THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPECTATOR SPORTS SAFETY AND SECURITY (NCS 4 )
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI (USM)
Spectator Sports Safety and Security Survey
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 (R.I.) 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this survey is to gauge sport spectators’ perceptions of safety and security practices at sporting events they have attended, including their awareness of security measures, safety and security concerns while planning to attend an event, and willingness to embrace technological solutions to mitigate threats. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved survey consisted of 57 questions related to demographics, attendance habits, perceptions of safety and security measures, safety and security concerns, fan behavior, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in sport security.
An online data collection and analysis organization distributed the survey in May 2025. Individuals 18 or older who attended a live professional or intercollegiate sporting event within the last year completed the survey. Some of the key findings are highlighted below:
Participant Demographics
● A total of 728 participants representing 48 states across the continental U.S. completed the survey.
● Ages ranged from 18 to 75+, with most between 25-54 years of age (72%).
● Approximately 65% attained an Associate’s degree or higher.
● The primary income range was $75,000 or higher, with the majority (52%) employed fulltime.
● Within the last year, 65% of participants attended up to five collegiate sporting events, and 75% attended up to five professional events.
● Over half of the participants (56%) traveled less than 50 miles to attend an event.
● Most participants arrive at their event 30 minutes or less before the start time (76%), and 65% would consider entering the venue earlier if incentives were offered.
Safety and Security Practices
● Most participants consider safety and security precautions before attending events (74%) and feel safe and secure while attending an event (80%).
● Seventy-nine percent (79%) of respondents prefer visible safety and security measures, with over 67% indicating that a strong security profile makes them feel safer (e.g., K-9s, rooftop snipers, and armed police).
● The majority of participants (approximately 80%) trust the venue to have measures in place to protect against active shooters and vehicle ramming incidents.
● Less than half (48%) stated that safety and security measures entering the venue negatively impacted their experience.
● Common points of difficulty when attending an event included parking (59%), post-game traffic (48%), locating seats (38%), and locating restrooms (35%).
● Forty-seven percent (47%) of participants were interested in facial authentication/ validation software as part of venue entry.
● Top-rated safety and security concerns when planning to attend an event included weapons, active shooters, inadequate security personnel, fan violence, theft, and entry and exit panic.
● Respondents highly supported designated entry gates, law enforcement presence, fan code of conduct, visible security cameras, security wand metal detection, and a venue alcohol policy.
● Top-rated incidents witnessed or experienced by participants at a sporting event include alcohol abuse, fan violence outside the venue, severe weather, and fan violence inside the venue.
● Most participants (61%) had observed disruptive fan behavior at a sporting event, with 36% of these participants indicating the experience influenced their decision to return.
● Nearly half of the respondents (45%) believe fan behavior is worse than it was three years ago.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Sport Security
● Fifty percent (50%) of respondents are aware that AI technologies are used for security purposes at sport venues.
● Participant concerns regarding the use of AI in sport security were related to the protection of individual rights, regulations to prevent misuse, clear communication on how AI systems work, and ensuring independent oversight.
● Nearly 60% agreed/strongly agreed that AI technologies enhance security and safety and provide a feeling of safety; however, 55% believed that AI invades their privacy.
● Most participants (75% agreed/strongly agreed) prefer a clear opt-in option before allowing AI to collect their data, as many are concerned that AI could be misused to track individuals unfairly, illegally collect personal information, or store facial data without consent.
● The majority of participants (80%) are willing to pay a security ticket surcharge ranging from $0.50 to $5.00 to invest in security measures and technologies.
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this research is to gauge sport spectators’ perceptions of safety and security practices at sporting events they have attended, including their awareness of security measures, safety and security concerns while planning to attend an event, and willingness to embrace technological solutions to mitigate threats. Although spectators’ desire to attend live sporting events is based on several factors, their overall experience and sense of personal safety will significantly determine whether they return.
The survey consisted of 57 questions covering topics such as participant demographics, attendance habits, perceptions of safety and security measures, safety and security concerns, fan behavior, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in sport security. Survey development included input from both academics and practitioners. Feedback was solicited from NCS4 research affiliates, industry practitioners, and technology solution providers.
A data collection and analysis organization was utilized to distribute the survey in May 2025. The sample population criteria were individuals 18 or older who had attended a live professional or intercollegiate sporting event within the last year. Participants were assured anonymity. Over 700 participants (n=728) across the continental U.S. successfully completed the survey.
The project was approved by USM’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), which reviews academic research involving human subjects to ensure it follows federal and university requirements. The NCS4 administers the spectator survey every other year to investigate the general perceptions of safety and security practices and the potential impact of current industry trends among sports spectators.
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
A total of 728 participants completed the survey, representing 48 states across the continental U.S. (Figure 1). The majority of participants were female (52%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 75+, with most respondents between 25 and 54 years of age (72%). The majority of participants indicated white ethnicity/ race (68%), followed by Black or African American (21%). Participants shared their highest level of education, with approximately 65% having earned at least an associate’s degree. Income levels ranged from less than $25k to more than $150k, with most participants (22%) falling between the $25k-$50k range. However, 47% of respondents indicated having a household income of $75,000 or more. See Table 1 for participant demographics.
FIGURE 1 Sport Spectators
Editorial credit: Ringo Chiu | Shutterstock.com
Editorial credit: Luke Witter on Unsplash
Editorial Credit: Christopher Alvarenga on Unsplash
Within the last year, participants attended at least one collegiate sporting event, one professional sporting event, or a combination of the two. Approximately 65% of participants attended up to five collegiate sporting events, and 75% of participants attended up to five professional events. Over half of the respondents (56%) traveled less than 50 miles to an event, and approximately 18% traveled more than 100 miles.
Most participants (76%) arrive at the event 30 minutes or less before the start time (Figure 2). However, 65% of respondents would be willing to enter the venue earlier if incentives were offered (Figure 3).
I typically enter the sport event
I would consider entering the venue earlier if incentives were offered.
Editorial credit: Ruth Peterkin |
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
SAFETY AND SECURITY PRACTICES
Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with various safety and security practices on a 5-point Likert scale with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. Table 2 presents the means and frequencies of participant responses to safety and security practices.
TABLE 2
Participant Agreement with Safety and Security Practices: Means and Frequencies
I am comfortable with security personnel
wearing body cameras.
Being able to report an incident inside the
sports venue makes me feel safe.
I trust the venue to have measures in place
to protect me from an active shooter.
I trust the venue to have measures in place
to prevent a vehicle ramming incident.
I prefer safety and security measures
to be visible.
I feel safe and secure while I am attending
a sporting event.
I consider safety and security precautions
when choosing to attend a sporting event.
I know how to seek emergency help
at a sporting event.
I trust the venue/organization to protect
my personally identifiable information.
I feel there is an adequate number of security
personnel during events.
A strong security profile (e.g., K-9s, snipers
on rooftops, armed police with long guns) at sporting events makes me feel safer.
I review the venue’s policies and procedures
before attending an event.
I feel safer attending a sporting event
than I did three years ago.
Safety and security procedures entering the
sports event negatively impact my experience.
Visible security cameras on-site make me 3.10
feel uncomfortable.
Most participants consider safety and security precautions before attending an event (74% agreed/strongly agreed), feel safe and secure at an event (80% agreed/strongly agreed), and believe there are an adequate number of security personnel at events (72% agreed/strongly agreed). Additionally, being able to report an incident inside the venue makes them feel safe (80% agreed/strongly agreed). Most respondents (79% agreed/ strongly agreed) prefer safety and security measures to be visible, with over 67% indicating that a strong security profile (e.g., K-9s, rooftop snipers, and armed police) makes them feel safer. Approximately 80% of participants (agreed/strongly agreed) trust the venue to have measures in place to protect them from an active shooter or vehicle ramming incident. Less than half (48% agreed/strongly agreed) stated that safety and security measures entering the venue negatively impacted their experience.
4
Which of the following are points of difficulty when attending a sporting event?
Parking
Post-game traffic
Locating seats
Locating restrooms
Locating concessions areas
Accessing tickets digitally
Accessing tickets at the box office
Accessing ride-share options
Security screening
Ticket scanning or checking
Other
FIGURE 5
I would welcome facial authentication/ validation software as part of venue entry.
Figure 4 illustrates the most common points of difficulty when attending a sporting event. Parking, post-game traffic, locating seats, and locating restrooms were the most difficult, followed by locating concessions and accessing tickets. Other responses included post-game public transportation and accessibility issues. Security screening (21%) and ticket scanning (16%) were not ranked high as points of difficulty; however, 47% of respondents were interested in facial authentication/ validation as part of venue entry (Figure 5). When entering a sporting event, spectators prefer individual screening measures (54%) over multi-person screening (31%).
Parking
Post-game traffic
Locating seats
Participants were asked (1=not at all concerned to 5=extremely concerned) what safety and security issues concerned them when planning to attend a sporting event (Table 3). The top safety and security concerns included weapons (M=3.27), active shooters (M=3.27), inadequate security personnel (M=3.21), fan violence (M=3.19), theft (M=3.17), and entry and exit panic (M=3.17). Assault and battery, crowd crush, inadequate safety screening, and alcohol abuse closely followed. The least concerning threats included chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) attacks, natural disasters, and cyberattacks. 11
Locating restrooms
Locating concessions areas
Accessing tickets digitally
FIGURE
TABLE 3
Safety and Security Concerns
Safety and Security Concerns M
TABLE 4
Security Measures and Technologies
Furthermore, participants were asked to what degree they support security measures and technologies, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree (Table 4). Respondents highly supported designated entry gates (M=4.09), law enforcement presence (M=4.09), fan code of conduct (M=4.07), visible security cameras (M=4.06), security wand metal detection (M=4.04), and a venue alcohol policy (M=4.02). Bag searches and walk-through screening detection closely followed. Less favorable measures and technologies included robots employed in security roles, a no-bag policy, and social media monitoring.
Figure 6 highlights the top 12 incidents witnessed or experienced while attending a sporting event. Alcohol abuse (85%) was the most common, followed by fan violence outside the venue (71%), severe weather (71%), and fan violence inside the venue (70%).
FIGURE 6
While attending a sporting event, I have witnessed or experienced:
FIGURE 7
Have you observed disruptive fan behavior at a sporting event?
Most participants (61%) indicated that they had observed disruptive fan behavior at a sporting event (Figure 7). Thirty-six percent (36%) of respondents who observed disruptive fan behavior indicated that this experience influenced their decision to return to an event. Approximately 45% of respondents believe fan behavior is worse than it was three years ago.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) IN
SPORT SECURITY
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in sport security enhances safety and security through facial recognition, weapon detection, and crowd monitoring. While AI offers efficiency and accuracy, concerns about privacy, transparency, and ethical implications remain key factors influencing public trust. Fifty percent (50%) of respondents are aware that AI technologies are being used for security purposes at sport venues, with 23% unsure (Figure 8). Only 30% have previously encountered AI security at a sports event.
FIGURE 8
Are you aware that AI technologies (crowd monitoring, behavior monitoring) are used for security purposes at sport venues?
Participants were asked (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) about their perceptions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) use in sport security (Table 5).
TABLE 5
Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Sport Security
AI security should be designed to protect
individual rights while ensuring safety.
I believe AI security technologies should have
strict regulations to prevent misuse.
Sports venues should clearly communicate
how AI security systems work.
There should be independent oversight
of AI-based security systems in sports venues.
Transparency in AI security practices influences 3.91
my willingness to accept these technologies.
I would prefer a clear opt-in option
before AI security systems collect my data.
I feel that AI surveillance could be misused
to track individuals unfairly.
I am concerned about how AI security systems
collect my personal data.
I worry about my facial recognition data
being stored without consent.
I trust that AI technologies in sports venues
enhance security effectively.
AI security systems in sports venues invade 3.43
my personal privacy.
AI technologies in stadiums make me
feel safer during events.
Highest mean responses were related to the protection of individual rights (M=4.09), regulations to prevent misuse (M=4.06), clear communication of how AI security systems work (M=4.01), and ensuring there is independent oversight (M=3.96). Transparency in AI security practices (M=3.91) does make them more willing to accept its utilization. Nearly 60% agreed/strongly agreed that AI technologies enhance venue security and provide a feeling of safety; however, 55% agreed/strongly agreed that AI invades their privacy.
Participants are apprehensive regarding AI and their privacy. Most participants prefer a clear opt-in option before allowing AI security systems to collect their data, believe AI surveillance could be misused to track individuals unfairly, are concerned with how AI collects their personal data, and worry about facial recognition data being stored without their consent (See Figures 9-12).
FIGURE 9
I would prefer a clear opt-in option before AI security systems collect my data.
FIGURE 10
I feel that AI surveillance could be misused to track individuals unfairly.
FIGURE 11
I am concerned about how AI security systems collect my personal data.
FIGURE 12
I worry about my facial recognition data being stored without my consent.
As the threat landscape continues to evolve, sport leagues, teams, venue owners/operators, and event managers continue to enhance safety and security measures, plans, policies, and procedures. Investment in technologies and tools to support the security system is necessary at times and requires the budget to do so; however, not all sports entities can afford such upgrades. So, where can security departments source such dollars to increase budgets for security investments? One avenue may be to add a security ‘tax’ to a sport event ticket that is specifically allocated to the security operational budget. Therefore, participants were asked about their willingness to accept such a security surcharge, with the majority (80%) willing to pay a ticket surcharge ranging from $0.50 to $5.00. Approximately 68% are willing to pay $1.00 or more per ticket (Figure 13).
13
If venues implemented a security ticket surcharge, how much would you be willing to pay?
Editorial credit:
Editorial credit: Marcus E Jones | Shutterstock.com
FIGURE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This survey aimed to gauge sport spectators’ perceptions of safety and security practices at sporting events they have attended, including their awareness of security measures, safety and security concerns while planning to attend an event, and willingness to embrace technological solutions to mitigate threats.
Spectators typically consider safety and security measures before attending an event and feel safe while at the event. They prefer security measures to be visible and trust the venue to protect them from incidents such as cybercrime, active shooters, and vehicle ramming.
While attending a sporting event, many patrons expressed difficulty with parking, traffic, and the unfamiliarity of places inside the venue. Nearly half of the respondents mentioned that security procedures entering the venue negatively impacted their experience; however, security screening and ticket scanning were not ranked as high points of difficulty. Patrons prefer individual screening when entering an event and are interested in facial authentication/validation as part of the process.
Top concerns expressed by spectators included weapons, active shooters, inadequate security, fan violence, theft, and entry/exit panic. However, to mitigate these concerns, spectators highly supported measures such as designated entry gates, law enforcement presence, metal detection screening, and a fan code of conduct.
Many spectators are concerned about privacy issues relating to AI technologies deployed; however, most welcome AI security at events and feel safer when a venue incorporates these technologies. In conclusion, venue and event security management may consider the following recommendations:
● Consider offering incentives for early entry, such as raffles, food vouchers, team merchandise/accessories, meet/greet with a player, priority seating for general admission, etc.
● Highlight visible security measures such as body cameras, armed police presence, bomb detection K-9s, bollards, and surveillance cameras. Venues may consider utilizing tactical police officers, K-9 units, and snipers on buildings to strengthen (harden) the security profile and increase spectators’ sense of safety. Security personnel should wear clearly identifiable uniforms.
● Review safety and security procedures entering the venue for potential efficiencies and ease of patron entry. Communicate policies and procedures to alleviate confusion regarding gate entry, screening procedures, and prohibited items.
● Ensure signage for parking, gate entry, public transit, and venue features (restrooms, concessions, ticket office) is posted and easily visible.
● Clearly communicate safeguards related to AI technologies, specifically concerning privacy, transparency, and ethical issues, to enhance spectator trust. Facial authentication/ validation for venue entry may be considered to reduce wait times and identify trespassers; however, a clear opt-in option may assist in transitioning to this technology.
● Ensure alcohol policies are strictly enforced with appropriate security presence positioned in common “hot spots” inside and outside of the venue to deter fan violence.
● Ensure methods for reporting incidents are available, visible, and simple to use.
● Consider incorporating a security ticket surcharge to supplement security budgets.
ASIS
● Security Publications and Resources
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
● Active Shooter Preparedness
● Bombing Prevention
● Cyber Essentials
● De-Escalation Series
● Emergency Services Sector-Specific Tabletop Exercise Program
● Insider Threat Mitigation
● Mass Gathering Security Planning Tool
● Conflict Prevention
● 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
● Securing Public Gatherings
● Stadium Spotlight: Connected Devices and Integrated Security Considerations
● Vehicle Ramming Mitigation
● Venue Guide for Security Enhancements
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)
● ANSI ES1.40 – 2023 Event Safety – Event Security
● ANSI ES1.7 – 2021 Event Safety – Weather Preparedness
● ANSI ES1.9 – 2020 Crowd Management
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
● Active Shooter Resources
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
● Emergency Management Institute
Global Biorisk Advisory Council (GBAC)
● GBAC® STAR Facility Accreditation
Global Crowd Management Alliance
● Resources, Events, and Webinars
International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM)
● Safety and Security Resources
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
United States Department of Health and Human Services
● Populations with Access and Functional Needs
United States Secret Service
● National Threat Assessment Center
THANK YOU 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
Email: Brandon.L.Allen@usm.edu
Dr. Stacey A. Hall
NCS4 Executive Director
Professor of Sport Management
Email: Stacey.A.Hall@usm.edu
Peyton Phillips, NCS4 Graduate Assistant, contributed to this report.
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 Sports and Entertainment Technology Alliance. The Tech Alliance is a consortium of individuals and organizations committed to spectator safety and security excellence through innovation. Members work alongside practitioners and the NCS4 to explore how people, processes, and technologies can best contribute to safety and security challenges in a meaningful way. Members include:
National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security
The University of Southern Mississippi NCS4.USM.EDU
COPYRIGHT 2025 | THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI