix, the differential effect can be attributed to brand equity (Yoo & Donthu, 2001).

Important theoretical postulations concerning CBBE development highlight, among other dimensions, that brand associations influence this construct (Aaker, 1998; Keller, 1993). Associations may be attributes related or not to the product or service offered by the brand; functional, experiential, and symbolic benefits; or general attitudes towards the brand. These brand associations may be of a primary nature, i.e., attributes, beliefs, and attitudes directly related to a specific brand; or secondary, transferred in the consumer’s mind from the connection of the brand with another entity. These may be attributes linked to a brand’s manufacturing company, its country of origin, its distribution channel, an endorsing celebrity, or an event (Keller, 1993).

Reputation refers to perceptions, associations, and judgements that stakeholders hold about an organization (Balmer & Greyser, 2006). If a corporate brand can transfer secondary associations to a product brand (Raggio & Leone, 2007), it is possible to establish a direct link between the mega-event organizing entity, who owns the rights to the mega-even brand, and the mega-event itself (Grohs, 2016; Weszka, 2011). Therefore, the sports mega-event might have its brand image loaded with associations related to its proprietary entity, leading to the first research hypothesis.

H1: The positive reputation of the mega-event organizer influences the mega-event image perception.

When looking for a link with a sport property, sponsors aim to achieve brand visibility and transfer positive associations (Walliser, 2003). The improvement of a sponsor’s corporate reputation is also mentioned in the literature as one of the sponsorship objectives, which reinforces the importance of such associations (Dolphin, 2003). More visibility and positive associations might improve brand equity from the consumer’s perspective (Buil, Martínez, & Chernatony, 2013). Nevertheless, when linking a sponsoring brand with a mega-event, the sponsor also becomes linked with the sport mega-event organizer. Taking this into consideration, the second research hypothesis is:

H2: The positive mega-event organizer’s reputation influences the mega-event sponsor’s brand equity perception.

One of the main objectives of sports sponsorship is to use the property’s image to gain benefits in terms of brand visibility and image (Farrelly et al., 2006). The visibility achieved by establishing a partnership with a property, such as a sports mega-event, might increase brand awareness and recognition. Several studies adopted brand awareness and brand recognition as dependent variables (Walliser, 2003), relating both concepts to gains regarding consumer-based brand equity (Buil, Chernatony, & Martínez, 2008; Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010; Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005).

According to a number of theoretical (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010) and empirical studies (Buil et al., 2008; Pappu et al., 2005; Yoo & Donthu, 2001), greater brand awareness and better brand image are related to consumer-based brand equity gains. Hence, the third research hypothesis is:

H3: The positive mega-event image influences the perception of the mega-event sponsor’s brand equity.

According to theories that frame the concept of congruence, a sponsor relationship perceived as congruent follows information schemes shaped by memory of past experiences and judgments (Deitz et al., 2012; J. Koo & Lee, 2018; Weeks, Humphreys, & Cornwell, 2018). Establishing and activating a congruent sponsor relationship might therefore strengthen associations between the sponsor and the sports property (Biscaia & Rocha, 2018; Cornwell, 2008; Wang, 2017). Regardless of its functional or symbolic origin, congruence perception may lead to more beneficial sponsorship results, influencing relations as a mediating variable between the sponsor’s motivations and the responses to the sponsorship (Deitz et al., 2012); between property identification and attitudes towards the sponsor (K. Gwinner & Bennett, 2008); and between property identification and the sponsor’s brand equity (Amorim & Almeida, 2015).

In this sense, it is established that: (a) the objectives of the sponsorship are to improve brand awareness rates and brand equity (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Walliser, 2003) and that these effects are related to the sponsor’s consumer-based brand equity (Aaker, 1998; Keller, 1993); (b) the perception of congruence between the sponsor and the sponsored property might contribute to the sponsor’s recognition (G.-Y. Koo, Quarterman, & Flynn, 2006) and to the transferring of the property’s positive associations (Cornwell, 2008); and (c) the perception of congruence might act as a mediator between sponsorship antecedents and outcomes (Amorim & Almeida, 2015). As a result, the last research hypothesis is:

H4: The perception of congruence between the mega-event and the sponsor has a mediating effect in the relationship between mega-event image and the sponsor’s brand equity.

Figure 1 displays the conceptual model and synthesizes the study’s substantive hypotheses.

Figure 1
Theoretical framework

Rio de Janeiro was one of the 12 host cities for the 2014 FIFA World Cup and it held 7 matches at the Maracanã Stadium with a total of 519,153 spectators (Carpes, 2014). Rio de Janeiro also hosted an edition of the FIFA Fan Fest, a public viewing of the World Cup matches (Becker, Kautsky, & Widholm, 2014). During the preparation for the 2010 World Cup, FIFA defined the FIFA Fan Fest concept as a platform capable of providing a unique experience for football fans. The event includes the broadcasting of all matches on the giant high-quality screens (FIFA, n.d.a). In Rio de Janeiro, the FIFA Fan Fest had the capacity to accommodate 20,000 people and was visited by more than 800,000 people during the event (Carpes, 2014; FIFA, n.d.b).

Coca-Cola and Adidas were the brands selected for this study. Coca-Cola is considered to be a benchmark for the sponsorship market (IEG Sponsorship Report, 2008) having sponsored the Olympic Games since 1928 and holding decades of history with the World Cup, always standing in the highest position of sponsorship and part of the group named as FIFA Partners (FIFA, n.d.c). Adidas, which also belongs to the FIFA Partners category, was chosen for the study because of its role as a sponsor as well as a supplier of sports goods. Given its sponsorship portfolio exclusively focused on sports (Adidas, n.d.) and its history with the World Cup since 1970 (Adidas, 2005), Adidas presents an evident functional congruence with this kind of property (J. Koo & Lee, 2018; Pappu & Cornwell, 2014).

In order to assess the mega-event corporate reputation, we adopted the Reputation Quotient (RQ) scale developed by Fombrum, Gardberg, and Server (2000), but reduced it to fit the dimensions applicable to a non-governmental organization. The image of the mega-event was examined using a scale applied to a study that measured the image of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games (Event Image - EI) (Nadeau, O'Reilly, & Heslop, 2011). The Sponsor-Event Fit (FIT) scale conceived by Speed and Thompson (2000) was the choice for assessing the construct of perceptual congruence between the brand and the sponsored property. This scale has been tested in a number of studies dealing with sports sponsorship (Close & Lacey, 2013; Deitz et al., 2012; Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; Ko et al., 2017; Olson, 2011). The sponsor’s consumer-based brand equity was assessed by applying the Overall Brand Equity (OBE) scale by Yoo and Donthu (2001), already used to measure corporate brand equity. It was necessary to do Portuguese and Spanish back-translations with English for the Reputation Quotient (RQ) and Event Image (EI) scales, which had not been previously used in the Brazilian context (see Appendix).

To mitigate the eventual learning effect resulting from the double use of the Overall Brand Equity and Sponsor-Event Fit scales in the same questionnaire, half of the questionnaires presented the items about Adidas before the items about Coca-Cola and half the other way around. This option was made because the responses regarding one of the sponsors could generate a bias in the responses to the other. Since versions of the questionnaire were generated in three different languages (Portuguese, English, and Spanish) and each language had two versions (starting with Coca-Cola and starting with Adidas), six versions of the questionnaire were generated in total.

Data was collected using a non-probabilistic sample during eleven competition days, from the first stage until the third-place playoff. 2,002 fans were interviewed after the questionnaire was pre-tested. Respondents were randomly selected, following the research prerequisite criteria. A decision was made not to proceed with Brazilian fan interviews after the country was eliminated from the competition in the semi-finals.

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using SPSS software, version 18. Factor extraction followed the Principal Axis Factor method with Oblimin Rotation. The MSA was used to perform EFA fit analysis, all according to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). AMOS software version 17 was used for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The variables’ multinormality was analyzed according to an independent, item-by-item, kurtosis and multivariate kurtosis. It was not possible to assure data multinormality, so we opted to adopt CFA with an Asymptotic Distribution Free (ADF) method, which does not establish the premise of normal data distribution (Kline, 2005). The measurement models for each scale were evaluated using the following quality of fit indices: χ2; χ2/gl; GFI; RMSEA; PCLOSE; and CFI. We evaluated construct reliability by using the Construct Reliability (CR) indicator. Convergent validity was checked by each construct standardized coefficient and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and the discriminant validity by correlation analysis between the constructs and the test postulated by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The nomological validity was examined through the significance and signs of the relations.

We performed a substantive hypothesis test using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which enables estimating dependent relationships, latent variables, and measurement error. To test the hypotheses, we examined conceptual model hypothesized paths. A mediation test was also performed according to the Four Steps Approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) followed by the Sobel Test (1982) and bootstrapping.

The results support that the sports mega-event organizer’s reputation has a direct influence on the mega-event image, a result consonant with the study by M. Walker et al. (2013) conducted in South Africa. The study relates perceptions of FIFA with World Cup image, suggesting that FIFA’s perception as a socially responsible organization influences the mega-event image.

Given that the reputation is comprised of a set of associations (Clardy, 2012; T. J. Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten, 2006), the primary associations referring to FIFA’s corporate reputation may be transferred to its main product. Associations with the World Cup become secondary and they influence its image, as pointed out by several different studies about sponsorship (Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005; Grohs et al., 2004; Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; K. Gwinner, 1997; K. P. Gwinner, Larson, & Swanson, 2009); however, this relationship between the mega-event proprietary organizer and the mega-event image is practically unexplored in empirical studies. For this reason, the current study finding represents an advancement in this field of knowledge. The World Cup holds a strong and positive image in the mega-event live spectators’ minds and association with this event may bring benefits to sponsors. The mega-event image, whether stable or not, is being affected by FIFA’s reputation and it may be enhanced or damaged depending on expectations being surpassed or unmet, respectively.

The results indicate that the direct and indirect impacts of FIFA’s reputation on sponsor brand equity show little practical relevance, and the indirect impact is the only one with statistical significance (2% for Coca-Cola and 3% for Adidas), therefore critiques related to FIFA do not negatively influence the perception about the sponsoring brands.

Even if the connection between brand equity, corporate credibility, and reputation is not yet clear for certain academic sectors (Chun, 2005), an empirical study conducted in Brazil already supported the influence of a brand’s reputation on brand equity (Torres, Gonçalves, Gosling, & Veiga, 2011). Nevertheless, the focus of this study is a situation with a different configuration: the relationship between the reputation of an organization (FIFA) and the brand equity of other corporations (Coca-Cola and Adidas).

Brand equity can be built through marketing efforts or through direct and indirect sources of information (Raggio & Leone, 2007). It has been postulated that the development of brand equity occurs over time (Aaker, 1998; Dolphin, 2003), and corporations such as the ones investigated in this study invest in brand development strategies (Adidas, 2005; The Coca-Cola Company, n.d.). Consequently, it may be assumed that the two sponsors have established consumer-based brand equities that protect them from certain adverse influences.

Nonetheless, sponsors are often cited in literature as one of the few stakeholder groups capable of exerting influence over FIFA to seek a true reform against corruption (Onwumechili & Bedeau, 2017; Pielke, 2013). If FIFA’s reputation continues to deteriorate, sponsors might be pressured to force some concessions.

The influence of the sport property image on the sponsor’s brand equity and on other related variables indicates that the sponsorship might bring a competitive advantage, promoting differentiation and adding value to the brand (Amis, Pant, & Slack, 1997; Cliffea & Motion, 2005; Dolphin, 2003). We could not find empirical studies relating mega-event image with sponsor brand equity. Some studies investigated the direct influence event image has on sponsor image (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; Grohs et al., 2004; Nadeau et al., 2013). Nadeau, O’Reilly and Heslop (2013) and Grohs, Wagner and Vsetecka (2004) supported the existence of direct influence of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games image and the Ski Alpino World Championship on sponsor image without an influence from the perception of congruence between the event and the sponsor. Grohs and Reisinger (2014) and also Grohs (2016) concluded that there is a direct effect of an event’s brand image and the perception of fit on sponsor image. They modeled these constructs as independent variables, supporting the significance of these relationships, but without considering an interaction between them. The influence of congruence on the sponsor image was higher than the influence of the event image.

A strong correlation between event image and brand equity was noticed. When congruence is modeled as a mediator between these constructs, the direct influence of the event image diminishes. This demonstrates the mediating role of congruence.

The perception of congruence between the World Cup and the sponsors appears as the most prominent influence on brand equity. The results suggest that congruence exerts a mediating effect on the relationship between event image and brand equity. Since the brand had a direct effect on the value perceived by the respondents, the mediation is partial, a result that is similar to previous studies and brings evidence of the influence perception of congruence between sponsor and property has on sponsorship strategy success. The perception of congruence between the sponsor and sponsored property might influence the image and the sponsor’s brand recognition (Grohs et al., 2004; G.-Y. Koo et al., 2006; K. P. Gwinner et al., 2009), the attitudes towards a sponsor (Biscaia & Rocha, 2018; K. Gwinner & Bennett, 2008; Shin et al., 2018; Speed & Thompson, 2000), the sponsor’s credibility (J. Koo & Lee, 2018; Wang, 2017), the brand’s attractiveness (Woisetschläger, Eiting, Haselhoff, & Michaelis, 2010), and purchase intention (Close & Lacey, 2013). The perception of fit may be even more relevant in spectator response in the context of mega-events due to the higher level of expectations when compared to smaller non-profit events (Ko et al., 2017).

The study supports K. P. Gwinner and Eaton’s (1999) thesis that the congruence between sponsor and property may be perceived according to functionality and symbolic alignment of the images. The perception of congruence between Adidas and the World Cup is based on functionality since the corporation is the event’s sports material supplier, responsible for developing a range of products ranging from the tournament ball to the referees’ uniforms. The perception of congruence between Coca-Cola and the World Cup is based on the symbolic alignment of their images, which is explained by Associative Network Theory (Collins & Loftus, 1975) and Schema Theory (Axelrod, 1973). People perceive this congruence based on the longevity of the partnership, because they associate Coca-Cola with moments of entertainment or due to other reasons that enable the connection between the constructs in a network of associated information. If we assume, for instance, that (a) the action of drinking Coca-Cola and (b) watching a World Cup match are associated with a moment of entertainment, the associative network knots of Coca-Cola and the World Cup are connected. Consistent sponsorship activation through marketing communication is likely to have reinforced such a connection (Biscaia & Rocha, 2018; Weeks et al., 2018).

The study presents limitations related to the methodology applied. The model does not contemplate all the variables that may influence sponsor’s brand equity in the context of sports mega-events. The results cannot be generalized to contexts where there is asymmetry between the sponsor’s and the mega-event brand power. The analyses showed psychometric fragilities in the scale used to measure reputation and event image. There are also limitations related to sampling and data collection since the interviews were assisted, which may result in an interviewer bias. Lastly, another limitation concerns the fact that the dependent and independent variables were supplied by the same respondents, so common method bias may have influenced some of the results, though EFA did not present evidence of the occurrence of such an effect.

Future studies could test the conceptual model on other sports mega-events or on small-scale events where organizer reputation might represent a threat to the event and sponsor image. Future studies may investigate the existence of a mediating effect of variables such as gender, country of residence, and age range on the hypothesized relationships. Taking into account the perception of congruence between the sponsor and the property, the suggestion is that future studies advance the development of a scale to measure mega-event image.