For many years, sports institutions in our region treated marketing as a seasonal activity: announcements, banners, a few sponsorship conversations, and then silence until the next competition or membership cycle. But the world has changed. The audience has changed. And the decision-making logic inside sport has changed as well. If a sports institution wants to compete, grow, and serve its community professionally, it cannot market blindly—it must market with information, and it must build that information through digital channels.​

That belief is what led me to write my scientific paper: “E‑marketing as an Approach to Developing Marketing Information Systems in Sport Organizations.” In this blog article, I am writing in my own voice—not as a distant third-person narrator—because this research came from a real professional concern: I repeatedly saw organizations trying to “do marketing” without having a functioning marketing information system, and I saw others adopting digital tools without a clear marketing orientation. The paper was my attempt to connect these two worlds: e‑marketing as a practical engine for developing marketing information systems (MIS) in sport institutions.​

Why this topic matters now

Today, marketing is no longer only about persuasion. It is about data, insight, segmentation, personalization, and speed of response. Sports organizations cannot rely on intuition alone when fans are online, competitors are visible, sponsors demand measurable returns, and audiences expect interactive communication.​

In the paper’s summary, the research focus is clear: to identify the extent to which sports institutions are oriented toward marketing, their senior management’s risk orientation, the degree of reliance on marketing intelligence, the trends toward disseminating and exchanging information, the interest in developing staff capabilities, the degree of interest in applying e‑marketing, and the current status of marketing information systems. This is not a “technology-only” study. It is a strategic study about institutional orientation, decision-making, and readiness.​

What the study aimed to investigate

The central research idea is simple but demanding: e‑marketing can become a structured entry point for developing marketing information systems in sport organizations—if it is adopted strategically and supported institutionally.​

To test this, the study examined multiple dimensions that shape whether e‑marketing actually strengthens an institution or just becomes superficial “online presence.” These dimensions include management’s willingness to take calculated risks, the organization’s use of marketing intelligence, and the internal culture of sharing and exchanging information—because MIS cannot function where information is locked inside silos.​

The research also examined whether institutions develop the capabilities of their workers, because digital marketing tools fail when people are not trained to use them and interpret their outputs.​

My journey writing it: from observation to measurement

Personally, this study began as an uncomfortable observation: many sports institutions that claim to “apply sports marketing” still suffer from marketing shortsightedness, and many do not have a strong marketing orientation capable of creating fundamental change in the way the organization works. I did not want to keep this observation in the form of an opinion. I wanted to measure it.​

So I designed the work using the descriptive survey method, which suited the nature of the study and allowed broad institutional representation. The questionnaire was the primary tool for collecting data, and an exploratory sample was used outside the main sample to calculate scientific coefficients for the research variables—because if the measurement tool is not reliable, the conclusions are not trustworthy.​

This was not just a technical step. It was a commitment: if the goal is to influence sports institutions, then the evidence must be credible.

Who participated in the study (and why that diversity matters)

One strength of this research is the diversity of the sample, because marketing information systems in sport are not the responsibility of one group alone.

The study sample included:

• Board members, executive directors, and marketing directors from clubs such as Al Ahly, Al Jazeerah, Al Shams, Zamalek, Sporting, Smouha, Olympic, Union, Fishing, Yacht, Egyptian, and MVB (100 participants).​

• Experts in sports marketing from companies working in the sports marketing field and professors interested in sports economics (19 participants).​

• Government sector representation through the Central Administration of Sports Investment in the Ministry of Youth and Sports (50 participants).​

• Board members, executive directors, and marketing managers from sports federations (swimming, handball, basketball, volleyball, football, squash, and gymnastics), totaling 80 participants.​

That made the total main sample 249 participants, with an additional exploratory sample of 30 participants. For me, this diversity was crucial. A sports marketing ecosystem includes clubs, federations, government investment administration, and private sector experts—and if these stakeholders do not align, e‑marketing remains fragmented.​

What the results revealed—and what they mean for real organizations

The study’s most important result is stated clearly: the majority of sports institutions that “apply sports marketing” suffer from marketing shortsightedness, and in many cases the institution does not have a marketing orientation strong enough to lead to a fundamental change in how it works. This is a serious finding. It means that some institutions may perform marketing activities without actually thinking like marketing organizations.​

At the same time, the study emphasizes that applying e‑marketing in sports institutions can fulfill institutional objectives in light of technological development in communication and information technology. In other words, the opportunity is real—but it requires a shift from superficial adoption to strategic integration.​

When looking at the detailed axes and tables, the study includes references to practical e‑marketing components such as having a website and using digital channels as part of a broader marketing information environment. That matters because websites, databases, and digital communication channels are not just “public relations”—they are data sources that feed MIS, enabling segmentation, feedback analysis, and better decision-making.​

How this research can impact industries and people

This paper is not only aimed at marketing departments. It speaks to a wider set of beneficiaries:

• Sports clubs and federations: stronger MIS improves sponsorship proposals, membership growth strategies, fan engagement, and service quality—because decisions are based on evidence rather than guesswork.​

• Sponsors and private sector partners: e‑marketing generates measurable engagement and clearer audience profiles, which makes sponsorship more attractive and more accountable.​

• Sports marketing companies and digital agencies: institutions with clearer MIS become better clients; they can define objectives, evaluate campaigns, and build long-term partnerships rather than one-off promotions.​

• Young professionals: as sport becomes more data-driven, new career paths expand in digital content, CRM, analytics, social media strategy, and marketing intelligence—if institutions are willing to modernize.​

• Fans and members: when an institution adopts e‑marketing properly, the fan experience improves—communication becomes faster, services become easier to access, and feedback becomes part of institutional learning.​

In short, e‑marketing is not just “online advertising.” It is a development entry point that can reshape the operating model of sport institutions.

A personal closing reflection

I wrote E‑marketing as an Approach to Developing Marketing Information Systems in Sport Organizations because I believe sport institutions deserve modern decision-making. If sport is to be sustainable, it must understand its audience, measure its performance beyond the field, and speak the language of today’s market.​

The paper does not claim that technology alone will solve problems. In fact, it highlights that many institutions still lack strong marketing orientation and suffer from shortsightedness. But it also delivers a clear message: when e‑marketing is applied thoughtfully—supported by leadership, training, information sharing, and marketing intelligence—it can become the bridge that transforms sport marketing from scattered activities into a real system.​

And that, in my view, is where the future of sport management begins: not with louder marketing, but with smarter marketing.