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 2026 Industry Research Report
Editorial credit: Steve Broer | Shutterstock.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
About NCS4
4
Executive Summary
8
Introduction
8
Venue Demographics
9
Staffing, Training, and Development
10
Fan Behavior
14
Technology
15
Facility Operations
17
Conclusion
18
Industry Recommendations
20
Acknowledgments
Cover Image – Editorial Credit: Javen | Shutterstock.com
COPYRIGHT 2026 | 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 (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.
3
Editorial credit: Joseph Sohm | Shutterstock.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to examine security challenges, emerging threats, and technological solutions within professional and collegiate sports venues. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved survey consisted of 65 questions related to venue demographics, staffing, training and development, fan behavior, technology utilization, and facility operations. The online survey was administered to venue security directors hosting professional and collegiate sports events from Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), and NCAA Division I athletic programs.
Venue Demographics ● A total of 74 participants completed the survey, comprising 57% professional teams and 43% collegiate teams. ● The highest average attendance ranged from less than 10,000 to 70,000, with 86% reporting an average of less than 40,000.
Staffing, Training, and Development ● The majority of participants (74%) contract with third-party security staff service providers. ● Most participants (65%) experienced staff shortages in the last two years. The primary reasons reported included no-shows, lack of qualified applicants, lack of interest, and budget constraints. ● Top incentives offered to mitigate security staff shortages include employee recognition or reward programs, increased hourly wages, close parking to the venue, and complimentary food. ● Professional venues (98%) and collegiate venues (75%) typically screen all staff members and primarily verify event staff credentials through visual verification. However, professional venues have started incorporating digital scanning (55%) and facial authentication (17%) technologies to reinforce visual screening. ● Most frontline staff at professional venues are trained in de-escalation/conflict resolution (100%), guest services (100%), job-specific duties (100%), venue/event familiarization (98%), crowd management (98%), and incident reporting (93%). However, significant training disparities were found in de-escalation/conflict resolution, incident reporting, and alcohol management at the collegiate level.
4
Editorial credit: Mole Pazole | Shutterstock.com
● The majority of respondents (86%) conduct event-specific risk assessments, and most venues (93%) communicate/advocate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) campaign “If you see something, say something.” ● Most respondents prioritize gambling education training for staff and athletes. ● Ninety-eight percent of professional venues include the access and functional needs population in safety and security plans and policies, compared to 75% of collegiate venues. ● Most professional respondents (95%) participate in an annual tabletop exercise (TTX), conduct red teaming (95%), and provide security that travels with the team (88%), with most collegiate venues needing improvement in these areas.
Fan Behavior ● Most venue directors (88%) reported that fan behavior is about the same or worse than it was three years ago. The majority of inappropriate fan incidents (85%) happen inside the venue, with most incidents (81%) occurring during the event. Collegiate sports have more incidents outside the venue and after the event than professional sports. ● Common forms of inappropriate fan behavior at professional venues included alcohol abuse (93%), verbal abuse or foul language (85%), and fights between patrons (65%). In comparison, collegiate venues most frequently reported verbal abuse or foul language (94%), alcohol abuse (56%), and fights between patrons (38%). ● Over a quarter of respondents have seen an increase in drug-related incidents. ● The top consequences of inappropriate fan behavior included immediate ejection (97%), expulsion from future games (64%), and loss of future ticket purchases (43%). University/ Academic Sanctions (56%) were ranked as high-consequence in collegiate venues. ● All professional organizations (100%) and most collegiate venues (88%) have a fan code of conduct, with the majority of them including policies prohibiting field incursions. Professional respondents (75%) and collegiate respondents (60%) believe these incursion policies are communicated effectively to spectators. ● Professional venues (40%) reported experiencing a field or court incursion in the last year, compared with 25% of college venues. ● The primary cause of incursions at professional venues was social media attention (73%), whereas victory celebrations were the primary cause at collegiate venues. ● Most professional (78%) and collegiate (55%) respondents have noticed an increase in athlete harassment, which they attribute to increased sports gambling. ● The top safety and security concerns for professional venues were illegal weapons entering the venue (70%) and active shooters (65%). In contrast, the top concerns for collegiate venues were severe weather (84%) and fan violence (71%). ● Top crowd management strategies for professional sports primarily included fan code of conduct (80%), barriers (80%), event staff directing crowd movement (75%), surveillance cameras (68%), and venue signage (63%). College venues reported their top strategies as barriers (84%), event staff directing crowd movement (81%), surveillance cameras (71%), venue signage (65%), and public address announcements (55%).
5
Technology Solutions ● Professional respondents indicated their primary drivers for incorporating technology solutions were security enhancement (50%) and cost (38%), whereas cost (35%) and security enhancement (32%) were the primary factors for collegiate respondents, along with fan experience. Fan experience (10%) played a minor role in professional decisions to incorporate technology, and ease of use was not a significant factor in either venue. ● The majority of professional (72%) and collegiate respondents (97%) indicated that artificial intelligence is not being implemented in security screening, surveillance, or incident response. Professional respondents (68%) are more aware than collegiate respondents (35%) of how AI can assist in these efforts. ● The most common AI/digital technologies used include surveillance cameras (69%), incident management systems (35%), weapons detection (34%), crowd monitoring (27%), and drone detection (23%). Professional respondents (45%) reported knowledge of platforms for integrating these AI/digital technologies, compared with only 19% of collegiate participants. ● Sixty-one percent of respondents detected unauthorized drones on game days. Professional venues (57%) primarily detected drones through a combination of sensor technology and visual means, whereas collegiate venues (73%) primarily detected them visually. However, only 16% reported that these drones interrupted event operations. ● Approximately 51% of professional respondents and 27% of collegiate respondents reported having appropriate screening measures to protect against privately made firearms and weapons. However, nearly 75% of venues do not deploy detection systems for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) threats.
Editorial credit: Ben Harding | Shutterstock.com
6
Facility Operations ● Professional respondents (59%) reported that bag checks consume the most time at security checkpoints, whereas collegiate respondents reported that ticket verification (47%) takes the most time. ● Nearly all professional venues (97%) operate as a cashless venue compared with 67% of collegiate venues. ● Most organizations (97%) have a severe weather policy, albeit only 42% of professional venues and 59% of collegiate venues make them publicly accessible. ● Forty-nine percent (49%) of professional venues and 67% of collegiate venues experienced a weather delay or game cancellation within the last year. ● Most venues (77%) do not have an on-site meteorologist to assist with weather-related decisions. However, more than half consult with an off-site meteorologist using real-time lightning data as part of their weather procedures when lightning is observed. ● Collegiate venues (87%) are more likely than professional venues (64%) to use trigger points (15-, 12-, or 8-mile ranges) to guide weather-related decisions. ● Collegiate venues primarily use an 8-mile radius lightning location point to suspend athletic activities, and a 30-minute unobserved lightning time frame to resume them. ● The majority of professional venues (51%) resume athletic activity after consulting with a professional meteorologist, compared with just 23% of collegiate venues. ● Sixty-four percent (64%) of professional venues and 50% of collegiate venues have either obtained or are in the process of obtaining the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) SAFETY Act Certification. ● Only 16% of venues have obtained or are in the process of obtaining the GBAC® STAR facility hygiene accreditation from the Global Biorisk Advisory Council. ● Approximately 64% of professional venues and 34% of collegiate venues have designated parking areas for electric vehicles. However, a little over half (51%) of professional venues have considered mitigation efforts to prevent battery explosions, compared with 24% of collegiate venues. ● Nearly all professional respondents (97%) were familiar with DHS and CISA resources and guides for safety and security, compared to 50% of collegiate respondents. ● Most professional respondents (74%) conducted research or statistical analysis of venue incident data, compared with 32% of collegiate respondents. ● Ninety-five percent of professional respondents and 71% of collegiate respondents use industry research to inform safety and security policies and operations. ● Professional venues share incident data primarily with leagues/conferences (79%), local police (63%), and insurance companies (61%); whereas, collegiate venues primarily share incident data with local police (85%), leagues/conferences (59%), and insurance companies (33%). ● Approximately 37% of respondents indicated membership in an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) that shares threat intelligence, best practices, and mitigation strategies.
7
Editorial Credit: Grindstone Media Group | Shutterstock.com
INTRODUCTION This study examines security challenges, emerging threats, and technology solutions in professional and collegiate sports venues. The findings can help venue security directors improve planning, policies, operations, and the use of security technology. The survey included 65 questions on venue demographics, staffing, training, fan behavior, technology use, and facility operations. It was developed with input from academic researchers, industry professionals, NCS4 research affiliates, practitioners, and technology providers. The study was approved by The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board (IRB). The online survey was distributed to venue security directors responsible for professional and collegiate sporting events across North America.
VENUE DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 74 participants completed the survey, representing professional sports organizations (57%) and NCAA Division I collegiate athletics (43%). Participants represented Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), and the NCAA Division I FBS and FCS athletic departments. Venue directors provided information based on the sports facility with the highest average attendance during the year. Average attendance figures ranged from fewer than 10,000 to 70,000 spectators. Most collegiate venues (66%) reported average attendance of 20,000 or fewer spectators, while most professional sports venues (84%) reported average attendance of 10,000-50,000 spectators.
8
STAFFING, TRAINING, AND DEVELOPMENT Approximately 74% of venues use contracted security personnel in some capacity on event days, with 28% of collegiate venues relying entirely on them for event-day operations, compared to 17% of professional sports venues. In the last two years, 65% of venues experienced security staff shortages (Figure 1). The primary reasons for these staff shortages were no-shows (83%), a lack of qualified applicants (54%), a lack of interest (40%), and budget constraints (35%). Respondents also cited reasons such as non-competitive wages, inclement weather, interview no-shows, work visa issues, and other competing events. To mitigate staff shortages, venues offered incentives such as employee recognition and reward programs (61%), increased hourly pay (58%), close venue parking (45%), and complimentary food (41%). Professional teams most often used employee recognition and reward programs (88%), whereas the top incentive used in collegiate sports was an increase in hourly wages (56%). The majority of professional sport respondents (98%) reported screening all staff members upon entry to the venue, compared to 75% of collegiate venues. Staff credentials were primarily verified visually (99%); however, professional venues are verifying credentials by digitally scanning (55%) and using biometric/facial authentication (17%). Only 3% of collegiate venues scan credentials digitally, and none use biometric/facial authentication technology. Most, if not all, professional organizations offer training to frontline staff in de-escalation/conflict resolution (100%), guest services (100%), job-specific duties (100%), venue/event familiarization (98%), crowd management (98%), incident reporting (93%), and alcohol management (88%). In comparison, collegiate programs offer frontline staff training in venue/event familiarization (100%), crowd management (97%), job-specific duties (94%), guest services (91%), incident reporting (78%), de-escalation/conflict resolution (66%), and alcohol management (50%). The majority of organizations (86%) conduct event-specific risk assessments, and 93% of them communicate and advocate the Department of Homeland Security campaign “If you see something, say something.” The majority of professional (90%) and collegiate (97%) organizations provide gambling education to their staff and athletes. Approximately 98% of professional venues include the access and functional needs population in their safety and security plans and policies, compared to 75% of collegiate venues.
9
Figure 2 highlights differences between professional and collegiate respondents in their answers regarding conducting annual tabletop exercises, performing red teaming activities (simulated malicious actions used to identify vulnerabilities), and providing security personnel to accompany high-profile athletes during travel. The data indicate that professional organizations outperform collegiate organizations across all three categories.
FAN BEHAVIOR Eighty-eight (88%) of venue directors believe fan behavior is about the same, worse, or much worse compared to three years ago. Only 12% think fan behavior is getting better. The majority of inappropriate fan behavior incidents (85%) happen inside the venue, with most incidents (81%) occurring during the event. However, collegiate sporting events tend to have more incidents occurring outside the venue (25%) and after the event (31%). The top common forms of inappropriate fan behavior reported at professional venues were alcohol abuse (93%), verbal abuse or foul language (85%), and fights between patrons (65%). Similarly, collegiate venues most frequently reported verbal abuse or foul language (94%), alcohol abuse (56%), and fights between patrons (38%). Additional forms of inappropriate fan behavior included field or court incursions, property damage, drug abuse, and violence against staff members. Professional venues reported an increase in drug-related incidents (33%) compared to collegiate venues (13%). The least commonly reported behaviors were the use of pyrotechnics, possession or use of weapons, and violence directed toward players. To mitigate these inappropriate behaviors, venues primarily impose consequences such as immediate ejection (97%), expulsion from future games (64%), and loss of season tickets (43%). In addition, university/academic sanctions (56%) ranked among the most common consequences in collegiate venues. Less common consequences included warnings, fines, arrests/citations, lifetime bans, and/or required training.
10
All professional sport respondents (100%) indicated that their venue has a fan code of conduct, and 97% of them include policies that prohibit field incursions. Similar findings indicate that 88% of collegiate respondents have a fan code of conduct, with 89% of them prohibiting field/court incursions. When asked whether these policies are effectively communicated to spectators, 75% of professional venues agreed/strongly agreed, compared with 60% of collegiate venues. Professional venues (40%) reported experiencing a field or court incursion in the last year, compared with 25% of college venues. Social media attention (73%) was the primary reason for professional incursions, and victory celebrations (90%) were the primary reason for collegiate incursions. Other common causes of field or court incursions included fan/player altercation, protest/political messaging, ambush marketing, fake credentials, betting/dares, mental health issues, alcohol related, or fans wanting to meet a player.
Editorial credit: Ringo Chiu | Shutterstock.com
The top penalties for field or court incursions included immediate removal (87%), being banned from future events (68%), arrests (62%), and forfeiture of season tickets (37%). Closely followed were fines, mandatory education, and case-bycase penalties. Some respondents mentioned that there are no penalties for large-scale celebrations (Figure 3). Figure 4 indicates that the majority of professional venues (78%) and collegiate venues (55%) have noticed an increase in athlete harassment in the forms of verbal assault, social media threats, and stalking. Both professional (70%) and collegiate respondents (77%) feel that the increase in athlete harassment is due to sports gambling.
11
Venue directors’ greatest concerns regarding spectator safety and security are listed in Table 1. The top concerns for professional venues were illegal weapons entering the venue (70%) and active shooters (65%); whereas the top concerns for collegiate directors were severe weather (84%) and fan violence (71%). Least concerns included pyrotechnics, mass transit security, and CBRNE materials.
Editorial credit: Mighty Images | Shutterstock.com
12
Professional Concerns
%
Collegiate Concerns
%
Illegal Weapons Entering Venue
70%
Severe Weather
84%
Active Shooter
65%
Fan Violence
71%
Fan Violence
48%
Active Shooter
58%
Assault and Battery
45%
Illegal Weapons Entering Venue
58%
Improvised Explosive Device (IED)
45%
Assault and Battery
52%
Severe Weather
45%
Field/Court Incursions
45%
Vehicle Ramming
43%
Tailgating Incidents
42%
Field/Court Incursions
33%
Vehicle Ramming
23%
Unauthorized Drones
28%
Crowd Crush
23%
Terrorism
25%
Improvised Explosive Device (IED)
16%
Crowd Crush
18%
Unauthorized Drones
13%
Cyber Attacks
15%
Cyber Attacks
10%
Tailgating Incidents
13%
Terrorism
6%
CBRNE Materials
5%
Mass Transit Security
0%
Mass Transit Security
3%
CBRNE Materials
0%
Other-None
3%
Pyrotechnics
0%
Pyrotechnics
0%
Other-None
0%
Respondents were asked to select the top five crowd management strategies they felt were most effective (Table 2). Top-ranked strategies used by professional venues included fan code of conduct, barriers, event staff directing crowds, surveillance cameras, signage, and alcohol policies. Top collegiate strategies for managing crowds included barriers, event staff directing crowds, surveillance cameras, and signage. The least used strategies were staggered entry times, law enforcement presence, direct interaction with spectators, RFID tags, and tethered drones.
Professional Strategies
%
Collegiate Strategies
%
Fan Code of Conduct
80%
Barriers
84%
Barriers
80%
Event Staff Directing Crowds
81%
Event Staff Directing Crowds
75%
Surveillance Cameras
71%
Surveillance Cameras
68%
Signage
65%
Signage
63%
PA Announcements
55%
Alcohol Policies
60%
Designated Entry Gates
52%
PA Announcements
38%
Alcohol Policies
52%
Designated Entry Gates
25%
Fan Code of Conduct
26%
Staggered Entry Times
8%
RFID Tags/Apps
6%
Tethered Drones
3%
Staggered Entry Times
6%
Other
3%
Other
3%
RFID Tags/Apps
0%
Tethered Drones
0%
13
TECHNOLOGY When prioritizing technological solutions for venue integration, professional respondents identified security enhancement (50%) as the leading factor, followed by cost (38%) and fan experience (10%). In contrast, collegiate venues demonstrated a more balanced distribution of priorities, with cost (35%), security enhancement (32%), and fan experience (29%) weighing more evenly. Ease of use was not considered a significant factor in the decision to implement these technologies. Only 28% of professional venues and 3% of collegiate venues use artificial intelligence (AI) for security screening, surveillance, or incident response. However, professional respondents (68%) are more aware than collegiate respondents (35%) of how these AI technologies can assist them. Common AI/digital technologies used by venues include surveillance cameras (69%), incident management systems (35%), weapons detection (34%), crowd management (27%), and drone detection (23%). The least used technologies included facial authentication and door access management. Nearly half of professional respondents (45%) reported having a platform to integrate AI/digital technologies, compared to only 19% of collegiate venues. In the last year, 61% of venues detected unauthorized drones in their restricted airspace during game time (Figure 5). The primary means of detecting unauthorized drones at professional venues (57%) included both sensor technology and visual observation, whereas collegiate venues (73%) primarily used visual observation. Approximately 16% of venues reported interruptions to game events and operations caused by unauthorized drones.
14
Approximately 51% of professional venues and 27% of collegiate venues have appropriate screening measures to protect against privately made firearms/weapons (i.e., 3D-printed weapons) (Figure 6). Only 25% of professional and college venues deploy detection systems for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) threats.
FACILITY OPERATIONS Bag checks (59%) take the most time at professional venue security checkpoints for patron entry, followed by ticket verification (23%) and metal/weapon detector screening (18%). Interestingly, ticket verification takes longer at the collegiate level (47%), followed by bag checks (43%), and metal/detector screening (10%). Most professional venues (97%) and collegiate venues (67%) operate on a cashless-only basis. Nearly all venues (97%) have a severe weather policy; however, only 42% of professional venues and 59% of collegiate venues have made it publicly accessible. In the last year, 49% of professional venues and 67% of collegiate venues have experienced at least one game cancellation or weather delay. Most venues (77%) do not have an on-site meteorologist to assist with weather-related decisions. Venue directors were asked yes-or-no questions about specific procedures to follow when lightning was detected (Table 3). Only 15% of professional venues and 20% of collegiate venues consult with an on-site meteorologist using real-time lightning data to make decisions. However, over half of these venues consult with an off-site meteorologist to determine appropriate procedures when lightning is detected. Collegiate venues are more likely than professional venues to use trigger points (15-, 12-, or 8-mile ranges) to guide weatherrelated decisions, adhere to an 8-mile radius lightning location point to suspend athletic activities, and abide by a 30-minute time frame of unobserved lightning to resume athletic activities. In contrast, professional venues (51%) are more likely than collegiate venues (23%) to resume athletic activity after consulting a professional meteorologist.
15
Professional Yes %
Collegiate Yes %
Consulting with an on-site meteorologist using real-time lightning data
15%
20%
Consulting with an off-site meteorologist using real-time lightning data
54%
57%
Utilizing trigger points decision making for lightning that is 15/12/8 miles out
64%
87%
Stopping athletic play when lightning is within 8 miles of the venue
33%
97%
Resuming athletic play 30 minutes after no thunder or lightning is observed
38%
93%
Resuming athletic play after consulting with a professional meteorologist
51%
23%
Venue Weather Procedures
Nearly two-thirds of professional venues (64%) and half of collegiate venues (50%) are currently in the process of obtaining, or have obtained, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) SAFETY Act Certification. Approximately one-third of those who are not in the certification process plan to apply. Sixteen percent (16%) of venues have obtained, or are in the process of obtaining, the GBAC® STAR Facility Hygiene Accreditation from the Global Biorisk Advisory Council. An additional 14% of venues plan on applying for this accreditation. Professional venues (64%) and collegiate venues (34%) have designated parking areas for electric vehicles, including cars, bikes, scooters, and hoverboards. Fifty-one (51%) of professional venues, compared to 24% of collegiate venues, have considered mitigation efforts that include precautions for electrical battery explosions. Nearly all professional respondents (97%) are familiar with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) resources and guides for venue safety and security, compared to collegiate respondents (50%). Most professional respondents (74%) conducted research or statistical analysis on their incident data during the previous season, as opposed to collegiate respondents (32%), and most professional venues (95%) used industry research and data to inform safety and security policies and operations, as compared to collegiate venues (71%). Professional venues share incident data primarily with leagues/conferences (79%), local police (63%), and insurance companies (61%); whereas, collegiate venues primarily share incident data with local police (85%), leagues/conferences (59%), and insurance companies (33%). Approximately 37% of all organizations are members of an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), which provides a network of resources that share threat intelligence, best practices, and mitigation strategies for both cyber and physical risks.
16
Editorial Credit: Marcus E. Jones | Shutterstock.com
CONCLUSION Most venue directors rely on third-party security personnel, but many struggle to fill positions with experienced staff. To address staffing shortages, venues commonly use higher pay and employee recognition programs to attract and retain workers. Venues provide training for frontline staff on event policies, procedures, and incident response. Many also strengthen security by screening all event-day staff, conducting risk assessments and tabletop exercises, sharing safety information, supporting vulnerable patrons, and evaluating security effectiveness. Many venue directors believe fan behavior is worsening. Common issues include abusive language, alcoholrelated incidents, and fights among spectators. To address these problems, venues use measures such as restricting access, issuing citations or arrests, and imposing university sanctions. Despite prevention efforts, nearly one-third of venues have experienced field incursions. Concerns about athlete harassment are also increasing, with many attributing the trend to the growth of sports gambling. Venue directors are most concerned about acts of violence, weapons, and severe weather. Crowd management efforts typically combine personnel, physical security measures, technology, and effective communication. Security technology decisions are largely driven by security needs and available budgets. Many venues use AI-enabled tools such as surveillance cameras, incident and crowd management systems, and weapons- and drone-detection technologies. However, AI is not yet widely used for security screening, surveillance analysis, or incident response. Most venues also lack technologies to detect 3-D printed weapons or CBRNE threats. Bag screening and ticket verification create the longest delays at security checkpoints. While most venues have severe weather plans, procedures vary by organization. Many venues value DHS SAFETY Act certification, but fewer support GBAC® STAR accreditation. Most venues accommodate electric vehicles, although additional planning is needed to address battery fire risks. Most respondents are familiar with government safety and security resources and use research and data to improve their operations. Venues commonly share incident information with local law enforcement, leagues or conferences, and insurance providers. Many are also joining information-sharing networks to stay informed about emerging threats and security trends.
17
INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATIONS ● Use creative perks to recruit and retain security staff — player meet-and-greets, close parking, priority game-day promo items, and staff/family parties. Survey staff to measure impact and highlight these benefits in recruiting. ● Reward completion of professional education with promotion opportunities to retain experienced staff. ● Conduct annual tabletop exercises to test emergency action plans, surface communication gaps, and clarify decision-maker roles across emergency types. ● Run random red-team drills to expose vulnerabilities and address security weaknesses. ● Assign security staff to travel with teams to protect high-profile athletes. ● Publish a fan code of conduct and alcohol policy. Set clear consequences for misconduct — including field incursions and athlete harassment — and communicate both via signage, websites/apps, and PA announcements. ● Partner with gambling, alcohol, and drug addiction groups to educate athletes and fans and offer counseling.
● Consider obtaining the DHS SAFETY Act certification and the GBAC® STAR Hygiene Accreditation. ● Screen all event staff before they enter the venue. ● Standardize weather policies to industry best practices and make them public. ● Invest in detection technology for unauthorized drones, metallic and non-metallic weapons (e.g., 3D-printed guns), and CBRNE materials — and train staff to respond. ● Use designated gates with staggered entry times to reduce crowding, and add security staff in highrisk areas. ● Communicate and enforce unauthorized drone policies, and consider sensor-based detection. ● Integrate AI with existing digital tools to strengthen security, and evaluate platforms that support seamless integration. ● Review EV policies and implement safeguards to prevent battery fires. ● Join an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) for threat intelligence, incident response support, early warnings, and peer collaboration.
Edit oria l cre dit: Bind elGl ass
Pho to |
Shu tters tock .com
● Review resources on the next page.
18
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES ASIS
Global Crowd Management Alliance
● Security Publications and Resources
● Resources, Events, and Webinars
Center for Internet Security (CIS)
Center for Global Health Science & Security
● CIS Whitepapers
● Health Security Operations Center
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM)
● Active Shooter Preparedness ● Bombing Prevention ● Conflict Prevention ● Cyber Essentials ● De-Escalation Series ● Emergency Services Sector-Specific Tabletop Exercise Program ● Insider Threat Mitigation ● Lightning Safety Guide for Sports and Special Events ● Mass Gathering Security Planning Tool ● Non-Confrontational Techniques ● Patron Screening Best Practices Guide ● Power of Hello ● 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 Places-Resource Guide ● Stadium Spotlight: Connected Devices and Integrated Security Considerations ● Vehicle Ramming Attack Mitigation ● Venue Guide for Security Enhancements
● Safety and Security Resources
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
● Education and Training for Responsible Service, Sale, and Consumption of Alcohol
● Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) ● Homeland Threat Assessment ● “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
National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security (NCS4) ● Training and Resources ● Handbook of Sport Security ● Security and Risk Assessment for Facility and Event Managers
Pink Bows Foundation ● Showstop Procedure Course
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)
United Kingdom Crowd Management Association (UKCMA) ● Safer Crowds, Safer Venues
United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ● Overdose Prevention ● Preventing Alcohol-Related Harms
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
United States Department of Health and Human Services
● Active Shooter Resources
● Populations with Access and Functional Needs
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
United States Secret Service
● Emergency Management Institute
● National Threat Assessment Center
Global Biorisk Advisory Council (GBAC) ● GBAC® STAR Facility Accreditation
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
THANK YOU Thank you to the Professional and Collegiate Sport Venue Security Directors that participated in this study. Thank you to the NCS4 staff, research affiliates, and advisory committees. 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 2026 NCS4 Technology Alliance.
20
National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security The University of Southern Mississippi NCS4.USM.EDU
COPYRIGHT 2026 | THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI