Sportswear preferences and purchase decisions among Filipino university students: a sociodemographic analysis

Introduction

Sportswear purchasing among university students is often discussed as a matter of style, branding, or lifestyle preference, yet it is also a recurring consumer decision in which functional utility, monetary sacrifice, and symbolic meaning are evaluated together. Research on casual sportswear shows that consumer perceived value in this product category is structured around price value, quality value, social value, and emotional value, with price and quality emerging as especially influential dimensions of evaluation (Chi and Kilduff, 2011). In sportswear specifically, utilitarian, hedonic, and symbolic benefits have been shown to shape both purchase intention and willingness to pay, suggesting that consumers approach these products through performance-oriented as well as identity-oriented lenses (Lim et al., 2016). Philippine evidence from the clothing sector likewise indicates that apparel buying behavior is shaped by attitudinal, normative, and control-related mechanisms, reinforcing the view that clothing consumption involves active judgment under contextual constraints rather than passive preference alone (Ong et al., 2021).

A behavioral economics framing is therefore especially useful for understanding sportswear choice among university students. The Theory of Planned Behavior posits that behavior is shaped by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, making it relevant in purchase contexts where desirability, social expectations, and affordability operate simultaneously (Ajzen, 1991). Identity economics adds a complementary explanation by arguing that identity enters the utility function itself, thereby helping explain why consumers facing similar material conditions may still make different choices because those choices carry social and self-definitional meaning (Akerlof and Kranton, 2000). In retail and apparel-related settings, identity congruence has been linked to stronger engagement, brand loyalty, and willingness to pay, suggesting that consumer choice is shaped not only by functional assessment but also by perceived alignment between product symbolism and self-concept (Roggeveen et al., 2021). Together, these perspectives suggest that sportswear purchasing should be understood as a form of consumer decision-making in which utility, feasibility, and identity are jointly negotiated.

This dual logic of utility and identity is especially visible in apparel and activewear markets, where consumers routinely evaluate garments on the basis of comfort, fit, price, appearance, and the benefits they expect such products to deliver. Research on female activewear consumption shows that functional design, colour, size and fit, price, and model imagery shape consumer perceptions of exercise facilitation, healthy lifestyle, mood enhancement, and body-related benefits (Zhou et al., 2018). Work on young adult clothing consumption further indicates that apparel-related decisions frequently involve trade-offs among value, style, availability, knowledge, and budget constraints, while also reflecting the social and identity-related character of clothing use (Diddi et al., 2019). These patterns are particularly important for student populations, whose consumption tends to be shaped by practical limits alongside peer visibility, self-presentation, and everyday participation demands. In this sense, sportswear choice among university students is not reducible to fashion preference alone, but reflects a more layered process of economic and symbolic evaluation.

This framing is especially relevant in the present study, which is situated in the Philippine higher education setting and examines sportswear purchasing within the context of Physical Activity Towards Health and Fitness courses. In this setting, sportswear is not merely a discretionary fashion item, but a practical consumption good associated with movement comfort, classroom participation, and confidence in physically active coursework. Although prior scholarship has examined apparel purchasing, sportswear branding, and general consumer preferences, relatively limited attention has been given to how sportswear attributes are prioritized in educational environments where participation demands, financial limitations, and sociodemographic variation may operate simultaneously. Addressing this gap, the present study investigates how Filipino university students prioritize selected sportswear attributes and whether these priorities vary across sexual identity, age, year level, geographic area, and monthly average expenditure. Rather than claiming a broad theoretical breakthrough, the study offers a theory-informed account of consumer choice under functional, financial, and identity-related constraints within a sports-related educational context.

Review of related literature

Product quality, functionality, and evaluative criteria in sportswear

Sportswear is typically judged through a set of concrete quality cues that extend beyond appearance and branding alone. Expert work on sports clothing quality shows that evaluative judgments in this category are strongly tied to performance-related attributes such as functionality, comfort, fit, durability, and material-related features, indicating that sportswear is commonly assessed through practical criteria linked to use rather than through aesthetics alone (Claussen et al., 2022). This is consistent with broader apparel scholarship showing that clothing preference is shaped by identifiable design and quality factors that affect how garments are perceived and valued by consumers (Ko et al., 2025). In consumer terms, this means that sportswear choice is structured by what buyers believe a garment can reliably deliver in actual use, making functional quality a central part of purchase evaluation rather than a secondary concern.

Consumer decision-making under constraint in clothing markets

Clothing purchases are also shaped by the conditions under which consumers make decisions, particularly when affordability, access, and perceived control become salient. Recent fashion studies using behavioral models have shown that attitudes and perceived behavioral control remain significant predictors of clothing-related purchase behavior among younger consumers, even when those consumers navigate competing market logics and constrained purchasing environments (Kang and Badal, 2025; Magwegwe and Shaik, 2024). Related work on young adult clothing consumption further shows that consumption patterns are driven by a mix of trends, social pressures, and personal considerations, rather than by preference alone, highlighting that clothing decisions often reflect bounded and situational forms of consumer reasoning (De Koning et al., 2024). These studies support the notion that student sportswear purchases can be examined as choices made under practical limits, not simply as expressions of taste.

Identity, brand attachment, and self-presentation in apparel choice

Apparel consumption is also closely tied to how consumers see themselves and how they wish to be seen by others. Research on young women's fashion engagement shows that clothing consumption is deeply connected to self-concept and social identity, reinforcing the idea that garments are not only worn for utility but also used to negotiate self-presentation and belonging (McNeill and Venter, 2019). Among university students, apparel-related buying has likewise been linked to self-congruence and brand attachment, suggesting that purchasing behavior can be intensified when a product or brand appears to align with the consumer's sense of self (Gohar et al., 2023). Related branding research further indicates that brand awareness, loyalty, attachment, and perceived brand quality are meaningfully associated with apparel buying tendencies, showing that symbolic and relational brand dimensions may shape consumer behavior alongside functional product evaluation (Lee and Workman, 2015). Therefore, students may differ in the importance they assign to attributes such as brand, appearance, and socially visible product cues.

Why this matters for sportswear in higher education

Although clothing and fashion scholarship has expanded substantially, much of the recent literature has concentrated on sustainability, overconsumption, or general fashion markets rather than on sportswear purchasing within educational settings where clothing is directly tied to movement, participation, and class-based activity (De Koning et al., 2024; Schiaroli et al., 2025). At the same time, emerging evidence suggests that even exposure to activewear contexts can influence body-related perceptions and self-evaluative responses, indicating that activewear is socially and psychologically charged in ways that go beyond simple utility (Hollett and Challis, 2023). This makes sportswear in higher education a particularly relevant site of inquiry because students are not choosing apparel only for general consumption, but also for use in environments where comfort, confidence, visibility, and participation demands intersect. In this regard, the present study addresses a more specific gap by examining how Filipino university students evaluate selected sportswear attributes across sociodemographic groupings within a physical education context.

Methods and materials

Participants

This cross-sectional study's participants were purposively selected first- and second-year students currently enrolled in Physical Activity Towards Health and Fitness (PATH-FIT) courses during the 1st Semester of the Academic Year 2024–2025 from various colleges at a public tertiary institution in the Philippines. A total of 445 responses were initially collected, and after data cleansing, 401 valid responses were retained for analysis, representing a response rate of 82.02%. The sociodemographic background of the participants reveals a diverse composition (see Table 1). The majority identify as heterosexual women (50.6%), followed by heterosexual men (43.1%), with a smaller representation of LGBTQIAP+ members (6.2%). Most participants are aged 18–20 years old (72.1%) with a mean of x¯ = 19.17 years old, primarily freshmen (72.6%), and residing in rural (36.2%) or urban (34.2%) areas. Regarding expenditure, a significant proportion spends less than ₱500.00 (approximately $9.00 USD) monthly on casual sportswear (67.8%), reflecting a preference for budget-friendly options.

Table 1. Sociodemographic background of the respondents.

Sample size determination

Based on institutional records, approximately 7,000 students were enrolled in PATH-FIT courses during the semester. Using the Raosoft Sample Size Calculator with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error (MOE), the minimum required sample size was 365. To strengthen this justification, an a priori power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). Results indicated that for an independent samples t-test (two groups, medium effect size d = 0.50, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), 128 participants (n₁ = 64, n₂ = 64) were required, while for a one-way ANOVA with nine groups [as assumed for the age group] (medium effect size f = 0.25, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), 260 participants were required. Since the achieved sample of 401 exceeded these thresholds, the study was adequately powered to perform the planned analyses.

Instruments

For this present study, the gathering of data was performed through online survey using Google Forms. It is a digital method of collecting data from respondents via the internet, offering the benefits of convenience, cost-efficiency, and access to a broader audience. The Google Forms link was sent through the help of the faculty members of the College of Sports, Exercise and Recreation of the selected public tertiary institution posting it through their Learning Management System (Google Classroom). The survey was performed last October 2024 to December 2024. In this regard, the survey questionnaire is subdivided into two sections. First, the sociodemographic background of the respondents was obtained. Lastly, to describe the factors affecting university students' sportswear apparel buying decisions, the questionnaire was adopted from the study of Öndoğan et al. (2016). The items were directly adapted without modification to preserve the validity of the original instrument. Since English is the medium of instruction in the university, no translation or contextual adjustments were necessary.

In relation to its reliability, the Cronbach's Alpha value is reported as.88, indicating a high level of internal consistency for the measured scale. Furthermore, the normality estimates indicated that most factors affecting university students' sportswear buying decisions fell within or near the commonly used threshold range of −2 to 2 for skewness and kurtosis (see Table 2). However, comfort (S = −2.807, K = 8.227), quality (S = −2.669, K = 7.973), and fabric properties (K = 3.136) exceeded this guideline. Despite these deviations, parametric tests were retained because the sample size was sufficiently large and the analyses were considered reasonably robust to moderate violations of normality.

Table 2. Normality estimates of factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions.

Skewness and Kurtosis values acceptable threshold is −2, 2, basing on practical considerations of approximate normality in real-world data.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were used to summarize the level of importance assigned to the factors influencing students' sportswear purchasing decisions. To examine group differences across sociodemographic variables, inferential tests were employed. An independent samples t-test was used for year level, which was treated as a dichotomous variable, while one-way ANOVA was conducted for variables with more than two categories, including age, geographic area, sexual identity, and monthly average expenditure. When significant ANOVA results were obtained, Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) post hoc test was performed to determine specific group differences. Effect sizes (η²) were calculated to complement significance testing.

Ethical considerations

Participation in the study was voluntary and based on informed consent. Data were collected through an online survey, and respondents were informed of the study's purpose, their right to withdraw at any time, and the absence of monetary compensation. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained, and all data were stored securely and handled in accordance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). Given the non-invasive nature of the study and its use of voluntary survey responses on non-sensitive topics, the research was treated as exempt from full ethical review.

Results

Table 3 presents the level of importance assigned to the factors affecting university students' sportswear apparel buying decisions. Among the evaluated attributes, comfort (4.70 ± 0.73), quality (4.67 ± 0.73), fabric properties (4.43 ± 0.80), fitting (4.38 ± 0.92), and price (4.26 ± 0.98) obtained the highest mean scores, all of which were interpreted as very important. Design/model (3.88 ± 1.05), color (3.78 ± 1.07), fashion (3.78 ± 1.00), figure (3.99 ± 0.91), raw material properties (3.93 ± 0.95), sewing properties (3.95 ± 1.04), and accessory properties (3.44 ± 1.08) were rated as important. In contrast, brand (3.07 ± 1.15), advertisement/promotion (3.27 ± 1.12), and peer influence (3.23 ± 1.09) received comparatively lower mean scores and were interpreted as moderately important. Overall, the descriptive results indicate that functional and product-related attributes received higher importance ratings than external and promotional factors.

Table 3. Level of importance based on the factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions.

The one-way ANOVA findings revealed both significant and non-significant differences in how university students of different sexual identities perceived the importance of the factors affecting their sportswear buying decisions (see Table 4). Among the 15 factors analyzed, significant differences were observed for comfort [F(2, 398) = 8.780, p < .001, η² = .042], quality [F(2, 398) = 4.711, p = .010, η² = .023], fabric properties [F(2, 398) = 4.383, p = .013, η² = .022], price [F(2, 398) = 3.863, p = .022, η² = .019], raw material (fiber) properties [F(2, 398) = 3.333, p = .037, η² = .016], sewing properties [F(2, 398) = 6.331, p = .002, η² = .031], fashion [F(2, 398) = 3.999, p = .019, η² = .020] and advertisement/promotion [F(2, 398) = 2.173, p = .041, η² = .011]. These findings indicate that the importance assigned to these factors differed across groups, although the observed effect sizes were generally small (η² ranging from.011 to.042). According to Richardson (2011), η² values of .01, .06, and .14 correspond to small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. In the present study, the observed η² values suggest that sexual identity accounted for approximately 1.1% to 4.2% of the variance in how students rated these purchasing factors. Although statistically significant, these effects indicate modest practical differences between groups. In contrast, non-significant differences were found for fitting, color, design/model, figure, brand, accessory properties and peer influence, suggesting that these attributes were perceived similarly across sexual identity groups.

Table 4. One-way ANOVA on the factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions based on sexual identity.

Statistical significance was set at p < .05. η² corresponds to eta-squared. LL and UL represent the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for η².

Furthermore, the post hoc analysis using the LSD test provided additional detail for the factors with significant omnibus results. For comfort, heterosexual women rated this factor significantly higher than heterosexual men, with a mean difference of 0.301 (p < .001). LGBTQIAP+ members also rated comfort significantly higher than heterosexual men, with a mean difference of 0.308 (p = .044). Similarly, for quality, heterosexual women rated it higher than heterosexual men (Δx¯ = 0.200, p = .008), while LGBTQIAP+ members also assigned it significantly greater importance (Δx¯ = 0.337, p = .031). For fabric properties, heterosexual women rated this factor higher than heterosexual men (Δx¯ = 0.227, p = .006). For price, heterosexual women again rated it significantly higher than heterosexual men (Δx¯ = 0.269, p = .008). Regarding sewing properties, both heterosexual women (Δx¯ = 0.353, p < .001) and LGBTQIAP+ members (Δx¯ = 0.454, p = .039) rated this factor significantly higher than heterosexual men. LGBTQIAP+ members placed significantly more importance on fashion, rating it higher than both heterosexual men (Δx¯ = 0.592, p = .005) and heterosexual women (Δx¯ = 0.556, p = .008). Similarly, for advertisement/promotion, LGBTQIAP+ members rated it higher than heterosexual men (Δx¯ = 0.489, p = .041) and heterosexual women (Δx¯ = 0.469, p = .048). For the non-significant factors, the differences between groups were not statistically meaningful. For example, fitting and figure showed slight differences between heterosexual men and women, but these did not reach statistical significance. Likewise, color, design/model, and brand had p-values well above.05, indicating that these aspects were perceived similarly across sexual identity groups. Accessory properties and peer influence showed minimal differences, with η² values of.001, suggesting almost no variability based on sexual identity.

Taken together, the results indicate that several sportswear attributes differed significantly across sexual identity groups, although the observed effect sizes were generally small. Heterosexual women assigned higher ratings to several functional attributes, including comfort, quality, fabric properties, price, and sewing properties, compared with heterosexual men. LGBTQIAP+ respondents, in turn, assigned higher ratings to fashion and advertisement or promotion, and also rated comfort, quality, and sewing properties more highly than heterosexual men in selected comparisons. In contrast, no significant group differences were observed for fitting, color, design/model, figure, brand, accessory properties, and peer influence. Overall, these findings suggest that the importance assigned to selected sportswear attributes varied across sexual identity groups, but that the magnitude of these differences remained modest.

The independent samples t-test results and corresponding Cohen's d values for year level are presented in Table 5. Significant differences were observed for price, with freshmen rating this attribute higher (4.37 ± 0.92) than sophomores (3.97 ± 1.07), t(399) = 3.73, p < .001, d = 0.415, 95% CI [0.196, 0.639], and for sewing properties, with freshmen also assigning higher ratings (4.03 ± 1.02) than sophomores (3.75 ± 1.06), t(399) = 2.37, p = .02, d = 0.272, 95% CI [0.044, 0.485]. No significant differences were found for the remaining factors. Although some non-significant attributes showed small effect sizes, including fabric properties (d = 0.227), comfort (d = 0.193), and quality (d = 0.218), these differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the year-level results indicate that freshmen assigned higher importance to price and sewing properties than sophomores, while the other sportswear attributes were rated similarly across groups.

Table 5. Variance in the factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions based on year level.

Statistical significance was set at p < .05 (2-tailed). The 95% confidence interval refers to the mean difference. Cohen's d represents the standardized mean difference.

F, Freshmen; S, Sophomores.

The one-way ANOVA results for age are presented in Table 6. No significant differences were observed across age groups for any of the 15 sportswear attributes, as all p-values exceeded.05. The corresponding η² values were small, ranging from.010 to.035, indicating minimal variation across age groups. Among the evaluated factors, fashion showed the highest η² value (.035), although this result was not statistically significant. Overall, the findings indicate that the importance assigned to the evaluated sportswear attributes was generally similar across age groups.

Table 6. One-way ANOVA on the factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions based on age.

Statistical significance was set at p < .05. η² corresponds to eta-squared. LL and UL represent the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for η².

The one-way ANOVA results for geographic area are presented in Table 7. Significant differences were observed for fitting [F(2, 398) = 4.919, p = .008, η² = .024], color [F(2, 398) = 3.761, p = .024, η² = .019] and figure [F(2, 398) = 3.621, p = .028, η² = .018]. These effect sizes were small, indicating limited variation across geographic groups. No significant differences were found for the remaining sportswear attributes, including comfort, quality, fabric properties, price, brand, sewing properties, accessory properties, fashion, advertisement or promotion, and peer influence. Overall, the results indicate that most sportswear attributes were rated similarly across geographic areas, with significant differences observed only for fitting, color, and figure.

Table 7. One-way ANOVA on the factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions based on geographic area.

Statistical significance was set at p < .05. η² corresponds to eta-squared. LL and UL represent the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for η².

The one-way ANOVA results for monthly average expenditure are presented in Table 8. Among the 15 evaluated sportswear attributes, brand was the only factor that differed significantly across expenditure groups [F(4, 396) = 3.869, p = .004, η² = .038]. This effect size was small to approaching moderate. No significant differences were observed for the remaining attributes, including fitting, comfort, color, design/model, quality, fabric properties, figure, price, raw material properties, sewing properties, accessory properties, fashion, advertisement or promotion, and peer influence. Although several non-significant factors showed small effect sizes, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the results indicate that the importance assigned to most sportswear attributes was similar across expenditure groups, with brand emerging as the only attribute that significantly varied according to monthly average spending.

Table 8. One-way ANOVA on the factors affecting university students’ sportswear apparel buying decisions based on monthly average spent.

Statistical significance was set at p < .05. η² corresponds to eta-squared. LL and UL represent the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for η².

Discussion

The present study suggests that sportswear purchasing among Filipino university students is organized primarily around functional and value-sensitive criteria. In the current sample, comfort, quality, fabric properties, fitting, and price received the highest importance ratings, whereas brand, advertisement or promotion, and peer influence were only moderately important. This pattern indicates that students tended to evaluate sportswear as a practical consumption good rather than as a predominantly symbolic or trend-driven purchase, which is consistent with research showing that consumer perceived value in casual sportswear is strongly shaped by price and quality (Chi and Kilduff, 2011). It is also consistent with evidence that sports clothing quality is commonly understood through attributes such as comfort, durability, fit, and price (Claussen et al., 2022), and with activewear research showing that functional design, size and fit, price, and product-related benefits remain central in consumer evaluation (Zhou et al., 2018). Related work on clothing comfort likewise shows that freedom of movement, bodily fit, and tactile feel are among the most valued comfort descriptors in sportswear appraisal (Wilfling et al., 2022).

Viewed through a behavioral economics lens, these findings suggest that students' purchasing decisions were shaped by recurring trade-offs between expected utility and monetary sacrifice. The Theory of Planned Behavior proposes that consumer behavior is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, which makes it particularly relevant for purchase settings in which desirability, affordability, and feasibility are simultaneously weighed (Ajzen, 1991). In the Philippine clothing sector, apparel purchasing has likewise been shown to operate through attitudinal and control-related pathways, reinforcing the view that clothing choices are active decisions made under contextual constraints rather than simple reflections of taste (Ong et al., 2021). Identity economics adds a further layer by suggesting that identity enters utility itself, which helps explain why consumers may attach value not only to what products do, but also to what they signal about the self (Akerlof and Kranton, 2000). Accordingly, sportswear in this study can be interpreted not merely as apparel for physical activity, but as a consumer good evaluated through a combination of use value, affordability, and self-relevant meaning.

The sexual-identity findings add nuance to this broadly functional structure of consumer choice, but they should be interpreted cautiously because the observed effect sizes were small. In the present study, heterosexual women assigned greater importance to several functional attributes, whereas LGBTQIAP+ respondents placed relatively greater emphasis on fashion and promotional cues. A careful interpretation is that sportswear, like apparel more generally, remains a socially visible product category in which practical and symbolic motives may be weighted differently across groups. This is consistent with research showing that clothing consumption is closely tied to identity and self-concept among young consumers (McNeill and Venter, 2019), and with studies indicating that brand attachment and self-relevant alignment can shape apparel-related buying tendencies (Gohar et al., 2023). It also aligns with evidence that exposure to activewear contexts can affect body-related self-evaluation and implicit self-esteem, highlighting the socially and psychologically charged nature of activewear consumption (Hollett and Challis, 2023). At the same time, the η² values in the present study remained within the small range, which means these differences are better interpreted as modest shifts in emphasis rather than strong subgroup divides (Richardson, 2011).

A second important pattern is that year level appeared more consequential than chronological age. Freshmen placed significantly greater importance on price and sewing properties, whereas age groups did not differ significantly across the evaluated sportswear attributes. This suggests that institutional position and immediate budget vigilance may matter more than age itself within a relatively compact student age range. Such a reading is consistent with research showing that young adult clothing decisions are often shaped by practical constraints, perceived lack of affordability, and tensions between self-expression and limited spending capacity (De Koning et al., 2024; Diddi et al., 2019). It is also consistent with recent work on Gen Z fashion consumption, which highlights how young consumers often navigate competing pressures of price, preference, and social signaling rather than making purely style-driven choices (Kang and Badal, 2025). In the present context, first-year students may therefore be especially attentive to affordability and durability because these attributes reduce risk in an environment where repeated classroom use and limited spending power make poor purchases more costly.

The expenditure findings are particularly important because they show that not all product attributes respond equally to purchasing capacity. In the present study, brand was the only attribute that differed significantly across monthly expenditure groups, with higher-spending students assigning greater importance to it. This pattern suggests that branding becomes more behaviorally salient when consumers have sufficient room to treat symbolic and relational value as actionable, whereas students under tighter budget constraints continue to privilege functionality and affordability. That interpretation is consistent with sportswear research showing that utilitarian, hedonic, and symbolic benefits shape purchase intention and willingness to pay (Lim et al., 2016). It is also aligned with apparel-branding research indicating that brand attachment, loyalty, and perceived brand quality can meaningfully shape buying behavior when consumers are more invested in the product–self relationship (Gohar et al., 2023; Lee and Workman, 2015). Taken together, the findings suggest that sportswear choice among university students is best understood not as a purely fashion-oriented preference, but as a context-specific form of consumer decision-making in which utility, affordability, and identity are continuously negotiated (Akerlof and Kranton, 2000).

The geographic-area results further suggest that not all forms of heterogeneity translate into large substantive differences in sportswear evaluation. In the present study, only fitting, color, and figure differed significantly across geographic groups, and the corresponding effect sizes remained within the small range, indicating that location-based variation was statistically detectable but modest in practical terms. Apparel and retail research provides a useful lens for interpreting this pattern. Kumar and Kim (2014) showed that store-environment cues influence consumer responses toward apparel retailers, which suggests that contextual exposure can shape how consumers assess merchandise without necessarily displacing core product priorities. Xu and Paulins (2005) likewise found that rural-vs.-urban differences in college students' apparel-shopping attitudes were conditioned by access-related factors such as internet use, employment status, and car access, which implies that geographic context often works indirectly through opportunity structures rather than as a simple determinant of taste. In the present study, geographic area may therefore have exerted a modest influence on appearance-related judgments, while more foundational evaluations such as comfort, quality, and affordability remained comparatively stable across locations.

From this standpoint, the contribution of the study is strongest when framed as evidence of consumer choice under constraint within a sports-related educational setting. The present results do not suggest that students approach sportswear primarily as a luxury or image-first purchase. Rather, they suggest that sportswear operates as a hybrid good whose value lies in its ability to support movement, satisfy budget-conscious decision-making, and, for some groups, express socially meaningful identity. That interpretation is consistent with Lim et al. (2016), who showed that sportswear purchase intention and willingness to pay are shaped by utilitarian, hedonic, and symbolic benefits. It is also consistent with Gohar et al. (2023), who demonstrated that apparel buying among university students can be mediated by brand attachment, indicating that symbolic and relational dimensions of consumption can coexist with practical considerations. In the present study, however, functional priorities remained dominant and brand salience increased mainly with spending capacity, which suggests that any market segmentation should be treated as secondary to the broader student logic of comfort, quality, and affordability.

Overall, the findings indicate that sportswear purchasing among university students is shaped primarily by functional utility and affordability, while sociodemographic factors introduce more modest variation in the relative importance of symbolic, aesthetic, and brand-related cues. This suggests that sportswear choice in higher education is less accurately understood as a purely fashion-oriented act than as a context-bound form of consumer decision-making linked to movement demands, budget sensitivity, and socially meaningful self-presentation. Although the subgroup differences observed in the study were generally small in magnitude, they remain valuable in showing that consumer valuation is not entirely uniform across students. In this way, the study contributes context-specific evidence to behavioral economics by demonstrating how utility, financial constraint, and identity-related preference interact in everyday purchasing decisions within a sports-related educational setting.

Conclusion

This study examined how Filipino university students prioritize selected sportswear attributes and whether these priorities vary across sociodemographic groups within the context of PATH-Fit courses. The findings indicate that sportswear purchasing in this setting is shaped primarily by functional utility and affordability, with comfort, quality, and price-related considerations occupying a central place in students’ evaluations. At the same time, modest differences across sexual identity, year level, geographic area, and monthly expenditure suggest that sportswear choice is not entirely uniform, but instead reflects varying degrees of emphasis on symbolic, aesthetic, and brand-related cues. Overall, the study suggests that sportswear purchasing among university students is best understood not as a purely fashion-oriented act, but as a context-bound form of consumer decision-making shaped by movement-related demands, budget sensitivity, and socially meaningful self-presentation.

Implications of the findings

Higher education institutions

The findings suggest that higher education institutions may benefit from paying closer attention to the role of sportswear as part of students' participation in physical education and movement-based coursework. Because students in this study generally prioritized comfort, quality, and affordability, institutions may consider supporting access to reasonably priced and functionally appropriate sportswear, particularly for students with more limited spending capacity. This may be pursued through partnerships with suppliers, information campaigns on appropriate attire for movement-based classes, or student-oriented initiatives that promote practicality, comfort, and inclusivity in sportswear use. These efforts may help reduce avoidable barriers to classroom participation and improve students' readiness for physically active learning environments.

Sportswear brands

For sportswear brands, the findings suggest that university students should be approached primarily as value-sensitive consumers who place substantial importance on product functionality. Product strategies that emphasize comfort, durability, fit, and affordability may therefore be more responsive to this segment than approaches relying too heavily on branding or promotional appeal alone. At the same time, the subgroup differences observed in the study suggest that some consumers may attach greater value to fashion, identity expression, or brand-related cues. This points to the usefulness of balanced strategies that foreground core functionality while allowing room for inclusive design, aesthetic variety, and carefully targeted messaging for specific student segments.

Conceptual implications

The present study offers theory-informed evidence that sportswear purchasing in higher education may be understood as a form of everyday consumer choice shaped by functional need, financial limitation, and identity-related preference. The findings are broadly consistent with behavioral perspectives that view purchasing decisions as products of evaluative judgment under constraint, while also suggesting that socially visible goods such as sportswear may carry symbolic meanings that slightly recalibrate consumer priorities across groups. In this sense, the study contributes context-specific insight into how utility, affordability, and self-relevant meaning may interact in a sports-related educational setting.

Limitations and future research directions

This study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from a single university, which limits the breadth of institutional and regional representation. Second, the study relied on self-reported responses, which may be influenced by recall bias, social desirability, or subjective interpretation of the surveyed attributes. Third, the use of purposive sampling may have introduced selection bias and limits the generalizability of the findings beyond students enrolled in similar physical education contexts. Finally, because the study employed a cross-sectional design, it was not possible to determine how sportswear preferences may shift over time or across changing economic and educational conditions.

Future research may build on these findings by examining sportswear purchasing across multiple institutions and regions in order to test whether similar patterns emerge in more diverse student populations. Longitudinal designs may also help clarify whether purchasing priorities change as students progress through university or as market and financial conditions evolve. In addition, future studies may benefit from probability-based sampling approaches and from incorporating qualitative or mixed-methods designs to explore more deeply how students interpret comfort, affordability, brand value, and identity expression in relation to sportswear. Comparative and cross-cultural studies may also be especially valuable, particularly in contexts where local norms, modesty expectations, and social meanings attached to apparel may influence consumer evaluation in different ways.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT-4.0+ for language refinement, structuring of content, summarization, and clarity enhancement. AI-assisted technology was employed solely to improve the readability, coherence, and organization of the manuscript, while all critical interpretations, analytical insights, and final editorial decisions were made independently by the author. The use of AI was conducted ethically and responsibly, ensuring adherence to academic integrity and transparency in research development.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: John Michael Del Rosario Aquino, Laguna State Polytechnic University, Philippines

Reviewed by: Teejay Panganiban, Batangas State University, Philippines

Shraddha Yadav, North Carolina State University, United States