NCS⁴ Publishes Venue Security Director Industry Research Report

T H E N AT I O N A L C E N T E R F O R S P E C TAT O R S P O R T S S A F E T Y A N D S E C U R I T Y ( N C S 4 ) AT T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H E R N M I S S I S S I P P I ( U S M )

Venue Security Director Survey 2024 Industry Research Report

Editorial credit: Steve Broer | Shutterstock.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

3

About NCS4

4

Executive Summary

6

Introduction

7

Venue Demographics

7

Staffing, Training, and Development

10

Facility Operations

12

Fan Behavior

15

Technology Solutions

17

Conclusion and Recommendations

20

Acknowledgments

Cover Image – Editorial credit: Jai Agnish | Shutterstock.com

COPYRIGHT 2024 | THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI

ABOUT NCS4 Established in 2006, the NCS4 is the United States’ only academic center devoted to the study and practice of spectator sports safety and security. The NCS4 is located in the Trent Lott National Center at The University of Southern Mississippi (USM), a top-tier (R1) Carnegie Classified institution for its very high research activity.

Our Mission

We support the sports and entertainment industries through innovative research, training, and outreach programs. Our mission is realized by working closely with diverse organizations and subject matter experts to better understand the threat environment, identify vulnerabilities, communicate risk-mitigation techniques, and close capability gaps.

Our Vision

We will be a leading partner with government, private sector, and sports and entertainment organizations to create and deliver critical resources for enhancing safety and security.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this survey is to explore professional sports venue security issues, emerging threats, and technology solutions. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved survey consisted of 53 questions related to venue demographics, staffing, training, and development, facility operations, fan behavior, and technology utilization. The online survey was administered to venue security directors (n=152) hosting professional sports teams from Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL). A total of 52 participants successfully completed the survey, resulting in a 34.2% response rate.

Venue Demographics ● MLB (22%); MLS (24%); NBA (28%); NFL (31%); NHL (15%). ● Indoor (31%); outdoor (50%); indoor and outdoor (19%). ● Maximum capacity ranged between 10,001 and 80,000.

Staffing, Training, and Development ● The majority of participants (94%) contract with third-party security staff service providers. ● Most participants (74%) experienced staff shortages in the last two years. The primary reasons reported included no-shows, non-competitive wages, and a lack of qualified applicants. ● Ninety-seven percent (97%) of respondents attempted to mitigate security staff shortages by increasing wages, enhancing employee recognition, offering complimentary food, and providing parking close to the venue. ● The top training requirements for full-time in-house security staff included de-escalation/ conflict resolution, incident reporting, venue/event familiarization, operation of security technology, and standard operational procedures. ● The top training requirements for contracted staff included prohibited items, crowd management, venue/event familiarization, fan code of conduct, and standard operational procedures. ● Facilitated in-person training (88%) was reported as the most common training method, followed by tabletop exercises, drills, routine refresher courses, and eLearning. ● The majority of respondents (96%) conducted event-specific risk assessments and participated in an annual tabletop exercise (TTX).

4

Editorial credit: Daniel Korzeniewski | Shutterstock.com

Facility Operations ● Over 60% of venues have either obtained or are in the process of obtaining the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) SAFETY Act Certification. ● Only 17% of venues have obtained the GBAC® STAR facility hygiene accreditation from the Global Biorisk Advisory Council. ● All respondents reported having designated areas for AEDs and EMTs, followed by first aid kits (96%), mobile EMTs (84%), watering stations (64%), Narcan® equipment (62%), STOP THE BLEED® kits (62%), and cooling stations (47%). ● Sixty percent (60%) of respondents reported the average wait time at security checkpoints for patron entry was less than 5 minutes. Forty-two (42%) indicated that ticket verification consumes the most time at security checkpoints. ● Ninety-eight percent (98%) of respondents consider access and functional needs of patrons in evacuation procedures. ● Most venues (88%) are equipped with monitored sensory pods or quiet rooms. ● Venues mainly communicate safety and security messages through websites, venue signage, public address systems, and video boards. ● Nearly all respondents prioritize the following policies and procedures: active shooter response, emergency medical procedure, evacuation procedure, alcohol policy, incident reporting procedure, fan code of conduct, prohibited items, severe weather policy, ejection policy, and drug policy.

Fan Behavior ● Most participants indicated that fan behavior is worse than five years ago. The majority of fan incidents occur inside the venue (98%). ● Common forms of inappropriate fan behavior included alcohol abuse (94%) and fights between patrons (74%). ● Consequences of inappropriate fan behavior included immediate ejection, expulsion from future games, loss of future ticketing purchases, required training, fines, and potential arrests. ● Crowd management strategies primarily included signage, public address announcements, alcohol policy, barriers, designated entry gates, and event staff directing crowd movement. ● The top safety and security concerns included active shooter, fan behavior, alcohol abuse, weapons, and vehicle ramming. ● Twenty-seven (27%) of participants have experienced an increase in drug-related incidents at their sporting events. ● Only 16% of respondents partner with non-profit drug awareness organizations.

5

Technology Solutions ● The most common technology and analytical tools used are two-way radios, surveillance cameras, walk-through magnetometers, social media monitoring, access control and credentialing, public address systems, and mobile ticketing apps.

Technologies used the least include simulation software, robots, facial recognition, millimeter wave screeners, and explosive particle detectors. ● If additional funding were available, participants would invest in facial recognition systems, facial validation/authentication systems, retractable bollards, video analytics, and shooter detection systems. ● Approximately 21% of respondents indicated that their security teams (with the exception of police officers) use body cameras. ● Thirty-one percent (31%) of respondents stated that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being implemented in security screening, surveillance, or incident response technology.

Fifty-one percent of respondents are unsure how AI can assist in security efforts. ● All of the respondents venue point-of-sale locations are cashless and 78% offer a frictionless checkout experience for guests. ● Eighty-five (85%) of respondents detected unauthorized drones during game days, with over 20% detecting multiple (more than 10) drones in restricted air space during game time. However, only 15% reported that these drones interrupted event operations.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to explore professional sports venue security issues, emerging threats, and technology solutions. Information gleaned from this study will assist venue security directors in planning and policy development, venue operations, and technology utilization.

The survey consisted of 53 questions related to venue demographics, staffing, training, and development, facility operations, fan behavior, and technology solutions. Survey development included input from academics and practitioners. The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the project, which reviews academic research involving human subjects to ensure that it follows federal and university requirements.

The online survey was administered to venue security directors (n=152) affiliated with professional sports teams in North America, including Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL). Fifty-two participants completed the survey with a 34.2 percent response rate.

6

VENUE DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 52 participants representing the five major North American professional sports leagues completed the survey, including MLB (22%), MLS (24%), NBA (28%), NFL (31%), and the NHL (15%). Several venue directors managed facilities that hosted more than one sport league. Approximately 50% of venues were classified as outdoor only, with 19% hosting outdoor and indoor events. The maximum venue capacity ranged from less than 10,000 to over 80,000, with most venues accommodating between 10,000 and 50,000. The average attendance at each venue ranged from 10,000 to 70,000 spectators, with the majority hosting between 10,000 and 30,000 spectators. Most security directors (81%) have an average security budget of up to five million annually.

STAFFING, TRAINING, AND DEVELOPMENT Approximately 94% of venues use contracted security staff in some capacity for event days. However, 36% of venues rely entirely on third-party security services to provide coverage on game days. Over 75% of venues hire the majority of their security staff from third-party vendors (Figure 1).

Close to three-fourths of venues have experienced staff shortages within the last two years (Figure 2). The top three reasons for staff shortages included no-shows (74%), non-competitive wages (64%), and a lack of qualified applicants (59%). Other respondents cited budget constraints, lack of interest, inclement weather, interview noshows, travel distance, and other competing events.

7

The majority of venues (97%) have taken action to mitigate staff shortages, including increasing wages (79%), enhancing employee recognition (68%), complimentary food (39%), and parking proximity to the venue (32%) (Figure 3).

Other incentives noted were bonuses for specific events, discounted ticket prices, staff family events, complimentary merchandise, and providing transportation to the facility.

Some venues used technology to decrease the demand for staffing needs.

Table 1 depicts the most common types of training for security staff (full-time vs. contracted security).

The top training requirements for full-time in-house security staff included de-escalation/conflict resolution, incident reporting, venue/event familiarization, operation of security technology, and standard operational procedures. The top training requirements for contracted security staff included prohibited items, crowd management, venue/event familiarization, fan code of conduct, and standard operational procedures. The least common types of training for both groups included cyber readiness, gambling policy, parking/traffic control, STOP THE BLEED®, legal negligence, and medical services planning.

Full-Time Security Training

8

% RESPONSE

Contracted Security Training

% RESPONSE

De-escalation/conflict resolution

89%

Prohibited items

85%

Incident reporting

87%

Crowd management

83%

Venue/event familiarization

87%

Venue/event familiarization

83%

Operation of security technology

83%

Fan code of conduct

79%

Standard operational procedures

81%

Standard operational procedures

77%

Prohibited items

79%

Evacuation and sheltering

75%

Evacuation and sheltering

77%

Alcohol management policies

75%

Crowd management

77%

De-escalation/conflict resolution

73%

CPR/AED

75%

Incident reporting

67%

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

72%

On-field intrusions

65%

Active shooter response

72%

Active shooter response

63%

Fan code of conduct

72%

Staff code of conduct

62%

As highlighted in Figure 4, venue security directors prefer to use facilitated in-person training (88%) over other methods. Additional methods not listed include training memos and daily game day training refreshers.

The majority of respondents (96%) conduct event-specific risk assessments. Additionally, 96% of participants conducted an annual tabletop exercise (TTX). As highlighted in Figure 5, besides TTXs, venue security directors utilize drills, workshops, functional exercises, seminars, game simulations, and full-scale exercises.

9

FACILITY OPERATIONS Over 60% of venues have either obtained or are in the process of obtaining the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) SAFETY Act Certification (Figure 6). Of the remaining venues that selected no, 18% plan on applying for certification. Most respondents (96%) advocate the DHS awareness campaign: “If you see something, say something.”

Only 17% of venues have obtained the Global Biorisk Advisory Council GBAC® STAR facility hygiene accreditation (Figure 7). An additional 13% of respondents plan on applying for the accreditation.

All respondents have designated areas or stations for AEDs and onsite EMTs, followed by first aid kits (96%), mobile EMTs (84%), watering stations (64%), Narcan® equipment (62%), STOP THE BLEED® kits (62%), and cooling stations (47%). Only 16% of venues have a trauma center.

Sixty percent of respondents indicated that the average wait time for patrons at security checkpoints is less than five minutes, with 98% indicating 15 minutes or less (Figure 8).

10

Editorial credit: Denny Pictures | Shutterstock.com

Interestingly, venue directors stated that ticket verification consumes the most time at security checkpoints (42%), followed by bag checks (38%) and metal detection screening (19%) (Figure 9).

Approximately 98% of respondents consider access and functional needs of patrons in evacuation procedures. Most respondents (92%) offer specific training on screening for patrons with functional needs. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of facilities are equipped with sensory pods or quiet rooms, most of which are monitored.

Venues communicate safety and security messages to their fans through websites, venue signage, public address (PA) systems, video boards, social media, and cell phone applications. Other avenues of communication include tickets, emails, and local news announcements.

Nearly all respondents prioritize the following policies and procedures: active shooter response, emergency medical procedure, evacuation procedure, alcohol policy, incident reporting procedure, fan code of conduct, prohibited items, severe weather policy, ejection policy, and drug policy. This correlates with the findings that 84% of venues use industry research and data to inform safety and security policies and operations.

11

FAN BEHAVIOR Most respondents indicated that fan behavior is worse than five years ago (Figure 10), reporting that most security incidents of inappropriate fan behavior occur inside the venues (98%).

The most common forms of inappropriate fan behavior were alcohol abuse and fights between patrons (Figure 11). “Other” issues noted in the responses included abusive language, violations of fan conduct, smoking, throwing objects on the field, and incivility. Consequences of inappropriate fan behavior include immediate ejections (31%), expulsions from future games (25%), loss of season tickets (20%), required training (15%), and fines (7%). Others include the loss of future ticket buying privileges and potential arrest/prosecution.

Editorial credit: Ringo Chiu | Shutterstock.com

12

Crowd management strategies primarily included signage, public address announcements, alcohol policy, barriers, trained event staff, and designated entry gates (Figure 12). “Other” included video surveillance.

Figure 13 lists the respondents’ top ten spectator safety and security concerns. Active shooter (65%), fan behavior (65%), alcohol abuse (63%), weapons (59%), and vehicle ramming (57%) were the most concerning.

Theft, appropriate onsite medical services, food-borne illness, and infectious disease were selected the least.

13

Editorial credit: Christopher Penler | Shutterstock.com

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of venue security directors have experienced an increase in drug-related incidents at their sporting events (Figure 14). Nearly 20% of venues have had an overdose incident at one of their events, and over half of these venues offer staff training to identify potential overdoses. Only 16% of venues partner with non-profit organizations to provide drug awareness and education to their spectators.

14

TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS Table 2 presents the various technologies and analytical tools used at venues. The most common tools include two-way radios, surveillance cameras, walk-through magnetometers, social media monitoring, access control and credentialing, public address systems, and mobile ticketing apps. Technologies used the least include simulation software, robots, facial recognition, millimeter wave screeners, and explosive particle detectors.

TECHNOLOGY

% RESPONSE

TECHNOLOGY

% RESPONSE 52%

96%

Active cyber security measures to protect hardware and other critical equipment/ systems

Access control and credentialing

94%

Video analytics

50%

Walk-through magnetometer

94%

Delivery scheduling and tracking system

44%

Social media monitoring

90%

Public address system

90%

Encryption software

40%

Mobile ticketing apps

90%

Retractable bollards

40%

Social media messaging

88%

Automatic gates for vehicles

38%

Weather detection and warning system

81%

Explosive detection canines

81%

Data analytics for informed decision-making

25%

Security alarm system

81%

Situational awareness software

25%

Handheld magnetometer

79%

Traffic management software

19%

Online ticketing platforms

77%

Automated barrier system

19%

Stationary bollards

75%

Mobile/cellular communications

73%

Radio-frequency identification (RFID) 19% or near field communication (NFC) ticketing

Mass notification system

71%

Turnstiles

15%

Digital signage for safety and security messaging

69%

Facial validation/authentication system

15%

Shooter detection systems

13%

Portable public address system (megaphones or similar)

69%

Geographic information systems (GIS) / mapping

13%

Multi-factor authentication for software

67%

Explosive particle detector

10%

Antivirus software

67%

Millimeter wave screener

10%

Electronic and magnetic locks

67%

Facial recognition system

8%

X-ray scanner

60%

2%

Intrusion detection and alarm systems

54%

Robots employed in security roles (roving security, bomb detection, etc.)

Simulation software

2%

Two-way radios

96%

Surveillance cameras

Removable barricade (t-style, d-style, other) 54%

Drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) 25%

15

Table 3 presents the top 15 technologies and analytical tools that would be purchased if additional funding were available. Facial recognition, facial validation/authentication, retractable bollards, video analytics, and shooter detection systems were among the most sought-after resources. These responses correlate with the least used technologies/tools highlighted in Table 2, indicating that venue security directors will deploy such technologies in the future when budgets permit. Furthermore, the technologies/tools most sought after are those that can combat or address their greatest concerns for spectator safety and security (i.e., active shooter, weapons, vehicle ramming).

TECHNOLOGY

% RESPONSE

% RESPONSE

Facial recognition system

47%

Simulation software

21%

Facial validation/authentication system

36%

X-ray scanner

21%

Retractable bollards

34%

Access control and credentialing

21%

Video analytics

34%

19%

Shooter detection systems

30%

Geographic information systems (GIS) / mapping

Automatic barrier systems

28%

Explosive particle detector

17%

Unauthorized drone detection

23%

Surveillance cameras

17%

Traffic management software

15%

Drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) 21%

Approximately 21% of respondents indicated that their security teams (with the exception of police officers) use body cameras. Furthermore, 31% of respondents stated that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being implemented in security screening, surveillance, or incident response technology, with 51% not fully understanding how AI can assist them in their security efforts. All of the respondents utilize cashless point-of-sales and 78% offer guests a frictionless check-out experience.

Unauthorized drones continue to invade the airspace above or near the venue, with 85% of participants observing or detecting them during game days (Figure 15). Nearly 80% of respondents reported that up to ten drones have been detected in their restricted air space during game time, most of which are detected visually and through sensor technology.

Only 15% of respondents stated that unauthorized drones interrupted operations/events at their venue.

16

TECHNOLOGY

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The majority of venue security directors participating in this study contract with third-party security staff service providers. Most participants experienced staff shortages in the last two years.

Common actions taken to mitigate staff shortages included wage increases and employee recognition.

Some venues also incorporate bonuses for specific events and host staff family events. Standard training requirements for full-time security staff included conflict resolution, incident reporting, and venue familiarization, whereas required security training for contracted security included prohibited items, crowd management, and venue familiarization. The majority of security directors prefer using facilitated in-person training with staff. Most venues conduct event-specific risk assessments and annual tabletop exercises.

Over 60% of the venues have obtained or are in the process of obtaining DHS SAFETY Act Certification, with an additional 18% planning on applying for the certification. The majority of venues promote the DHS awareness campaign: “If you see something, say something.” A limited number of venues have obtained GBAC® STAR facility hygiene accreditation.

All respondents have designated areas for AEDs and onsite EMTs, and close to 50% have watering stations, Narcan® equipment, STOP THE BLEED® kits, and cooling stations. Ninety-eight percent of respondents consider access and functional needs of patrons in evacuation procedures, with 92% offering specific training on screening for patrons with functional needs. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of venues are equipped with sensory pods or quiet rooms.

The majority of participants (98%) indicated the average wait time for patrons entering the facility is 15 minutes or less, with the majority of time being spent on ticket verification and bag checks. Venues communicate safety and security messaging to fans through websites, venue signage, and public address systems. Nearly all participants prioritized policies

and procedures covering active shooter, emergency medical, evacuation, alcohol, incident reporting, fan code of conduct, prohibited items, severe weather, ejections, and drug usage. Approximately 84% of venues use industry research to inform safety and security policies and operations.

Most participants indicated that fan behavior is worse now than five years ago, with most security incidents (98%) occurring inside the venue. Alcohol abuse and fights between patrons caused the majority of fan incidents. The most common types of crowd management strategies include signage, PA announcements, alcohol policies, barriers, and trained event staff. The top safety and security concerns included active shooter, fan behavior, alcohol abuse, weapons, and vehicle ramming. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents have seen an increase in drugrelated incidents at their event, with 20% experiencing an overdose incident. Only 16% of respondents partner with drug awareness non-profit organizations.

The most frequently used technology and analytical tools by venue security directors included twoway radios, surveillance cameras, walk-through magnetometers, social media monitoring, access control and credentialing, public address systems, and mobile ticketing apps. The least used technology consisted of simulation software, robots in security roles, and facial recognition software. However, facial recognition software was the most desirable technology and most likely to be purchased if additional funding were available. Approximately 21% of respondents indicated their security teams use body cameras. Only 31% of respondents stated that AI is being implemented in their security measures; furthermore, most participants (51%) do not fully understand how AI can assist in their operations.

Unauthorized drones remain a concern for most venues, as 62% are detecting five or more in restricted air space during game days.

17

INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATIONS ● Explore security staff recruitment and retention efforts (i.e., player meet/greet, parking proximity, staff recognition, complimentary food and merchandise, employee discounts, professional development opportunities, etc.) ● Ensure event staff (full-time and contracted) are trained in basic security, medical response, and crowd management strategies (including de-escalation techniques). ● Venue training programs should consider multiple training methods to address all learning styles to assist staff with knowledge, skills, and ability development for application in the field. ● Consider obtaining the DHS SAFETY Act Certification for the venue and security program.

Utilize solution providers that have been DHS SAFETY Act certified. ● Consider applying for the GBAC® STAR Facility Accreditation Program. ● Invest in bag screening and ticketing technology to reduce the average wait time for spectators entering the facility. ● Analyze hot spots for inappropriate fan behavior within the venue and deploy event security staff and resources accordingly. ● Clearly communicate policies such as the fan code of conduct and alcohol policy, ensuring that spectators understand the consequences of violations. ● Ensure facilities are prepared for medical emergencies (e.g., heart attacks, drug overdose, heat illness, severe bleeding) with the appropriate response equipment, such as Narcan®, water stations, and STOP THE BLEED® kits. ● Partner with non-profit organizations to provide overdose awareness and education to spectators.

Editorial credit: Jeff Schultes | Shutterstock.com

● Explore the cost/benefit of investing in technologies such as facial recognition/validation/ biometric systems, retractable bollards, video analytics, and shooter detection systems.

18

● Consider increasing the number of security staff wearing body cameras. ● Explore educational resources and training regarding the use of artificial intelligence in safety and security. ● Ensure drone mitigation procedures and plans are intact and work with local/state authorities on intrusion response. Consider investing in drone detection technology. ● Consider reviewing the resources listed on the following page.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES ASIS

Global Biorisk Advisory Council (GBAC)

● Security Publications and Resources

● GBAC® STAR Facility Accreditation

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM)

● Active Shooter Preparedness

● Safety and Security Resources

● Bombing Prevention ● Cyber Essentials ● De-Escalation Series ● Emergency Services Sector-Specific Tabletop Exercise Program ● Insider Threat Mitigation ● Mass Gathering Security Planning Tool ● Non-Confrontational Techniques ● Patron Screening Best Practices Guide ● Protecting Against the Threat of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) ● Public Venue Bag Search Procedures Guide ● Public Venue Credentialing Guide ● Public Venue Screening Guide and Touchless Screening Annex ● Security Advisors ● Security of Soft Targets and Crowded PlacesResource Guide ● Stadium Spotlight: Connected Devices and Integrated Security Considerations ● Vehicle Ramming Attack Mitigation

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ● Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) ● “If You See Something, Say Something” Campaign ● Office of SAFETY Act Implementation ● State Fusion Centers

Event Safety Alliance (ESA)

National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security (NCS4) ● Training and Resources ● Security and Risk Assessment for Facility and Event Managers

Security Industry Association (SIA) ● Training and Technology Resources

Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA) ● The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide)

Stadium Managers Association (SMA) ● Education and Resources

Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management (TEAM) Coalition ● Alcohol Management Training and Responsible Consumer Programs

Training for Intervention ProcedureS (TIPS) ● Education and Training for Responsible Service, Sale, and Consumption of Alcohol

United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ● Overdose Prevention ● Preventing Alcohol-Related Harms

● ANSI ES1.40 – 2023 Event Safety – Event Security ● ANSI ES1.7 – 2021 Event Safety – Weather Preparedness ● ANSI ES1.9 – 2020 Crowd Management

United States Department of Health and Human Services

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

● National Threat Assessment Center

● Populations with Access and Functional Needs

United States Secret Service

● Active Shooter Resources

19

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For further information or additional questions, please contact Dr. Brandon Allen, NCS4 Director of Research, or Dr. Stacey Hall, NCS4 Executive Director: Dr. Brandon Allen NCS4 Director of Research Associate Professor of Sport Management

Dr. Stacey A. Hall NCS4 Executive Director Professor of Sport Management

Email: Brandon.L.Allen@usm.edu

Email: Stacey.A.Hall@usm.edu

Enzo Fedato Ferreira, NCS4 Graduate Assistant, contributed to this report.

THANK YOU Thank you to the Professional Sports Leagues that participated in this study.

Thank you to the NCS4 staff and research affiliates. A special thanks to Sara Priebe, NCS4 Event and Membership Manager, for her work on the graphic design of this report.

This report was made available with the support of the NCS4 Technology Alliance.

20

National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security The University of Southern Mississippi NCS4.USM.EDU

COPYRIGHT 2024 | THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI