When Controversy Spills Over: How Announcing a Controversial Sponsor Shapes Property Outcomes

Sammanfattning

Partnering with controversial sponsors is today common in sports. While prior work has focused on the brand outcomes for sponsors (the organizations providing financial support), much less is known about how controversial sponsors impact the properties (the teams or events receiving the financial support) they sponsor. This paper investigates how announcing a controversial (vs. non-controversial) sponsor shapes attitudes toward the property being sponsored and whether a brief financial justification from the property limits the damage the partnership has on its brand. Drawing on congruity theory and attribution theory, a model in which sponsor-property fit and perceived motives mediate these effects is tested. A 2x2 between-subjects online experiment with Swedish consumers manipulates the sponsor type and the presence of a financial justification. The results show that a controversial sponsorship strongly impacts attitudes negatively. Analysis further reveals that the attitudinal penalty is transmitted through lower perceived fit and lower altruistic motive attributions, operating both independently and sequentially. Moreover, the financial justification is found to have no significant effect in mitigating the attitudinal negative effect. Complementary sentiment and thematic analyses of open-ended responses support the findings, demonstrating that controversial sponsors elicit predominantly ethical concerns. The study advances sponsorship literature by shifting attention to the property-side and investigating a potential strategy of risk mitigation. Managerially, the results highlight the risks of aligning with controversial sponsors and the limited effectiveness of brief justifications at the moment of announcement.