Sport Event Security: The View of College Students

Matt Jackson and Dan Drane

University of Southern Mississippi

Fred Green

Troy University

Abstract

            The purpose of this study was to assess college students’ perceptions and attitudes toward security measures at sport events. Students (n = 100) from the University of Southern Mississippi were surveyed regarding these issues. Results indicate that although students understand the potential for terrorist attacks on sport events and the need for enhanced security measures, they are averse to paying extra for these services. The dilemma for athletic departments then becomes absorbing the additional costs of ensuring the safety and security of spectators.

Purpose of Study

            Events that celebrate popular American culture with large public gatherings are considered to be potential terrorist targets (Hurst, Zoubek, & Pratsinakis, n.d.). Most sports events certainly fit into this category. The Department of Homeland Security identified the bombing of a sports arena or stadium as one of twelve possible attacks it viewed as most devastating (Lipton, 2005). In recent years, security at major sport venues and high profile events such as the World Cup, Super Bowl, and Olympic Games has been amplified. College sport stadiums also present an inviting target for terrorist attacks due to the potential for mass casualties and devastating economic impact. Therefore, collegiate sport programs have been forced to take measures to secure their stadiums against prospective threats (Hall, 2006).

            Some people realize the need for increased security, but are there enough spectators and fans to justify the changes necessary to secure these sporting events? Would spectators, and in particular college students, be willing to spend the extra money needed for additional security measures?  This study was performed in an attempt to determine if the need for increased sports security at college sporting events is identified by students and would they support the cost and possible inconvenience associated with implementing new security measures.

Review of Literature

            Sport receives high profile attention in the United States and large sporting events are perceived to be potential targets for terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda has identified football stadiums as a possible target for attacks and individuals with terrorist links were found to be downloading stadium images (Estell, 2002). Perhaps some of the concern over potential terrorist attacks at sport events rests with the fact that they have been targeted in the past.

            The first time the sports world was victimized by the actions of terrorists was during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany (Hall, 2006). The Palestinian group Black September invaded the Olympic Village and captured nine members of the Israeli team. They demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and safe passage out of Germany. Sadly, all nine hostages, five terrorists, and one German police officer were killed in a failed rescue attempt. The Olympic Games witnessed another attack in 1996 when a domestic terrorist detonated a bomb at the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Georgia. This incident killed one person and injured more than 100 others. Collegiate sport venues have also been targeted for attacks. In 2005, an Oklahoma University student attempted to enter the football stadium during a game with explosives strapped to his body. After being denied admission, the student detonated the bomb near the stadium. Although none of the 84,000 in attendance were harmed, the student was killed and a university building was heavily damaged (Hagmann, 2005). During the 2004 season, approximately forty-three million people attended collegiate football games (Official NCAA Football Records Book, 2005). According to Hall (2006), the game-day environment at college sporting events meets the criteria for a high consequences terrorists attack.

            After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, most sport entities have performed threat assessments and revised security practices (Hurst, Zoubek, & Pratsinakis, n.d.). College athletic programs have enhanced security measures on a number of levels. The University of Michigan requested a no-fly zone over their stadium for a home football game against Western Michigan in September, 2001. They also locked down the stadium days before the game and utilized bomb sniffing dogs to inspect the facility (Bagnato, 2001). Other precautions taken by many universities across the nation include disallowing re-entry to the stadium, banning backpacks, towing illegally parked vehicles, and providing a greater security presence both inside and outside the sport facility (Bagnato). Despite these increased security measures, Pantera et al. (2003) found a need for improved security at college sport events. They indicated the need for enhanced communication, evaluation of strategic plans in advance, rehearsal of emergency responses with all first responders, and comprehensive training for all game-day staff members (Pantera et al.).

Methodology

            The goal of this research was to determine college students’ identification of the need for security at sporting events and their willingness to pay for additional security measures. Therefore, the participants (n = 100) in this study were college students aged 18-25 who were enrolled at the University of Southern Mississippi. This sample was also utilized due to their frequent appearances at collegiate athletic events, as well as their attendance at professional sporting venues. Surveys were distributed to various student groups on campus as well as to students in the undergraduate and graduate sport management program.

Instrumentation

            A twenty question survey instrument with YES, NO, and NO OPINION responses was created by the researchers for this study. A panel of experts (n = 3), all of whom had conducted research in the sport security field, reviewed the items for face and content validity. Four of the questions had a follow-up question if the subject answered YES to the previous question.  These questions were designed to determine if the subjects had actually attended collegiate or professional sporting events; and if so, did they have any concern for their personal safety while at the events.  The questions ranged from believing if security at sporting events was necessary, to their need for security personnel assistance while being a spectator at the event.  These questions were formulated to make the subject think about balancing the need for added security measures against the increased cost of tickets and the inconvenience of searches.  While the responses to the questions were limited to yes, no, or no opinion, the subjects were still required to think about the impact their answers may have on security at future sporting events.

Data Analysis

            The data was analyzed via the use of descriptive statistics. Frequencies were analyzed for each item on the survey instrument to determine college students’ perceptions and attitudes toward security at sport events.

Results

The first question given to the subjects was; “Have to you been to a professional or collegiate sporting event?”  All subjects answered yes to this question, which allowed the researchers to assume that an adequate sample for this study was chosen. All 100 subjects agreed that security at sporting events was important.  This suggests that college students do believe that security is a necessity, not a luxury.  Of the 100 subjects, only 52 answered yes that they were concerned with the lack of security at an event they attended, while the other 48 individuals answered no.  The next questioned asked, “had they ever seen or heard anything at these sporting events that made them feel concerned for their personal safety?”  Forty-four of the respondents answered yes, while the other 56 answered no to this question. 

The next set of questions had follow-up questions for those who answered yes. When asked if any of the subjects ever had to request assistance from security personnel, only 12 answered yes. Of those that answered yes, all agreed that they were able to find assistance.  When asked if any of the individuals had even been subjected to a bag search before entering a game, 72 of them responded yes and 28 no.  Of the 72 who answered yes, 56 believed the bag search to be adequate, while 16 believed the searches to be inadequate.  Of the 100 respondents, 56 said yes they had been subjected to a pat-down before entering an event, while 44 responded no.  Of the 56 that said yes to the previous question, 40 of them believed the pat-down was sufficient enough to find prohibited substances.  The last question with a follow-up asked if the subjects ever had to walk through a metal detector before entering a sport event.  Sixty-four of the subjects answered yes; 28 said no.  Of the 64 who said yes, all of them believed that the metal detector was adequate in detecting prohibited substances. 

The next group of questions dealt directly with security and threats of terrorism, as well as responses to an attack. When asked if “they believed that the security presence at sporting events was noticeable enough to deter criminal actions,” 68 responded yes, 24 no and eight had no opinion. Eighty-eight subjects believed that sporting events were likely targets for terrorist attacks, only four thought they were not and eight had no opinion.  Following that question participants were asked “would threat of a terrorist attack keep you from attending a sporting event?”  Sixty subjects answered yes and the remaining 40 answered no.  Surprisingly, 72 participants responded yes when asked, “if a terrorist attack occurred, would you continue to attend sporting events?”  Twenty subjects answered no to this question and eight had no opinion. 

The next set of questions involved monetary issues and security technology plans. The subjects were asked, “if they would be willing to pay more for a ticket for increased security?”  Only 36 individuals answered yes, 60 said no, and four had no opinion.  When asked, “if they would be willing to pay more for increased security technology”, 48 subjects responded yes, another 48 said no, and four had no opinion.  The subjects were then asked “if they would be willing to have their index finger scanned prior to entering a sporting event.” Sixty responded yes to this question while 32 responded no and eight had no opinion.  The last questioned offered to the 100 subjects asked, “Would you be willing to have you picture taken and compared to a database of identified terrorists prior to entering a sporting event?”  Forty-eight responded yes, 48 said no, and four had no opinion.

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that students at the University of Southern Mississippi are aware that security issues at sport events are important. Over half of the participants in this study even admitted that they felt like security was inadequate at sport events they had attended. However, the majority were not willing to pay extra for added security measures. This indicates that although college athletic programs need to ensure the safety of spectators, relying on fans to pay for increased security may adversely affect attendance. Eighty-eight percent of the participants stated that they thought sport events are likely targets for terrorist attacks. However, it was interesting to note that 40% would still attend a sporting event if the threat of a terrorist attack was evident and 72% said they would continue to attend sporting events after a terrorist attack had occurred.

This research seems to support Pantera et al. (2003) conclusions that more security efforts need to be implemented at collegiate sporting events. The difficulty for cash-strapped athletic departments will be funding additional security efforts. Budgets for most universities are tight and the justification for more security funds may not occur until it too late. Both fans and sport administrators must understand effective security measures and the costs associated with them for any substantial progress to be made regarding this issue.

References

Bagnato, A. (2001, September 17). Stadium security bolstered nationally; FAA bans aircraft from flying over Michigan’s game. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from www.ebscohost.com

Estell, L. (2002). A banner year for stadiums? Security concerns could put an end to stadium fly-overs. Incentive, 176(12), 8. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from www.ebscohost.com

Hagmann, D.J. (2005, October 30). Black hole in America’s heartland. Northeast Intelligence Network. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16

Hall, S. (2006). Effective security management of university sport venues. The Sport Journal, 9(4).

Hurst, R., Zoubek, P., & Pratsinakis, C. (n.d.). American sports as a target of
terrorism: The duty of care after September 11th. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from www.mmwr.com/_uploads/UploadDocs/publications/American%20Sports%20As%20A%20Target%20Of%20Terrorism.pdf

Lipton, E. (2005, March 16). U.S. report lists possibilities for terrorist attacks and likely toll. New York Times, Section A, Page 1, Column 2.

Official 2006 NCAA Football Records Book. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records.pdf

Pantera, M.J., et al. (2003). Best practices for game day security at athletic & sport venues. The Sport Journal, 6(4). Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.thesportjournal.org/2003Journal/Vol6-No4/security.asp