By Gil Fried, Professor, University of West Florida
When examining sport retail crime, we often think about sporting goods stores, large retailers with sporting goods sections, tennis shoe retailers, or even baseball card shops. While these are all appropriate examples, many facility managers are not thinking about a stadium/arena store, restaurants, or even ancillary businesses such as sportsbooks or mixed-used venues around a stadium/arena. It is imperative that all venues focus on fan and employee safety. That is the number one responsibility for a venue manager. Crime prevention is sometimes relegated to the proverbial sidelines because it is not a revenue center, complicated, has minimal executive buy-in, or similar challenges. This article is designed to raise awareness of these concerns and how to properly address these concerns.
The National Retail Federation (NRF) and Loss Prevention Foundation provide key industry guidelines emphasizing that customer and employee safety must always take precedence over asset protection.
Effective loss prevention programs focus on creating environments that deter theft while maintaining a safe, welcoming atmosphere for legitimate customers. This includes regular staff training on de-escalation techniques and clear protocols for when to involve law enforcement rather than attempting to resolve situations internally.
The goal for any venue with retail-related space (think everything from team store to sportsbooks and even concession carts) is making theft difficult and risky for perpetrators while ensuring that prevention measures don’t create hazards or negative experiences for other customers. But what if your employees try to get involved? While it is often alluded to in training not to engage or intervene, that is sometimes hard for an employee to disengage when they see a crime occurring in front of them.
The 2019 firing and subsequent re-hiring of a manager at Academy Sports gained national attention as he chased a suspected gun thief and tackled him outside the store. That incident fueled a heated conversation about the nexus between following the rules and doing the right thing. Should a store employee intervene to possibly stop a hazard or prevent a possible escalation or will getting involved put the employee and others in harm’s way? https://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Team-researches-strategies-to-stop-shoplifting—488677491.html
Most major retailers follow a “no chase” or “limited pursuit” policy, especially once a suspect leaves the store premises.
Here are some key recent findings:
- “As violence has increased, more retailers have opted to enforce a “hands off” approach in the apprehension of shoplifters. More survey respondents said that no employees are authorized to stop or apprehend shoplifters (41%), compared with 38% last year (2021).” https://nrf.com/media-center/press-releases/shrink-accounted-over-112-billion-industry-losses-2022-according-nrf
- A recent survey (2018) by Loss Prevention magazine shows 78 percent of retailers have a no chase policy, 45 percent have a no touch policy, and 18 percent don’t allow apprehension at all. https://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Team-researches-strategies-to-stop-shoplifting—488677491.html
If employees are not to engage, how can a venue provide appropriate protection while minimizing shrinkage- the term used to describe loss from everything such as spoilation to theft. One strategy is to utilize a zone technique that is often seen in security operations such as the rings of security around an airport (think Israel) to rings of security around a major stadium before an event such as the Super Bowl or World Series. The term “Zones of Influence” is somewhat self-explanatory— as venue operators have influence over what happens in each of these zones. Venues have an opportunity to prevent crime and losses:
- In the broader community and cyber domain (Zone 5),
- In the parking lot or store curtilage (Zone 4),
- At the store entry and in the overall store interior (Zone 3),
- In the proximate area where the crime occurs (Zone 2), and
- At the specific location of the crime within a store (Zone 1).
Criminals can victimize employees, guests, and companies in any of the five zones of influence. It should be noted that each of the zones are nested within other zones. This is important because it means that, for example, for a crime to occur in or at Zone 1 a perpetrator must pass through Zones 5 through 2 before reaching Zone 1. This means that there could have been multiple opportunities to possibly intervene or create a hostile environment for a criminal to possibly prevent the crime. If a criminal successfully commits a crime in Zone 1, then it implies that the venue likely missed opportunities to control crime in Zones 2 through 5. https://losspreventionmedia.com/preventing-retail-violence-across-the-five-zones-of-influence/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Preventing%20Retail%20Violence%20Across%20the%205%20Zones%20of%20Influence%20%7C%20PLUS%20the%20Latest%20LP%20Industry%20Updates&utm_campaign=25%2F3%2F22.
So, what is the solution. There is no one solution, but using a layering technique of intelligence gathering, technology, boots on the ground, and buy-in can have significant value.
Nearly three in four (71%) retail workers who have experienced some type of violence at work say they would feel safer with enhanced security measures. Those same respondents say that theft (77%), robbery (76%), active shooter (74%) and physical assaults (61%) could have been prevented had better security been in place. https://docs.verkada.com/docs/Verkada%2BRetail%2BSafety%2BSurvey.pdf This study also highlighted that 17% of store employees have experienced some form of violence. Also in that survey, employees indicated that more piece of mind would come from the following strategies- video surveillance/monitoring (48%), on site security guards (47%), alarms (45%), panic buttons (30%), and parking lot surveillance towers (30%).
There is no substitute for human intelligence. That is key stakeholders who are the eyes and ears of the venue. Whether monitoring people to monitoring social media, some nefarious plans can be identified in advance. Next, efforts should be undertaken to harden a retail area. Maybe putting some items behind a counter can make a target less attractive. Some other strategies that can be deployed include:
- Regular presence of uniformed officers,
- Having a strong employee presence
- Enhanced surveillance systems with visible cameras
- Electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems
- Strategic store layout and lighting
- Train staff to observe and report rather than physically intervene
- Use verbal deterrence and customer service approaches
- Coordinate with law enforcement for serious incidents
- Document incidents thoroughly for legal and training purposes
- Implement and train employees on policies such as no intervention/no chase policies
Crime will happen at our venues. Whether it is employee theft, organized crime rings, or lone wolf thieves, a venue and its employees must take steps to reduce this threat to the bottom line, people, and property. AI can provide some guidance in the future, but active monitoring by humans is still the rule of the day. Venues need to track criminal activity in and around their venues to develop a baseline. Then management can examine what tweaks can produce a reduction in criminal activity and when a strategy works, roll it out and start building a crime prevention toolkit. The policies and procedures in the toolkit can address employee engagement while at the same time helping to encouraging leveraging local law enforcement officials as the proverbial first line of possible defense.
…
Female Athletes File Sex Discrimination Class Action Against Concordia University Irvine over Decision to Eliminate Women’s Teams
Nine female athletes at Concordia University Irvine (CUI) have filed a sex discrimination class action against the school for discriminating against its female student-athletes and potential student-athletes in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges CUI with violating Title IX by depriving women of equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. The school just announced it was planning to eliminate the women’s swimming & diving and tennis teams, along with the men’s teams, when it is already providing women with far fewer opportunities than the law requires.
CUI female athletes Mikayla Barre, Jessica Bear, Kiera Gutierrez, Bryn Johnson, Alexandra Leland, Ruby McCullough, Aliyah Treadwell, and Carissa Ward are also plaintiffs in the case.
“CUI’s decision to eliminate the women’s swimming & diving and tennis teams is a flagrant violation of Title IX,” said Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. “According to the most recent publicly available information, women were 59% of CUI’s undergraduates in 2024-25, but they were given only 51.2% of the opportunities to participate in varsity sports. CUI needs to add about 100 opportunities for women to reach gender equity. It should not be eliminating any women’s teams.”
John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson, Black, and Cook in Boulder, CO; Eric Grover and Robert Spencer of Keller Grover in San Francisco, CA; and Anne Andrews and Robert Siko of Andrews & Thornton in Newport Beach, CA, are co-counsel for the women athletes.
On May 20, 2025, CUI announced it had decided to eliminate its women’s and men’s swimming & diving and tennis teams for financial reasons. A few days later, it emailed all of the athletes on the other teams to “reassure” them their “program remains secure” because CUI is “currently in the midst of a major $17.5 million construction project that includes a new 19,000-square-foot facility featuring a state-of-the-art weight room, locker rooms, and modern training room space…In addition, the University has invested over $7million in upgrades to our baseball, softball, and soccer/track/lacrosse facilities – including the installation of lights on each of our outdoor fields.”
Bryant noted that CUI did not send this email to the athletes on the women’s (or men’s) swimming & diving or tennis teams. But other athletes did.
On June 16, 2025, Bryant emailed a letter to CUI President Michael A. Thomas, PhD, explaining that the elimination of the women’s teams violated Title IX and requesting a meeting to discuss preserving the teams and ensuring CUI’s Title IX compliance.
As the letter noted, Title IX prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funds from eliminating women’s teams for which interest, ability, and competition are available unless “intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.” CUI fails that test, according to Bryant.
According to the most recent Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data that CUI submitted and verified to the U.S. Department of Education as accurate, CUI had a total undergraduate population of 1,413 in 2023-24, including 833 women and 580 men. So, undergraduate enrollment was 58.95% women. (The 2024-25 EADA data is not yet publicly available.) The school’s intercollegiate athletic teams had 625 athletes: 328 women and 297 men. They were only 52.48% women—creating a gap of 6.47% between the women’s undergraduate enrollment rate and their intercollegiate athletic participation rate. CUI needed to add women’s opportunities to comply with Title IX.
But CUI just announced that it is going to eliminate two women’s teams that included 38 women (along with two men’s teams that include 33 men) in 2023-24. As a result, the school’s athletic participation rate for women will decrease when it needs to increase.
Based on the most recent publicly available numbers, if the women’s teams are cut, CUI will need to add 112 participation opportunities for women to achieve gender equity. This is, of course, far more opportunities to participate in varsity athletics than the women’s swimming & diving and tennis teams provide.
After CUI received Bryant’s June 16 letter, the lawyers for the school and the women met numerous times over a month. But, on July 17, the school refused to agree to continue the women’s teams and come into compliance with Title IX. So, the women filed suit.
Along with the class action, the women filed an application for a temporary restraining order preserving the women’s teams while the case proceeds. A date for a hearing on the motion has not yet been set.
