We surveyed over 30,000 fans across different sports to better understand rivalries. Learn more about this research or rivalry in general.
Menu
CLICK TO SEE THE DATA OR TAKE THE SURVEY.
We surveyed over 30,000 fans across different sports to better understand rivalries. Learn more about this research or rivalry in general.
A thorough explanation can be found in Tyler & Cobbs (2015), but in short, 10 main ingredients fall into three categories: Conflict Conditions, Strong Similarity, and Deep Differences.
Consistency: Frequent or recurring competition between the opponents
Conspicuous Moments: Specific incident—positive or negative—between competitors
Conspicuous Characters: Extraordinary individuals (performers, personalities, legacies)
Competitiveness: Comparable success (recent/historic) or uncertainty of outcome
Spatial Proximity: Competitors are located close to each other
Synonymous values/appearance: Shared values/appearance between opponents or supporters
Shared Supply Pool: Competition for labor talent and/or other resources
Dominance: One competitor aspires to overcome the historical success or dominance of the other
Disparate values/appearance: Conflicting values/appearance between opponents or supporters
Discrimination by authority: Perceived preferential treatment by competition regulators
Would you like to see an element to our work that we are currently missing?
Do you notice anything wrong that we need to correct?
Or would you like to talk with our co-founders to better understand sport fans and the many stories of rivalry?
Please connect via the form and we’ll get in touch.
Home of rivalry research on the web. Data from over 30,000 fans. Use for research, business, fun, and curiosity. Data are free for use by others with attribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA). This website and the research data displayed are not endorsed by or affiliated with any league or team. The faculty researchers are employees of their respective institutions and receive university support for their research.
The research is subject to University of Massachusetts Amherst IRB protocol #2410; Northern Kentucky University IRB protocol #916.
