Digital sport entrepreneurial ecosystems

• Author: Ashleigh‐Jane Thompson,Vanessa Ratten
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22160
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Published date: 01 September 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Digital sport entrepreneurial ecosystems

Vanessa Ratten | Ashleigh-Jane Thompson

La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University,

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence

Vanessa Ratten, La Trobe Business School,

La Trobe University, Plenty Road, Bundoora,

3086, Melbourne, Victoria Australia.

Email: v.ratten@latrobe.edu.au

Abstract

The entrepreneurial ecosystems literature has increasingly explored network relation-

ships between different stakeholders, as well as the role of context. This article

addresses the challenge of including a sport context in the entrepreneurial ecosystem

literature thereby contributing to the sport entrepreneurship literature by bringing

insights from entrepreneurship ecosystem research. In-depth interviews of football

stakeholders in the sport entrepreneurship ecosystem are conducted in terms of

understanding the emergence of digital sport start-ups. The issues raised help explore

the changing nature of digital entrepreneurial ecosystems to take into account new

sport technological advances. Mixed embeddedness theory is used as the conceptual

foundation to understand sport digital entrepreneurial ecosystems. Key management

practices are identified in terms of sport start-ups participating in entrepreneurial

ecosystems. The article concludes by making suggestions for future research.

KEYWORDS

digital entrepreneurship, ecosystem, entrepreneurial ecosystem, football, internationalization,

networks, sport, stakeholder, technology

1|INTRODUCTION

The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems derived from the regional

development and strategic management literatures (Acs, Stam,

Audretsch, & O'Connor, 2017). This has meant most of the existing

research on entrepreneurial ecosystems focuses on economic geogra-

phy and the process of new firm formation (Stam, 2007). Regions are

considered entrepreneurial when they have an innovation system

conducive to change but the key difference between entrepreneurial

and innovation systems is that in entrepreneurial ecosystems the

decision-making ability to be creative is at the heart of the ecosystem.

This means that entrepreneurial ecosystems share similar characteris-

tics with clusters and industrial districts due to the emphasis on

understanding the role of innovation and stakeholders in a location

(Stam & Spiegel, 2018).

There is no common way to define an entrepreneurial ecosystem,

which has led to a multitude of definitions (Theodoraki, Messeghem, &

Rice, 2018). Most definitions of entrepreneurial ecosystems tend to

focus on the interaction between elements in a specific location that

lead to entrepreneurial activity (Malecki, 2018). This means that a

broad definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems focuses on the holistic

way a location influences innovation (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017). The

precursor of an ecosystem is having the right level of infrastructure

and climate with there being a combination of different stakeholders

present in an entrepreneurial ecosystem that need to use networks in

order to develop their businesses.

The role of social networks for entrepreneurship has been studied

but only recently has the notion of an ecosystem for entrepreneurship

emerged in the literature (Stam, 2015). The success of an ecosystem

relies on the systemic conditions that support and nurture entrepre-

neurship. Central to the idea of an entrepreneurial ecosystem is the

need for role models and champions who promote an innovation cul-

ture (Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Van Praag, & Verheul, 2014). This

enables the development of positive role models who can maintain

the dynamism needed in a system to produce entrepreneurship.

Through a process of cumulative actions, networks of leaders, finan-

cial providers, and knowledge entities can foster entrepreneurial

behavior.

For an entrepreneurial ecosystem to begin there needs to be the

right set of ingredients in terms of supportive assets such as institu-

tions, policies, and people (Erina, Shatrevich, & Gaile-Sarkane, 2017).

Some ingredients are more important than others as policy makers

DOI: 10.1002/tie.22160

Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2020;62:565–578. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tie © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 565