Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

jo u rn al h om ep age: w ww.els evier .c o m/lo c ate /s mr

The moral obligation to preserve heritage through sport and recreationfacilities

Adam G. Pfleegor *, Chad S. Seifried, Brian P. Soebbing

Louisiana State University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 15 August 2012

Accepted 15 October 2012

Keywords:

Heritage

Sport facilities

Moral obligation

A B S T R A C T

The preservation of heritage through renovation projects of sport and recreation facilities

is a recent phenomenon. We are not generally prompted to think of sport and recreation

venues as cultural objects to preserve or as hosts to heritage, yet, they appear to be

significant sources of heritage for communities and fan nations (Mason, Duquette, &

Scherer, 2005; Rosentraub & Ijla, 2008). Noting facilities have the ability to preserve

heritage, the aim of this paper is to review contemporary philosopher Peter Singer’s (1993)

perspective on moral obligation to highlight the potential to protect heritage through

sport and recreation facility management practices. We argue that communities and

constituents may have a moral obligation to preserve heritage through sport and

recreation facilities due to the value they possess. Appropriately, preservation is defined

and framed as a managerial activity to assure the survival social, political, and cultural

records.

� 2012 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by

Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The ingenious and adaptive designs of complex sport and recreation venues have been the subject of numerous books,journal articles, and scholarly presentations. Interests to prolong the life of those community monuments have createdcompelling debates which juxtapose the contribution renovated venues could make to communities against thosepotentially resulting from new construction efforts (Seifried, 2010, in press). A significant amount of scholarly research hasfocused on whether renovated or newly constructed venues improve the economy to the greatest extent through items suchas increased tourism, employment opportunities, and tax revenues (Coates, 2007; Gratton, Shibli, & Coleman, 2005; Nelson,2002; Parlow, 2002; Rosentraub, 2006, 2008). Absent from the renovation versus new construction debate is the visiblecontribution sport and recreation venues make toward preserving heritage (Pfleegor & Seifried, 2012).

McKercher, Ho, and du Cros (2005) identified heritage as including ‘‘natural and cultural environments, the encompassingof landscapes, historic places, sites and built environments as well as intangible assets such as collections, past andcontinuing cultural experiences, knowledge and living experiences’’ (p. 541). Ramshaw and Gammon (2005) furtherpositioned heritage as often seeking to ‘‘remember, enliven, teach – and even create – personal and collective legacies forcontemporary audiences. Its purpose is often to celebrate the achievements, courage and strength of those who have comebefore’’ (p. 230). As an evolving product of social capital and anchor for local communities and/or fan nations, sport andrecreation venues appear to be significant sources of heritage (Fairley, 2003; Pfleegor & Seifried, 2012; Mason, Duquette, &Scherer, 2005; Misener & Mason, 2006; Ramshaw & Gammon, 2005; Robles, 2010). Take, for instance, the effort institutionsand communities take to improve quality of life, labor, and business investments as society transitions from industrial to

* Corresponding author at: Louisiana State University, Sport Management, 112 Huey Long Field House, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, United States.

Tel.: +1 607 857 1410.

E-mail address: apflee1@lsu.edu (A.G. Pfleegor).

1441-3523/$ – see front matter � 2012 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.10.002

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387 379

service-based economies (Hannigan, 1998). City and community leaders have sought to compete for inflows of capital byincreasing the number of entertainment amenities in their cities, which has led to the construction or renovation of sportsfacilities (Nelson, 2002; Rosentraub, 2008).

As anchors for tenants, the community, and corresponding fan nations, sport and recreation venues prompted significantdevelopment and thus contributed significantly to cultural heritage created and embraced by their members. Justifiably,heritage should be considered an important point of consideration prior to any renovation or new construction endeavor andpossibly a major feature to protect in older and historical venues. This connection is readily supported by Lambrinou (2010),who argued recent renewed interest in the general preservation movement was a result of ‘intelligentsia’ centered onheritage and needs for a collective and/or localized identity.

The protection of cultural heritage through buildings has been discussed and addressed internationally throughconventions, laws, and treaties. However, as Cloonan (2007) argued, it is ‘‘large areas of no rules at all’’ or a lack of philosophicconsideration that continues to challenge us (p. 753). Take for instance sport and recreation venues recognized by theNational Registrar of Historic Places (NRHP) in the United States as deserving protection. The NRHP specifically branded: (a)field houses (i.e., Butler Field House); (b) stadiums (e.g., Tiger Stadium, Harvard Stadium, etc.); (c) coliseums (e.g., LosAngeles Memorial Coliseum); (d) bowls (i.e., Yale Bowl); (e) racetracks (i.e., Indianapolis Motor Speedway); (f) golf courses(i.e., Oakmont Country Club); and other popular sport and recreation venues as ‘‘objects significant in American history,architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture’’ and worthy of protection and preservation (NRHP, 2011, n.p.).Additionally, the National Heritage List (NHL) in Australia and the Register of Historic Places (RHP) in New Zealand bothrecognize the historical importance of sport facilities. The Melbourne Cricket Grounds and the Basin Reserve Pavilion arelisted as historically significant landmarks for heritage by the NHL and RHP respectively (Historic Places Trust, n.d.; NationalHeritage List, n.d.). Interestingly, despite this recognition and similar attention provided by other historical associations andconservation societies, little academic literature both in the areas of sport management and sport philosophy discusses themoral obligation to protect older sport and recreation venues as part of the renovation versus new construction debate.Moreover, the influence any moral obligation should impose on possible renovation activities, identified by Weeks andGrimmer’s (1995) notable work for the U.S. Department of the Interior and National Park Service Heritage PreservationProgram as restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, has been minimally discussed.

The management and play of sport offers countless ethical dilemmas on a daily basis (Fraleigh, 1984). In order to equipdecision makers with the tools to make appropriate decisions from both an ethical and organizational standpoint, Fraleigh(1984) argued a solid moral and ethical foundation must be in place ‘‘to provide a firm base for dealing with thousands ofsituations in sport contests’’ (p. 10). Contemporary sport philosophers have addressed the issue of moral obligations to someextent. However, much of their focus was on the acquisition of moral values and the various moral obligations to participate,coach or manage sport in a fair and respectable manner. For instance, notable sport philosophers such as William J. Morgan,Heather Reid, and Robert L. Simon have not included any imperatives or considerations concerning the venues that housesocially precious games and activities (Morgan, 1997, 2004; Reid, 2007; Simon, 2000, 2010). The lack of philosophicconsideration is not surprising as Eggert (2007) noted the importance of physical objects appears ‘‘as something thatphilosophers are apt to overlook or treat as trivial’’ despite the fact they serve as adequate windows to the past (p. 96). Sportand recreation facilities appear as culturally relevant artifacts and are recognized as ‘sacred’ spaces because they haveevolved over time to meet different political, economic, and social initiatives or preferences (Bale, 2003; Gammon, 2002;Newman, 2001; Rosentraub & Ijla, 2008; Segrave, 2001; Seifried & Pastore, 2009a, 2010). These notions support theprotection of those venues or, at the very least, require a discussion prior to their renovation or destruction because sport andrecreation facilities also must take into account the arbitrary yet constitutive elements of sport that make games possible.

The purpose of this review is to examine the potential moral obligation society has to preserve older sport and recreationvenues when their preservation maintains and assures the survival of heritage and how moral obligation can be used todirect preservation management activities. The position for the following sections in the manuscript focuses on a Westernfoundation of moral obligation and the case for older sport and recreation venues as anchors for heritage. Sport andrecreation facilities include everything that Cloonan (2007) suggested defines culture such as artificial and natural treasures,art, and other physical records. Cultural heritage also includes the use of rules, regulations, and laws to protect specific itemsor landmarks (Cloonan, 2007). In the 1960s and 1970s, the concern for heritage management increased to prompt safeguardsagainst the destruction of intangible heritage (Hassard, 2009). Intangible heritage involves the cultural identity of acommunity and continuing efforts to connect and assign value to the past (Hassard, 2009; Robles, 2010). Utilizing thisconsideration, preservation can be viewed as a managerial activity that seeks to assure the survival of social, political, andcultural records (Cloonan, 2001; Robles, 2010). The secondary objective of the present review is to establish a managementphilosophy that respects the value or cultural heritage provided by sport and recreation venues. By maintaining the integrityof older sport and recreation venues, the preservation of cultural identity and heritage of particular communities, cities,states, nations and empires remains possible and supports those that have already preserved their venues.

The present review is unique because it offers a rare philosophical or ethical application to sport related managerialproblems. Malloy and Zakus (1995) highlighted the importance of increased scholarly research on ethical decision making insport management to address such managerial problems in sport. Many other scholars previously advocated for such anincrease in the utilization of ethical research and education in sport management and literature development (e.g., Bryant,1993; DeSensi & Rosenberg, 2010; Hums, Barr, & Gullion, 1999; Kihl, 2007; Kjeldsen, 1992; Malloy, Ross, & Zakus, 2003;Rudd, Mullane, & Stoll, 2010; Zakus, Malloy, & Edwards, 2007; Zeigler, 1984, 2007).

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387380

In addition to the opportunity for additional ethically based literature in sport management, facility management coursescould also require texts that help educate sport students better about that topic area for use in the decision-making processin the management of renovation versus new construction debates. For instance, Ammon, Southall, and Blair (2003), Fried(2010), and Westerbeek, Smith, Turner, and Emery (2005) popularly discussed major topics such as facility construction andsupported the use of a variety of activities, projects, and lectures to help students learn how to make sustainable and usefulbuilding decisions. However, none addressed the concept of heritage and the importance it may impose on any renovation ornew construction decision. Furthermore, they did not recognize the importance of moral consideration in this process.

1. The foundation for moral obligation and preserving sport and recreational facilities

The framework for this review on moral obligation and the preservation of heritage is grounded within Westernphilosophy, thought, or ideology. While there are many other distinct moral and ethical precepts which could direct differentdecisions related to the moral obligation to preserve sport and recreation facilities as a product of culture, Westerndefinitions and traditions were chosen based on the researchers own cultural and intellectual upbringing and the fact thatmost of the cited literature within this review comes from Western scholars. As Zimmerman’s (1996) comprehensiveanalysis of moral obligation was framed, a deliberate choice to avoid a particular ethical maxim such as deontology, teleologyor existentialism was selected to potentially ensure a greater universalizability of the claims due to the intricacy of theobligation construction. However, through a moral pluralism approach, an appropriate framework to critically analyzesociety’s moral obligation to sport and recreation venues is established. Thus, the present research accepted the presentationof moral obligation by Kant (1964) and Singer (1979, 1993, 2009) to avoid distraction from the purpose of the review.

Western philosophers have discussed the function of morality in the context of duty, moral imperatives, and justice froma variety of ethical and philosophical maxims and perspectives (Glover, 1975; Hare, 1964, 1972; Kant, 1964; Rawls, 1971;Singer, 1979, 1993, 2009). Additionally, contemporary sport philosophers have addressed the function of morality in globalconcerns associated with sport and recreation such as the creation of national identities, sport and moral education, and thevalues associated with sport and sport participation (Morgan, 1997, 2004; Reid, 2007; Simon, 2000, 2010). Still, the moralobligation to preserve historic sport and recreation facilities has not been addressed despite the fact that the preservation ofcultural heritage can be accomplished through those venues (Bale, 2003; Seifried & Meyer, 2010).

Perhaps no scholar has been more influential in the justification of universal moral principles than 18th century Germanphilosopher Immanuel Kant. As an example, Kant (1964) utilized his concept of the ‘categorical imperative’ to insist thathumans should always uphold the duty to perform in a moral fashion. Although various interpretations of the imperativemarginally differ, the main premise that if a person wanted to live a moral existence, then his/her behavior must show thisdesire through maintaining his/her commitment to moral obligations is commonly recognized (Kant, 1964). Throughout hislife, Kant maintained the intrinsic validity of the categorical imperative and associated duties to be followed by allindividuals in all situations. Extensive moral and ethical concerns have also been presented and undertaken bycontemporary philosophers such as Glover (1975), Hare (1964, 1972), and especially, Singer (1979, 1993, 2009) who greatlyimpacted the position ultimately chosen in this discourse concerning the intricacies of human moral obligation and theprotection of heritage through sport and recreation facilities.

Singer, named by Time Magazine as one of the most influential people in the world in 2009, famously addressed moralobligations dealing with topics such as death, animal rights, poverty, abortion, suicide, euthanasia, starvation, and charity(Singer, 1979, 1993, 2009). Specifically, Singer’s (1993) simple principle when analyzing moral obligations posited, ‘‘If it is inour power to prevent something. . .bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance,we ought to do it’’ (p. 168). He further explained that this simple principle is ‘‘uncontroversial’’ from all ethical upbringingsand perspectives (p. 168).

Although the preservation of sport and recreation facilities does not involve the saving of millions from harm, poverty,and starvation, some plausible connections can be made to Singer’s (1993) claims. For instance, Cloonan (2007) indicated,people not only have cravings for food and water, but also intense cravings for knowledge, and in particular, ‘‘knowledge oftheir past and the certainty that there will be a continuity of their cultural-individual selves after they die’’ (p. 748). Galvan(2006) and Hassard (2009) similarly presented heritage and the duty owed to future generations regarding the safeguardingof cultural inheritance as important as an item, which should be featured during many renovation and razing debates. Basedon this information, if society accepts that sport and recreational facilities exist or serve as catalysts to maintaining andpreserving cultural heritage, it starts to become clear that there is indeed some imperative to maintain a community’s pastthrough preservation. Furthermore, from Singer’s example, society appears to be morally obligated to preserve some historicsport and recreation facilities because through that activity some losses of cultural and historical heritage (i.e., knowledge)can be prevented. Moreover, if this can be accomplish without sacrificing anything of comparable financial, social, or moralsignificance, society is obligated to prevent its loss from occurring.

1.1. Singer’s moral obligation points of contention

In order to further examine whether society is morally obligated to prevent the loss of cultural heritage through oldersport and recreational facility destruction and/or improper renovation, a review of Singer’s (1993) selective points ofcontention is appropriate. Those points, which Singer (1993) set forth as anticipatory from critics, include: (1) taking care of

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387 381

our own; (2) leaving it to the government; and (3) the ethics of triage. The ‘taking care of our own’ objection is premised onthe understanding that it is more important to deliver aid to local citizens (i.e., opportunity costs) than spread the wealth toothers, which in this case could be acknowledged as professional sport organizations. Singer (1993) refuted this objection bystating that this premise only holds true ‘‘when some are in absolute poverty, and others can help without sacrificinganything of comparable moral significance. To allow one’s own kin to sink into absolute poverty would be to sacrificesomething of moral significance’’ (p. 172). Noting that extreme discrepancies exist between what poverty in the UnitedStates and poverty in third world countries truly entails, Singer (1993) believed this objection to be severely flawed.

In a similar fashion, a possible objection to this position regarding a moral obligation to preserve heritage throughhistorical sport and recreation venues is that there are far more important concerns (i.e., opportunity costs) in one’scommunity than protecting a sport facility or recreation center which as its primary purpose, houses trivial contests orprovides revenue to a select few. While in some locations this might be true, those totally committed to this perspective mayfail to grasp the powerful social institution that sport has become in communities across the globe. Sport, as a culturalphenomenon, has the power to transcend many societal barriers (e.g., class, race, ethnicity, and religion) that otherwisewould be in place (Coakley, 2009). By protecting and preserving the historical significance of the sport and recreation facility,a community’s core, togetherness, and a sharing of cultural similarities remains intact as well as the relics and scars of its pastwhich celebrate the existence of its community. In essence, opponents of sport and recreation facility renovation or newconstruction need to comprehend that those venues serve as an important social anchor for communities and fan nationsfrom which people enjoy several intangible benefits such as: (a) improving health benefits for participant population; (b)improved view of the local government; (c) achievement of social goals like regeneration, civic pride, psychic income; and (d)civic legacy (Barghchi, Omar, & Aman, 2009; Crompton, 2004; Walton, Logo, & Dawson, 2008). This information suggests thatpotential construction activity regarding sport and recreation venues should include heritage as a point consideration alongwith pure economic returns and opportunity costs such as investment into education, utilities, and infrastructure.

A second point of contention raised by Singer (1993) against the existence of a moral obligation to preserve involved a‘deflection of responsibility onto the government.’ Individuals who raise this objection hold that if privately run charities andindividual citizens are required to donate a significant amount of aid, then the government escapes one of its responsibilitiesas ruling entity of a wealthy nation. Further within this argument, Singer (1993) suggested that if private charities were tocease their giving programs, that scenario does not automatically equate to an increase in governmental support. Forinstance, Singer believed it could have an even more damning effect; ‘‘. . .if no one gives voluntarily government will assumethat its citizens are not in favor of overseas aid, and will cut is program accordingly. . .’’ (p. 179). Through this view, citizenshave some moral obligation to protect their own heritage and not rely solely on the governmental services and aid.

Again, it is easy to see the connection of this concept to the restoration of sport and recreation facilities. Many historicalfacilities such as Lambeau Field (Green Bay, WI), Kauffman Stadium (Kansas City, KS) and a host of premier college venues(e.g., Recreation and Physical Activity Center – Columbus, OH, Recreation Hall – University Park, PA, Intramural SportsBuilding – Ann Arbor, MI) have utilized government assistance during their renovation activities. However, this does notnecessarily mean that private donations, investment, and/or charity work is unnecessary or that taxpaying citizens candeflect responsibility onto the government. With the difficult economic times that have hit many cities and communitiesacross the United States and the rest of the world, government funding for sport projects and other non-sport relatedbuilding has vastly decreased or been put on hold (e.g., O.co Coliseum in Oakland, CA). Without the contribution from privateindividuals, historical foundations, and fund raising groups, many historic properties are in danger. A growing effort toproduce collaboration between private charities/citizens and government entities has emerged to fast track the preservationof some community facilities and the sport venues mentioned above. Since a swift and proper restoration, reconstruction, orrehabilitation is essential for many venues, relying solely on governmental obligations to give does not seem to be an ethicalsolution to avoid deterioration and the loss of cultural heritage. Again, if the maintenance of cultural inheritance andknowledge is important, people owe it to their community to contribute.

The third and potentially most serious objection offered by Singer (1993) involved the ‘ethics of triage’ and the question ofwhether it is wrong to assist those in severe dire need because that may only confound the problem. Within this socialphilosophy, wounded soldiers are placed into three categories: (1) those who can survive regardless of medical help; (2)those who could survive with medical assistance; and (3) those who would likely to perish no matter the circumstances.When a soldier was placed into the third category, he was left to die without medical attention. Singer (1993) boldlyexplained, ‘‘the policy of triage involves a certain, very great evil’’ because it focuses on the short-term benefit (i.e., bettermedical treatment for the less wounded) over that of possible long-term outcomes (p. 177). Singer (1993) believed thisobjection is easily counteracted with an understanding of consequentialist ethics. The cornerstone of consequentialist ethicsis an understanding that ‘‘a course of action that will certainly produce some benefit is to be preferred to an alternativecourse that may lead to a slightly larger benefit, but is equally likely to result in no benefit at all’’ (p. 176). Therefore, theconsequences and outcomes of ethical and moral decisions must be taken into consideration before the decision is rendered.

Based on this perspective, Singer’s (1993) scenario and response appears applicable to the present examination onpreserving older sport and recreation venues. By adopting a triage-like mentality, communities and organizations would notbe obligated to help restore, reconstruct, or rehabilitate the most corroded and degraded facilities because it is likely thatthose venues lost the most central features of their heritage components. In essence, that knowledge or connection to thepast is lost. Still, more times than not, older sport and recreation facilities in need of attention possess the most importantcritical features of their cultural heritage and are still functional toward meeting organizational goals. Employing a triage

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387382

mentality in regards to the preservation and renovation of sport and recreation facilities would result in a complete loss ofthe most unsalvageable venues but prompt the protection of others from which a community may not desire or can afford tolose due to the identity, image, or social capital opportunities they provide. At first glance, it may appear that comparingsport and recreation facilities to some of the world’s greatest ills is irresponsible. However, it is not the goal of this review toclaim that the importance of buildings or structures is on common ethical grounds as preserving human life; rather, thephilosophical structure provided by Singer (1993) seems to be both appropriate and applicable to maintain a piece ofcommunity fabric and history in place.

2. The value of sport and recreation venues

In 1996, the International Community of the Blue Shield (ICBS) was created to help people protect their cultural heritage.Professionals from the International Council on Archives, the International Council of Museums, the International Council onMonuments and Sites, and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions incorporated their BlueShield symbol to mark significant sites and areas of cultural heritage and specifically to protect them from harm during timesof armed conflict (Cloonan, 2007; Luxen, 2004). Lambrinou (2010) argued that war can impose some of the most destructiveimpacts on a building. The act of labeling an artifact as possessing cultural heritage differentiates it from other objects toprovide it value. Advocates of the Blue Shield approach presume we could produce more good by identifying artifacts asmore culturally significant than others to help protect them from deterioration, destruction, and/or poor renovation efforts.

These organizational practices and the general concern demonstrated by various associations around indicate a collectivemoral obligation to preserve sport and recreation venues. Noted women’s study and cultural scholar, Marguerite G. Bouvard,provided further ammunition for such a perspective when she suggested,

Culture is a very deep part of individuality. To assure the dignity and well-being of future generations we need tosafeguard culture. Monuments are a visual library of our human as well as our spiritual passage in all of its fullness—good and evil. It is always cultural monuments that are under attack in political conflicts—and for a very good reason;[to destroy cultural objects creates] a blow to society and to peoples’ sense of security and identity (cited in Cloonan,2007, p. 752).

Cloonan (2007) further posited, ‘‘there seems to be an almost instinctive need for individuals to preserve their own personalhistories’’ and that today ‘‘there is a growing emphasis on community-based preservation’’ (p. 752).

Preservation activities such as those typical of renovation surface to provide outstanding clarity and perhaps a newperspective on a time and culture changed through modernization (Weeks & Grimmer, 1995). This perspective is thefoundation for historical preservation societies and the basis for attributes required to be called a historic venue (Hassard,2009; Robles, 2010). Robles (2010) identified seven such values attributed to historic monuments that could be potentiallyseen in older sport and recreation venues which merit this perspective and the moral obligation to protect the heritage theysupport. Those values are: (1) typological; (2) structural; (3) functional; (4) esthetic; (5) architectural; (6) historical; and (7)symbolic. Typological value was defined as the changes a building endured over time according to its geographic positionand historical periods to ‘‘meet the cultural requirements of specific societies’’ (Robles, 2010, p. 151). Typology explains thecontext of construction processes, building techniques, and venue changes with respect to its surrounding culturalenvironment. Structural value is determined through the presentation of building materials and the use of technology duringvarious phases of construction over time. Robles (2010) presented structural value as being distinct for each community.

Take for example, Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts. Fenway Park is home of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) BostonRed Sox and has been since 1912. Typological and structural values are present throughout the ballpark and its unique designwithin downtown Boston. No other ballpark in the United States can claim to be identical and able to produce the sameambiance. For instance, as a relic of the ‘jewel box’ era of sport facility construction, Fenway emerged as one of the first steeland reinforced concrete professional ballparks (Seifried & Pastore, 2009a). Within an urban setting, the various expansionand renovation efforts to improve seating options and amenities endured within the ballpark were confined by the streetgrid, thus providing it to become a ‘jewel’ in the heart of Boston and possessing such notable features like the ‘Green Monster’and ‘Pesky Pole’ (Seifried & Pastore, 2009a). The characteristic brick and steel supports present throughout the venue alsohighlight the typological and structural value because they not only showcase the popular building materials of a specific erabut also support the adaptability of the ballpark to meet the requirements of attendees and participants within a confinedlocation. The ballpark grew and changed to reflect the cultural preferences and practices of its citizens.

Functional value is heavily influenced by culture, environmental factors, and regional climate. Appropriately, thefunctional value of a venue can change over time to meet different demands placed upon it by its community and owners.Without functional value, any building will be subject to desertion or activities which it was not really intended to support(Robles, 2010). To contrast, architectural value is determined by the design, decoration, and/or ornamentation of the venue.Notably, Robles (2010) suggested, ‘‘even a deliberate lack of decoration has significance and can characterize particularperiods’’ (p. 152). The form of decoration is generally tied to the function of a building and conveys messages to society aboutthe purpose of its activities and its ownership group. Esthetic value, although subjective, results from an understandingabout the functional and architectural value of a building. Spectators able to recognize the merging of architectural andfunctional values will individualize their decision to appreciate the esthetics of a building.

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387 383

The Huey P. Long Field House, on the campus of the Louisiana State University (LSU), serves as a great illustration of thesevalues. In 1932, the Huey P. Long Field House emerged to function as the anchor of campus. It was a recreation building forLSU’s growing campus community in addition to serving as a dormitory and student union. During the late 1920s and early1930s, competition between universities for students prompted the creation of buildings to supply these fundamentalservices (Seifried, 2012). The most noticeable feature of the Huey P. Long Field House was the megalithic pool (180 feet inlength), which at one time was the largest outdoor pool in the world (Seifried, 2012). As a campus within a noticeably humidsummer and mild winter climate, a large outdoor pool at LSU was identified as a necessity as it predated air-conditioneduniversity buildings. The massive length of the Huey P. Long Pool functioned and adapted over time to service other non-recreation based activities such as life-saving, charitable events, water safety courses, and athletic competitions.Architecturally, the pool and field house further represented the Victorian-Italian Renaissance style characteristic of othercampus buildings through its honey brick veneer and red clay tile roof shingles (Seifried, 2012). Combined with the opulencedisplayed in the grand ballroom overlooking the pool (i.e., high ceiling carvings and reliefs and chandeliers) and decorativefloor tiles throughout the building, the Huey P. Long Field House surfaced as an esthetically pleasing and opulent venue in theeyes of most Louisianans.

Finally, historic and symbolic values are identified to consider the placement or meaningfulness of the building with acommunity. Historical value involves the collective history of the building from pre-emergence to the present and all thestories associated with the venue. Robles (2010) noted the descriptive chronology of the construction, destruction,degradation, and change to a structure reveals important information about a community, its builders, and the impactsubsequent societies and individuals imposed on its use. The building’s evolution survives as living tangible proof of changeand the history of a community leaders, natural events, and entrepreneurs over time. Symbolic value involves the‘‘representative value’’ individuals bestow on a venue when attempting to connect ‘‘specific historical events, individuals,religion, ideologies, culture, or tangible or intangible social images or icons’’ (Robles, 2010, p. 154).

Robles’ (2010) symbolic and representative value can be directly related the concept of synecdoche. Based on Smith,2005a,b understanding, Maennig and du Plessis (2009) stated that synecdoche ‘‘refers to cases where an element of a largerset (such as one building in a city) comes to represent the set’’ (p. 67). The skyline that has become synonymous with NewYork City and Manhattan as well as the Eiffel Tower standing for the city of Paris are excellent examples of synecdochicalimages (Smith, 2005a). Sport and recreation facilities frequently serve or stand as powerful images of cities and communitiesacross the world but do not always provide this connection (Maennig & du Plessis, 2009). Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, LAand Wembley Stadium in London, UK not only are defining features of their respected cities skylines, but evoke a powerfulillustration of the city that houses those venues.

Generations build symbolic value but individuals may establish their own personal symbolic value regarding a buildingnot influenced by greater society. For Boston, Fenway Park exists as one of the most notable features of the city. In BatonRouge, the Huey P. Long Field House existed as a place ‘‘where old friends gather, new friends meet, dates are made, andsometimes are broken’’ (Leger, 2003, p. 1). Both are objects their communities are prepared to protect through renovationand new construction initiatives.

3. Managerial concerns during various construction activities

Robles (2010) and Galvan (2006) offered that communities need to make morally sound decisions regarding preservation,which best support the needs of its constituents while respecting the values highlighted above in the previous section.Without taking that position, Robles (2010) posited renovation, in particular, can be ‘‘taken to the extreme’’ and can ‘‘result ina caricature’’ of the past (p. 166). Recent restoration and rehabilitation efforts orchestrated by the Boston Red Sox at FenwayPark and Soldier Field (Chicago, Illinois) for the Chicago Bears of the National Football League (NFL) serve as excellentcontrasts of a responsible preservation of heritage.

Between 2003 and 2011 Fenway Park received roughly $100 million of attention through a variety of renovation activitiesto improve the venue so that according to Boston Red Sox President and Chief Operations Officer Larry Lucchino it ‘‘could beviable [e.g., culturally and financially] for another 40 years’’ (Ballour, 2008, p. B1). The building activity at the park committedthe Red Sox to both short-term and long-term jobs aimed toward maintaining the venue’s high level of social capital. Theproject list included: (a) increasing the width of most seats and the concourse behind Section 16 along the 1st base line; (b)creating new seating sections above the most notable and historic feature of the ballpark, the Green Monster; (c) installingnew high-definition video boards in centerfield and LED screens within the ballpark perimeter; (d) replacing the field with amodern drainage and heating system; (e) expanding the team clubhouse, weight room, media, and physical therapy/trainingareas; and (f) refurbishing the cherry trees and historic street lamps on surrounding Lansdowne Street (Boston Red Sox Tour,personal communication, July 2011).

The Boston Red Sox organization chose to restore and rehabilitate Fenway Park despite the strong impulse to demolish ordestroy the building because of a moral obligation the organization felt to protect its heritage. Interestingly, the desire tovacate, condemn, raze, and ultimately replace sport and recreation venues is frequently based on capitalist pressures, whichforce or drive most sport organizations and some recreation facilities to exploit all opportunities to increase revenues(Seifried, 2010, in press). Barghchi et al. (2009) argued modern professional sport facilities, in particular, represent this pointvividly as they are venues designed and operated to capture the ‘‘economy of leisure and dreams, marketing fantasy, andcommercial developments’’ (p.186). Some renovations and many decisions to demolish follow this at the expense of

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387384

heritage. Additionally, most sport managers lack sufficient background knowledge and decision-making abilities regardingheritage preservation in the facilities they run and operate (Pfleegor & Seifried, 2012).

At Soldier Field, the incorporation of a new asymmetrical seating bowl obstructed views of the 136 original Doriccolonnades surrounding the stadium’s perimeter (Johnson & Lee, 2004). Aiming to bring fans closer to the field andadding additional luxury amenities for better revenue production, the new seating bowl towered over the colonnades onthe city side of the building while a massive curved-steel seating structure eclipsed the colonnades on the marina side ofthe building. Originally opened in 1924, Soldier Field and its distinctive colonnades were meant to honor soldiers thatparticipated in World War I and to communicate power and significance through its cast stone construction material(Johnson & Lee, 2004). This material is similar to other popular heavy granite looking buildings famously completed bythe Benedict Stone Company who supplied cast stone and concrete to over 100 buildings built between 1919 and 1930 inthe United States, Canada, and Australia (Johnson & Lee, 2004). The authenticity of the cast stone facade was ruined whenthe outer skin of the remodeled Soldier Field began to feature a significant amount of glass additions. Combined, thesechanges destroyed the original fabric of the building and any ability to maintain the historical appearance of the oldvenue.

Importantly, Lambrinou (2010) suggested authenticity was critical to instilling or re-establishing cultural symbolismwith a building and authenticity requires materially genuine building materials. Kulczycki and Hyatt (2005) and Bendix(1997) noted that although the concept of authenticity was at times confusing, ‘‘it is an important factor withinheritage. . .and nostalgia’’ (Kulczycki & Hyatt, 2005, p. 277). From a tourism heritage perspective, Wang (1999) differentiatedbetween activity-related authenticity, which encompassed the lived experience of the participant, and object-relatedauthenticity, which encompassed the object being viewed. The connection of sport and recreation facilities to Wang’s (1999)understanding of object-related authenticity is easily identifiable. A paramount way to accomplish authenticity within thesport or recreation structure is through the use of appropriate building materials. Lambrinou (2010) argued for such aposition by stating that materially genuine building materials allow for the ‘‘reading of its [building’s] history’’ (p. 63).Lowenthal (1995) and Hassard (2009) similarly advocated for ‘original’ building materials to help venues secure their placein time. Anastylosis without an appreciation for authenticity significantly increases the chances that a building’s renovationwill irreversibly damage the historical and that the cultural significance of the venue is lost (Lambrinou, 2010).

Destroying the character or ambiance of the original Soldier Field for the purpose of producing revenue for the ChicagoBears, in this manner, eventually led a 10-member federal advisory team in September of 2004 to recommend that venue bestripped of its designation as a National Historic Landmark in the United States. Committee member Carol Ahlgren, anarchitectural historian at the National Park Service, issued a statement in the report which suggested the committeeunanimously believed allowing Soldier Field to keep its prestigious status would be a mistake because its constructionchanges provided a false sense of the venue’s past (Dardick & Washburn, 2004). Former National Park Service InteriorSecretary Gale Norton also noted the committees’ recommendation highlighted and warned that future construction effortsshould reconsider major construction efforts on landmark properties, particularly when those changes are aimed at makingmoney. Changes to Soldier Field removed any connection to the 1920s and 1930s, which interestingly in 1985 was used onthe stadium’s application materials for Landmark status, as one of its unique characteristics and justification measures(Dardick & Washburn, 2004). Expectedly, because so few historic features were retained, Soldier Field lost its designation as aNational Historic Landmark on February 17, 2006. To prevent similar destruction of cultural heritage or knowledge of thepast, many associations or programs have been established around the world to protect and preserve historic buildings ascultural artifacts. One outcome of this activity has been the creation of building codes (Galvan, 2006; Lambrinou, 2010).

Despite the preference to protect, traditional building codes seem to prohibit the renovation of older or more historicspace (Galvan, 2006; Lambrinou, 2010). For example, reliance upon commonly accepted regulations and procedures canimpose significant financial costs, complicate efforts to preserve, prohibit the rehabilitation of abandoned space, andpotentially prompt disputes among specialists with different agendas (Galvan, 2006; Hassard, 2009; Lambrinou, 2010).Galvan (2006) highlighted this point by indicating that critics have called for new building code legislation which is not‘‘slow to adapt, costly, insensitive to urban needs, and discouraging of innovation’’ and does not position one specialist group(e.g., architects, engineers, historians, archeologists, and city planners) against another (p. 1748).

Galvan (2006) also suggested changing building code regulations, building strategic partnerships, and gaining theattention of the public were not necessarily the only other preservation management strategies to support a morallyresponsible construction decision. As an example, in order to responsibly plan for and focus renovation efforts towardmeeting moral obligations, Lambrinou (2010) proposed four areas which included: (1) obtaining a detailed understanding ofthe structure’s shape including previous renovation efforts; (2) clarifying the architectural placement of the venue in itscommunity; (3) illuminating constructional solutions which honor the original architects, brickwork, and stonemasons, and(4) involving a variety of specialists (e.g., architects, engineers, and historians) into generating solutions. Robles (2010)further highlighted that serious historical research is essential for the preparation of any responsible renovation project andthat authenticity is critical. Slaton (2005) and Seifried (in press) additionally promoted the creation of a Historic StructureReport (HSR) which they identified as: (a) serving to record information on a building’s history, changes, and maintenancerecords; (b) recognizing management goals within the scope of the most sensible and appropriate building activities; and (c)outlining the potential cost (i.e., financial and social) of those activities. Finally, Eggert (2007) suggested the bias andbackground of the conservator, organizational influences/preferences (i.e., search for revenue), and honest mistakes ininterpretation can all lead to errors in the cultural heritage preservation.

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387 385

4. Conclusion

The history of sport and recreation provides numerous examples of the old being replaced with the new as part of aconstant search for a financial competitive advantage without much respect for heritage or the ability of older buildings toadapt to new aspirations (Seifried, 2010). The modernist ‘‘cookie-cutter’’ era facilities built between the mid-1950s and1980s serve as a great representative of this claim as many have been totally replaced with younger and cosmeticallyenhanced models despite few structural flaws (Segrave, 2001; Seifried & Pastore, 2009b). Prior to that, the cookie-cutter eravenues also replaced the jewel-box venues built between early 1900s through the 1950s during the birth and emergence ofballpark construction and professionalized sport for similar economic driven reasons (Segrave, 2001; Seifried & Pastore,2009a, 2010). The work force in charge of making decisions to build new or renovate seem to be undereducated and ill-informed on the positive ramifications of heritage preservation (Pfleegor & Seifried, 2012). The present review of Singer(1993) and Kant (1964) served to provide a moral pluralism framework to examine the potential to renovate and preservefacilities versus building new. This may be important for researchers and practitioners in tourism, mega events, resourcemanagement, urban planning, and sport management.

It should be noted that the demolition of ballparks, stadiums, racetracks, and other sport and recreation venues is notnecessarily a bad thing. For instance, destruction can provide the opportunity or the impetus to recapture cultural heritagefor improved commitment to a fan nation, as uncovered by Seifried and Meyer’s (2010) investigation of nostalgia in sportfacilities. Some historians have similarly argued that the cycle of heritage preservation sometimes best begins through thedestruction of the past (Lowenthal, 2002). In essence, societies can rebuild themselves a better product for bettercommitment, consumption, and social capital. Similar to Singer’s (1993) point of contention regarding triage, unsalvageablebuildings can also justifiably be razed using this analysis on moral obligation. Still, despite this possibility, the present reviewalso showed that there seems to be a moral obligation to preserve sport and recreation facilities if they are salvageable andthe values they possess are a reflection of the cultural heritage of a community and/or fan nation.

Outside the United States, places like San Siro Stadium (Milan), Rasunda Stadium (Solna, Sweden), Santiago Bernabeu(Madrid), Camp Nou (Barcelona), Berlin Olympic Stadium, Estadio do Maracana (Rio de Janeiro), Ellis Park Stadium(Johannesburg, South Africa), Eden Park (Auckland, New Zealand), and Estadio Centenario (Montevideo, Uruguay) exist asmajor pre-1950 stadiums which received careful and respectful attention during renovation efforts. Several of theseproperties experienced preservation activities because they were specifically recognized as salvageable and as importanthistorical venues by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) or the International Olympic Committee(Seifried, in press).

Restoration theorist Eggert (2007) suggested ‘‘buildings continue to undergo change in response to people’s needs’’ (p.101). This exists as another reason society may be morally obligated to preserve historic sport and recreation facilities. Again,the values presented by Robles (2010) and others above suggested they are an important representative of heritage.Standardizing what is best or nearest to the original fabric of the building is often times a difficult task (Eggert, 2007).Furthermore, this task is especially challenging for those working on sport and recreation venues because they regularlyendured renovation and reconstruction efforts during the pursuit of the almighty dollar and changing consumer demands(Seifried, in press). With this frame in mind (i.e., revenue), what aspects of the building and resources to use duringpreservation will likely guide the process toward a vision and output different from other building restoration efforts. Thispractice should be accepted to guide efforts more responsibly during the preservation management process and because it isour moral obligation to the venue, community, and the organization’s fan nation. This application of Singer’s (1979, 1993,2009) understanding of moral obligation also requires conservators and curators of sport venues to avoid catering toillusions of the past or that which offers a caricature of history.

Next, although for the purposes of this investigation a particular ethical maxim such as deontology, teleology orexistentialism was not chosen as advocated by Zimmerman (1996), various pertinent obligation claims were broughttogether from consequentialist ethics which is generally regarded as a tenet of teleologist thought and Kant’s (1964)categorical imperative deontological claims. Practically employing this foundation to the preservation, maintenance, andencouragement of heritage is not only a positive organizational decision but perhaps also an obligation. What people view isunpredictable and open to interpretation across time because opinions are generally subject to influence from a cross sectionof contemporary political, social, and economic perspectives and traditions. Sport and recreation facilities exist as stablepoints of return for members of a fan nation and local community and are recognized as a meaningful representation orsocial anchor of their cultural heritage. For example, McEvoy, Nagel, DeSchriver, and Brown (2005) concluded that after 48years, MLB teams experienced an increase in regular season attendance that they attribute to the nostalgia related aspects oftheir facility’s historic properties. Embedded in this view of the sport and recreation facility were also practical functionswithin the community and/or fan nation and its symbolic meaning as a representative of local architecture, technologicalsophistication, and changes related to local and national discourses on sport consumption.

The sport and recreation facility throughout its life cycle does not stay identical to original charter but adapts toaccommodate the evolving modern landscape and changes to address elements naturally decaying over time. Furnishings,facades, technology, and infrastructure are addressed to maintain the venue and to lessen the impact of time. However, byadapting to accommodate modern needs and amenities, a lack of attention to historical detail and maintaining a connectionto the past is irresponsible on behalf of communities and organizations whose facilities are salvageable according to Singer’s(1993) categories of triage. If heritage in historical sport and recreation venues can be achieved without sacrificing a

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387386

comparable moral value, then decision makers are morally obligated to do so. From a managerial standpoint, not only is it theright ethical decision to make, but it also appears to be the optimal decision for the organization and its constituents. Sportand recreation venues have a distinct place in the historical fabric of communities across the world, as they can be thefoundation of heritage preservation and contribute to the development of synecdochical images. By holding both of theseperspectives in high regard, the historical importance of sport and recreation venues creates valuable capital fororganizations, constituents and communities.

References

Ammon, R., Jr., Southall, R. M., & Blair, D. A. (2003). Sport facility management: Organizing events and mitigating risks. Morgantown, WV: Fitness InformationTechnology.

Bale, J. (2003). Sports geographies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Ballour, B. R. (2008, November 7). Change-up: A nip, tuck for Fenway. Boston Globe, B1.Barghchi, M., Omar, D., & Aman, M. S. (2009). Cities, sports facilities developments, and hosting events. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 185–195.Bendix, R. (1997). In search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Bryant, J. (1993). Sport management and the interdependence with sport sociology: Sport as a social product. Journal of Sport Management, 7, 194–198.Cloonan, M. V. (2001). W(h)ither preservation? Library Quarterly, 71, 231–242.Cloonan, M. V. (2007). The moral imperative to preserve. Library Trends, 55, 746–755.Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society, issues and controversies (10th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Coates, D. (2007). Stadiums and arenas: Economic development or economic redistribution? Contemporary Economic Policy, 25, 565–577.Crompton, J. (2004). Beyond economic impact: An alternative rational for the public subsidy of major league sports facilities. Journal of Sport Management, 18,

40–58.Dardick, H., & Washburn, G. (2004, December 3). Soldier Field may remain a landmark. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.comDeSensi, J. T., & Rosenberg, D. (2010). Ethics and morality in sport management (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.Eggert, P. (2007). The conservator’s gaze and the nature of work. Library Trends, 56, 81–106.Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group-based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 284–304.Fraleigh, W. P. (1984). Right actions in sport: Ethics for contestants. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Fried, G. (2010). Managing sport facilities (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Galvan, S. C. (2006). Rehabilitating rehab through state building codes. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1744–1781.Gammon, S. (2002). Fantasy, nostalgia and the pursuit of what never was – but what should have been. In S. Gammon & J. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sport tourism: Practices

and principles (pp. 61–76). Eastbourne, UK: LSA Publications.Glover, J. (1975). It makes no difference whether or not I do it. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49, 171–190.Gratton, C., Shibli, S., & Coleman, R. (2005). Sport and economic generation in cities. Journal of Urban Studies, 42, 985–999.Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy city: Pleasure and profit in the postmodern metropolis. London: Routledge.Hare, R. M. (1964). The language of morals. New York: Oxford University Press.Hare, R. M. (1972). Applications of moral philosophy. London: Macmillan.Hassard, F. (2009). Towards a new vision of restoration in the context of global change. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 32, 149–163.Historic Places Trust. (n.d.). Basin Reserve Pavilion. New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://

www.historic.org.nz/TheRegister/RegisterSearch/RegisterResults.aspx?RID=1339Hums, M. A., Barr, C. A., & Gullion, L. (1999). The ethical issues confronting managers in the sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 51–66.Johnson, A. P., & Lee, S. K. (2004). Soldier Field Stadium: Corrosion mitigation for historic concrete. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 35, 67–75.Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals (H. J. Paton, Trans. and Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Kihl, L. (2007). Moral codes, moral tensions and hiding behind the rules: A snapshot of athletic administrators’ practical morality. Sport Management Review, 10,

279–305.Kjeldsen, E. (1992). The manager’s role in the development and maintenance of ethical behavior in the sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 99–113.Kulczycki, C., & Hyatt, C. (2005). Expanding the conceptualization of nostalgia sport tourism: Lessons learned from fans left behind after sport franchise relocation.

Journal of Sport Tourism, 10, 273–293.Lambrinou, L. (2010). Preserving a monument: The example of the Parthenon. Conservation and Management of Architectural Sites, 12, 60–74.Leger, B. (2003, April 3). Evolving edifice: Fieldhouse survives decades of change. The Daily Reveille, p. 1.Lowenthal, D. (1995). Changing criteria of authenticity. In Proceedings of Nara Conference on Authenticity, Japan (pp. 121–135).Lowenthal, D. (2002). Stewarding the past in a perplexing present. In E. Avrami et al. (Eds.), Values and heritage conservation: Research report (pp. 18–25). Los

Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.Luxen, J. L. (2004). Reflections on the use of heritage charters and conventions. Getty Conservation Newsletter, 79, 4.Maennig, W., & du Plessis, S. (2009). Sport stadia, sporting events and urban development: International experience and the ambitions of Durban. Urban Forum, 20,

61–76.Malloy, D. C., Ross, S., & Zakus, D. H. (2003). Sport ethics: Concepts and cases in sport and recreation (2nd ed.). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc.Malloy, D. C., & Zakus, D. H. (1995). Ethical decision making in sport administration: A theoretical inquiry into substance and form. Journal of Sport Management, 9,

36–58.Mason, D. S., Duquette, G. H., & Scherer, J. (2005). Heritage, sport tourism and Canadian junior hockey: Nostalgia for social experience or sport place? Journal of

Sport Tourism, 10, 253–271.McEvoy, C. D., Nagel, M. S., DeSchriver, T. D., & Brown, M. T. (2005). Facility age and attendance in Major League Baseball. Sport Management Review, 8, 19–41.McKercher, B., Ho, P. S. Y., & du Cros, H. (2005). Relationship between tourism and cultural heritage management: Evidence from Hong Kong. Tourism Management,

26, 539–548.Misener, L., & Mason, D. (2006). Creating community networks: Can sporting events offer meaningful sources of social capital? Managing Leisure, 11(1), 39–56.Morgan, W. J. (1997). Leftist theories of sport: A critique and reconstruction. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Morgan, W. J. (2004). Moral antirealism, internalism and sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31, 61–183.National Heritage List. (n.d.). Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria. Canberra, ACT: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities,

Australian Government. Retrieved from http://environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/mcg/index.htmlNational Register of Historic Places. (2011). What is the National Register of Historic Places? Washington, D.C: National Park Service. Retrieved from http://

www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htmNelson, A. (2002). Locating major league stadiums where they can make a difference. Public Works Management & Policy, 7, 98–114.Newman, R. (2001). The American church of baseball and the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Nine: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture, 10, 46–53.Parlow, M. (2002). Publicly financed sport facilities: Are they economically justifiable? A case study of the Los Angeles Staples Center. University of Miami Business

Law Review, 10, 483–545.Pfleegor, A. G., & Seifried, C. S. (2012). Is building new the only option? A teaching methodology for heritage management. Sport Management Education Journal, 6,

32–42.Ramshaw, G., & Gammon, S. (2005). More than just nostalgia? Exploring the heritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10, 229–241.

A.G. Pfleegor et al. / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 378–387 387

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Reid, H. L. (2007). Sport and moral education in Plato’s Republic. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 34, 160–175.Robles, L. G. (2010). A methodological approach toward conservation. Conservation and Management of Architectural Sites, 12, 146–169.Rosentraub, M. (2006). The local context of a sports strategy for economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 20, 278–289.Rosentraub, M. (2008). Sport facilities, a new arena in Edmonton and the opportunities for development and a city’s image: Lessons from successful experiences.

Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/CityGov/RosentraubReport.pdfRosentraub, M. S., & Ijla, A. (2008). Sport facilities as social capital. In M. Nicholson & R. Hoye (Eds.), Sport and social capital (pp. 339–358). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Rudd, A., Mullane, S., & Stoll, S. (2010). Development of an instrument to measure the moral judgments of sport managers. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 59–83.Segrave, J. O. (2001). Sport as escape. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24, 61–78.Seifried, C. S. (in press). The Historic Structure Report: A tool for renovation, reconstruction, restoration, and rehabilitation of sport facilities. Journal of Venue and

Entertainment Management.Seifried, C. S. (2010). An Ideal-type for the evolution of sport facilities: Analyzing professional baseball and football structures in the United States. Sport History

Review, 41, 50–80.Seifried, C. S. (2012). The Huey P. Long Field House: A historic structure report. Unpublished manuscript, College of Education, Louisiana State University, Baton

Rouge, LA.Seifried, C. S., & Meyer, K. (2010). Nostalgia-related aspects of professional sport facilities: A facility audit of Major League Baseball and National Football League

strategies to evoke the past. International Journal of Sport Management Recreation & Tourism, 5, 51–76.Seifried, C. S., & Pastore, D. (2009a). Analyzing the first permanent professional baseball and football structures in the United States: How expansion and

renovation changed them into jewel boxes. Sport History Review, 40, 167–196.Seifried, C. S., & Pastore, D. (2009b). This stadium looks and tastes just like the others: Cookie cutter era facilities from 1953–1991. Sport History Review, 40, 30–56.Seifried, C. S., & Pastore, D. (2010). Analyzing baseball facilities in the United States pre-1903: The temporary homes. Journal of Sport History, 37, 401–426.Simon, R. L. (2000). Internalism and internal values in sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 27, 1–16.Simon, R. L. (2010). Fair play: The ethics of sport (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Singer, P. (1993). How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest Melbourne: Text Publishing.Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. New York: Random House.Slaton, D. (2005). Preservation Brief 43: The preparation and use of historic structure reports. National Park Service and U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved from

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief43.htmSmith, A. (2005a). Conceptualizing city image change: The ‘re-imaging’ of Barcelona. Tourism Geographies, 7, 398–423.Smith, A. (2005b). Reimaging the city: The value of sport initiatives. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 217–236.Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 349–370.Walton, H., Logo, A., & Dawson, P. (2008). A contingent valuation of the 2012 London Olympic Games: A regional perspective. Journal of Sports Economics, 9,

304–317.Weeks, K. D., & Grimmer, A. E. (1995). The Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating,

restoring, & reconstructing historic buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Heritage Preservation Program, Washington, D.C.Westerbeek, H., Smith, A., Turner, P., & Emery, P. (2005). Managing sport facilities and major events. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Zakus, D. H., Malloy, D. C., & Edwards, A. (2007). Critical and ethical thinking in sport management: Philosophical rationales and examples of methods. Sport

Management Review, 10, 133–158.Zeigler, E. F. (1984). Ethics and morality in sport and physical education: An experimental approach. Champaign, IL: Stipes.Zeigler, E. F. (2007). Sport management must show social concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 297–318.Zimmerman, M. J. (1996). The concept of moral obligation. New York: Cambridge University Press.