Why it is a question
In Berendt and Uhrich’s survey of 571 Bundesliga supporters, the benefits of a rivalry flow through the belief that the rival returns the antagonism (THEORY-1113). Tyler and Cobbs (LIT-1682) document one-sided rivalries, where A’s fans name B but B’s do not name A. So the belief can be false.
CASE-098 is about the rivalry as a relation that outlives its carriers. If identity benefits track the perception, the rivalry’s persistence can be carried by each side’s beliefs about the other. If they track the fact, the relation itself does work.
What would count as an answer
Paired surveys of fans of both clubs in a set of rivalries, one-sided and mutual. The measures:
- each side’s rivalry intensity;
- each side’s perceived reciprocity;
- each side’s distinctiveness, cohesion and regard.
The answer is whether one side’s outcomes depend on the other side’s actual intensity once its own perceived reciprocity is held fixed. Kilduff et al.’s relational account of rivalry (LIT-1755) predicts that the relation matters.
Partial evidence, 2026-10-29
Kilduff et al. (NOTE-1292) measured rivalry from both sides for 389 pairs of NCAA basketball teams, from student sportswriters validated against players and coaches. Rivalry was largely reciprocated: r = .64 raw, .85 with each team’s general tendencies removed. Where it was one sided, lower-status teams felt it toward higher-status ones. That is teams, not fans, so the question stays open. It does predict where fans’ perceived reciprocity would be wrong if fans follow their teams: at clubs of lower status, toward rivals above them.