volume 3 number 1 – Page 2 – The Sport Journal

Trouble on the turn: How Trainers View the Financial Viability of California Horseracing

Dan Prince

Abstract

Horseracing was once the most popular spectator sport in the United States. With the legalization of Native American casinos and the proliferation of Internet gambling, attendance at racetracks, including those in California, has fallen to record low levels. The current recession has weighed even more negatively on the industry. This paper examines the economics of racing in the nation’s most populous state from the perspective of the trainer, who operates the stable and determines when and where a racehorse will run, and under what circumstances. Over 20,000 Californians are directly employed in the horseracing industry, and their continued livelihood depends largely on whether trainers are willing to ride out uncertain times or relocate to states where the cost of operating thoroughbred racing stables is lower. Utilizing personal interviews, a group of California-based horse trainers were surveyed in order to gain insight into how they view the current business climate as well as other factors impacting the sport. The results indicated that trainers share a number of common concerns, particularly with regard to lower purses, a declining owner base, and synthetic racing surfaces. All have faced challenges in maintaining profitable stables, yet display resilience in terms of staying the course and retooling the traditional business model.

Key Words: Horseracing, Trainer, Synthetic Track, Costs, Diversification

Introduction

Long considered the “Sport of Kings,” horse racing in recent years has experienced dramatically lower attendance and an aging fan base (8). Once prominently featured on the front page of sport sections throughout the state, it is increasingly rare to discover in-depth newspaper coverage beyond major racing events such as the Triple Crown or Breeders’ Cup. Hollywood Park, a premier racing venue in southern California, cut purses in 2009 on average five percent as the pool of horses available to race plummeted and empty stalls abounded (1). In addition, Hollywood Park has been purchased by a large developer and is slated to close in the next few years. There is discussion as well among trainers regarding the relative risks and benefits of synthetic racing surfaces, now mandatory at larger tracks. Adding to the concern is the recent closing of Bay Meadows Racetrack in San Mateo, leaving only one major racing venue in Northern California. Empirical research, however, on the perceptions of California trainers regarding racing’s future viability is lacking. As these individuals perform the most critical aspect of the sports operation–the care of the horse, it follows that their input could help predict the future health of the industry within the state.

In “Cracks in Foundation of Kentucky Racing” (7), several prominent trainers in that state indicated they had considered relocating their stables to states where slot machines were legal and proceeds in part benefited horseracing. Some who are struggling to remain profitable with higher expenses and lower purses have moved their stables to neighboring Indiana or West Virginia where slot revenue supplements purse money. For example, at Turfway Park in northern Kentucky, purses averaged $150,500 per day in 1994, compared to $135,000 in 2008. California-based trainers have lobbied, without success, for slot revenue from Indian casino gaming. Some have shipped horses to run in races in states such as New Mexico, where slot machine revenue from tribal owned casinos is shared with horse tracks.

Slot machine revenue is hardly the only issue impacting trainer attitudes toward basing operations in a particular state, as on-track attendance and corresponding betting handle also impact purse structure. In “Down at the Track, What Policy, Marketing & Technology Offer The Sport of Kings,” Leslie Cummings (4) discovered that while overall gambling revenue increased year over year through the mid 1990’s, the betting take specific to horseracing declined during this period. Cummings (4) determined that lower attendance was directly related to this decline in wagering and cited failures in marketing management such as poor customer service and lower quality horses as significant factors. In 2009 racetrack attendance in California averaged near 7,000 persons a day (3), down significantly from years past when one might encounter 30,000 fans at Santa Anita racecourse on a weekend day. Cummings’ (4) research focused on national trends and included data from California racing venues.

Synthetic Surfaces

Another significant factor impacting horseracing in California is the imposition of synthetic tracks. In 2007, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) mandated that all major racetracks in the state replace traditional dirt tracks with synthetic surfaces (Smaller tracks, including those in the county fair circuit, are exempted). This followed a series of high-profile breakdowns, including Barbaro, the 2005 Kentucky Derby winner whose subsequent catastrophic injury in the Preakness Stakes two weeks later was also witnessed by a huge worldwide television audience. Artificial racing surfaces, more common in Europe, are considered by some industry groups to be safer, though evidence of this is still evolving. In 2009, the CHRB commissioned a comprehensive study of synthetic tracks to gauge the injury rate and related factors compared to dirt surfaces (9).

Role of the Trainer

Trainers occupy arguably the most critical niche in the racehorse industry, as they are the men and women who prepare the animal for the racing experience and whose daily care and welfare the equine athlete is entrusted to. Trainers are not only horsemen, but business owners as well; they must turn a profit to remain economically viable. Unprofitable trainers run the risk of losing what business they may be struggling to hold on to. Most owners expect a trainer to win races with their horses; trainers that can’t “do some good” with the horse run the risk of losing it to another barn (5).

Trainers face an array of different costs in order to operate their barns. These include payroll expenses to compensate assistants, grooms, hot walkers, and exercise riders as well as monthly bills from veterinarians, ferries, and feed suppliers (3). Trainers attempt to recapture these costs by charging owners “day money.” In 2005 the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) determined that the average day rate in the state was $81.33, while expenses were $86.93. As a result, it is incumbent upon trainers to make up the difference through commissions earned for winning or placing in races. In a number of states that have legalized slot machines, for example New Mexico, Indiana, West Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, a percentage of the gaming revenue is earmarked to subsidize purses at horse tracks. This is not the case in California, where the Native American entities permitted to operate casinos have forged compacts with the state that do not provide subsidies to horseracing interests.

In addition to the closing of major racing venues, California has experienced a shortage of racing stock. Whether this is a manifestation of the broader economic slowdown or the result of other factors affecting California racing is a question addressed by this research. In 2009, Hollywood Park received permission from the state to shorten its racing week from five to four days (2). For trainers who are required to maximize every opportunity for revenue, the loss of racing opportunities offers an additional challenge to the continued viability of their racing operations. The purpose of this investigation was to describe how the overall downward economic trend in horseracing is perceived by these California horsemen.

Methods

Participants

The participants of the study consisted of thoroughbred horse trainers within California. These individuals, at the time they were interviewed, had or were currently operating stables located at the racetrack. Personal interviews were utilized in all cases to gather information, which was manually recorded and later transcribed electronically. Summaries of the interview were electronically mailed to each participant for their review and additional input or modification as necessary. A total of eight interviews were conducted with a cross section of California trainers; six from the southern part of the state and two from the north. Interview locations included the Horseman’s Lounge and Grandstand Box Section at Hollywood Park, the grandstand at the Alameda County Fair in Pleasanton, California and a horse farm in Riverside County. No access issues arose, however plans to tape record the interviews were abandoned due to the high incidence of background noise. Two of the participants were former jockeys, and two came from horseracing families. Three of the individuals interviewed averaged 30 horses in their care, three others averaged 60 or more thoroughbreds, and the remaining participants were affiliated with smaller operations. From the collected data, quotes from participants were coded and sorted in terms of identifiable and emergent themes. Each was provided an overview of the research project’s goals and agreed to sign the California Baptist University Research Consent and Participant’s Bill of Rights, including the right to withdraw from the study at any time. The signed return of these forms constituted informed consent. Questions emphasized the participant’s views and perceptions regarding the economic challenges of horseracing in the state from a lived, experiential framework. Participants were provided pseudonyms in order to preserve anonymity and elicit the most candid responses. The study was conducted through the use of semi-structured personal interviews utilizing an interview guide comprised of eight open-ended questions (Appendix A) with an opportunity for follow up probing questions. The questions were reviewed by a staff person at the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), a professional organization with a strong commitment to further the interests of both the horses and horsemen in the state.

Role of the Researcher

The researcher and author, Dan Prince, has been licensed as a thoroughbred owner in California since 2002 and holds or has held additional licensure in New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, and Kentucky. He has been actively involved in the sport in California, having employed various trainers to stable, care for, and enter horses in races at major tracks under his name. In developing and maintaining close working relationships with trainers, he was familiar with many of the operational issues and challenges trainers faced.

Data Analysis

The study reviewed and transcribed interview notes, coding key words, expressions, and phrases to identify and sort data into common themes. Emergent patterns and themes were further catalogued to establish specific categories. Data was inductively analyzed to determine saturation points leading to theoretical constructs.

Results

Utilizing an inductive approach to analysis, five major thematic categories informing trainer views were revealed; 1) the high costs of operating a stable in the state, 2) the lower costs and additional benefits of doing business in other states, 3) synthetic racing surfaces, 4) diversification, and 5) weather conditions in California.

High Cost of Racing in California

Previous research had determined that costs are a significant factor in trainer decisions on where to base operations (6,7). This was apparent in the interviews, where seven of the eight participants cited escalating costs for labor, feed, supplies, and insurance as a significant economic factor affecting their operation. Several trainers expressed concern in particular over the state’s high rate of Workers’ Compensation insurance, which they were required to pay for each employee. Bob, who trained at major tracks before taking a position as a farm manager, stated “Workers’ Compensation costs are the main challenge…the state classifies only race car drivers as a higher risk; the state of California forces honest guys to almost cheat in order to stay in business. Minimally skilled ranch help is paid $12 per hour; a groom at the track is making $1,000 per week to care for just four horses…these costs are placed directly on the owner.”.

Seth, who had trained in California for 30 years, said “Owners are burdened by high costs, taxes are out of control, the claiming tax is over 10 %; owners are leaving the business.” The claiming tax this participant referred to is the state’s imposition of a sales tax that must be paid by the new owner each time a horse is “claimed,” or bought out of a race. (In California, most races are classified as claiming races, and the majority of trainers operate what are commonly referred to as claiming stables.) Craig, a Northern California based trainer, noted “In the San Francisco Bay Area, the cost of living is already high, so purse structure is not comparable; everything else has gone up except purses, which have stayed the same or even in some cases gone down.” The concern with respect to lower purses was echoed by several other participants and was cited previously in this work as a significant factor in trainer decisions to relocate operations to other states (1).

Horseracing in Other States

When asked the question of what benefits are available racing in other states, three participants pointed to slot machines and the added revenue they bring to purses. Craig emphasized, “We should have partnered early on with the Indian Tribes; we fell asleep and failed to appreciate how powerful a lobby they have. Tracks like Mountaineer in West Virginia and riverboat states have slots that assist horsemen.” This sentiment is consistent with earlier research that suggested horsemen must formulate strong revenue sharing agreements with tribal entities in order to remain competitive (4).

Half of the participants pointed to the advantage of lower rates for Workers’ Compensation insurance outside of California. States such as New Mexico and Arizona are “right to work” states, with lower overall labor costs. Craig noted that in some other states “there are lower Workers’ Compensation rates, it costs less to train; the cost of living is cheaper, and a dollar goes a lot further. We pay for the good weather in California.” John offered that other states “have weaker competition and stronger purses,” though “Kentucky is having trouble.” The reference to Kentucky is telling, as this is a state that like California, had failed through legislation to legalize slot machines at racetracks, where the added revenue directly benefits the horserace industry (4, 7).

Bob, who moved his training operation out of California for several years, reflected on the experience: “You see how well horsemen are treated; treated like royalty at tracks such as Zia (New Mexico), Canterbury (Minnesota), Prairie Meadows (Iowa), and Turf Paradise (Arizona). Racing Secretaries there will accommodate you, write races for you. In California, they will only write a race for you if they owe you a favor. In this instance, the participant was speaking of the human experience beyond the economic advantages; racetrack personnel in other states were friendlier, more appreciative, and willing to extend horsemen courtesies not necessarily available in California. This same individual was the only participant who did not articulate any benefit to racing in California, stating “you can run for half of the day money (in California) for the same amount of purses in other states; there’s no Workers’ Compensation tax and the costs are lower.”

Synthetic Racing Surfaces

This question generated the most emotional response among the participants and resulted in a distinct Northern versus Southern California bias. Five of the six trainers from the south indicated their disdain for the synthetic track, citing injuries and other disappointing characteristics. Skip, who operated a successful mid-size stable based at Hollywood Park, offered, “Originally they were good, but as they have aged, they wear out and tracks do not maintain them at the same level. Before, horses’ feet were clean when leaving the track, now the material balls up in their feet. Synthetic is better in Northern California, where there is more wet weather; this is an experiment gone awry.” There was a discernable theme of synthetic track performing well in wet weather; trainers from both Northern and Southern California held this opinion. It is also significant to recognize that the climate is generally wetter in the North, where the two representative trainers held favorable views of synthetic tracks.

Another common theme that emerged with regard to synthetics was the tendency for horses to “stick” to the surface rather than “slide” during a misstep, resulting in greater injury. Ron, who had won both the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes with horses he has trained, suggested that synthetic surfaces “are the worst thing they ever did…horses stick on them, there’s no surface to slide. Where the foot goes in, they stay, breaking bones, tibias, and getting soft tissue injuries.”

Seth, who operated a larger Southern California stable, described the synthetic surface as “unnatural, harder on horses; the injury rate is higher, there are more hind end and soft tissue injuries.”

Craig, the Northern California trainer who generally favored synthetics, still had concerns, pointing to “lots of hind end injuries and soreness; the two year olds get shin problems because they stick instead of slide, muscles get sore, hocks, stifles are affected from the pounding because there is no give to the racetrack.” However, in defense of the surface, he went on to add:

“I am the leading trainer on synthetic surfaces in Northern California. I have run a lot of horses on synthetic; it’s incredible when it rains. It’s a very fair track for both speed horses well as closers. You don’t get the catastrophic injuries.”

John, who emphasized younger horses in his training style, framed the issue by stating his preference for “a universal synthetic track; there are too many variations between locations. Its better when it rains; the surface is harder in hot months. I wish we could go back to dirt.” The reference to variations was significant, as there are three separate tracks in Southern California, each of which having a distinct brand of artificial surface (10). The inconsistencies between the tracks add to the problem; horses are creatures of habit, and even relatively minor variations in training regimens may influence performance. Conversely, with the closing of Bay Meadows, Northern California has only one major racing venue, Golden Gate Fields; its synthetic track was better regarded. Hal, another successful Northern California trainer said in no uncertain terms “the Tapeta brand at Golden Gate is the best.”

Diversification

When asked how they planned to remain financially viable in the current economic climate, several participants acknowledged their involvement in the buying and selling of horses, or “bloodstock” in industry parlance. The practice centers on purchasing horses at an early age and offering them for sale at a higher price at later stages of training and development, known as pin hooking. John said, “I’ve been lucky enough to make a profit buying and selling horses…you can’t rely on day money, it’s eaten up so fast.” Bob offered that he depended on “buying and selling; buying yearlings, pin hooking to two year old sales.”

Other participants spoke of diversification in terms of their product mix. Craig, one of the successful Northern California-based trainers said:

“You try to get better horses so you can run for better money. You have to have an equal mix of good and cheap horses in order to run in a lot of categories. You have a group of owners that want to make money; it would be nice if the economy got better; more people will buy horses.”

Hal, also from Northern California, provided a more unique blueprint for remaining profitable, emphasizing personal relations:

“I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing. Lots of owners are getting out, but others are coming in. Good communication with clients. Being a good trainer, really, some can communicate well but can’t train. You have to do both well.”

Given the high costs associated with training thoroughbreds (3, 6), owners expect to be kept informed of their horse’s progress at the racetrack; Hal’s point was that this is often not the case, and trainers may lose clients as a result. Seth, the longtime California trainer and former jockey, stated, “I’m just holding on, creating jobs for my staff, people depend on me for jobs. I should have 10, not 25 horses, it’s not economically viable.” One may ask if Seth’s background as a jockey influenced his willingness to operate a stable simply for the benefit of his backstretch “family.” Skip, who grew up around horseracing, was more to the point when asked how he will remain in business: “Find another runner.”

There are sound economic reasons to focus on younger horses, including federal income tax breaks related to depreciation and generous “breeding awards” paid to owners who foal and race two year olds in California. Half of the trainers interviewed stated a preference for younger horses; John described his current operation as “30 horses in training, primarily younger stock. Mostly yearlings, some two year olds bought in training.” Skip commented “I have 30 head, the majority are young. I focus on buying young horses.”

Weather

All but one of the respondents indicated that California’s good weather was a major benefit to racing in the state. This is more than just cliché–horses cannot properly train on sloppy tracks, and normally neat and orderly shed rows are turned to muck when the backside is exposed to prolonged rain and other precipitation. Helmer, in his seminal 1991 study of the backstretch, pointed out that the only real holiday hot walkers, grooms, exercise riders, and trainers get is when it rains. A number of the trainers we interviewed originally came from the Midwest, where adverse weather is more likely to result in cancelled races and limited training opportunities.

Conclusions

It is perhaps overly-stated that a particular industry or sport is at a “crossroads.” For horseracing, this has been the case for a number of years as attendance for what was once America’s most popular spectator sport has declined dramatically over the past several decades (8). In California, considered one of thoroughbred racing’s most important venues, trainers employ thousands of employees and play a pivotal role in maintaining the economic health of the industry. This research revealed that as a group, California trainers are most worried about the continuing higher cost of doing business in the state and how by extension these costs are passed on to owners. While some participants referenced the current economic recession as adding to the challenges horseracing faces, the majority express frustration with the state legislature, which has failed to approve revenue sharing with Native American tribes operating casinos and is perceived to be adding to an ever growing tax burden. Trainers, specifically those in the southern part of the state, were generally unhappy with synthetic surfaces and pointed to the state’s mandating their use as an economic disincentive. However, the interview data suggested that trainers were willing to make adjustments (such as diversifying operations), hope for the best, and would attempt to ride out the tough times. Only one participant indicated plans to leave California, though several others pointed to obvious advantages, such as slots and lower costs as inducements to race in other states. The data additionally suggested that Northern California trainers, despite the closure of a major track, were more positive about their sustained financial viability. However, given the relative small sample, additional trainers from the north could be interviewed in order to provide better grounding for this potential hypothesis. The industry is awaiting the results of a major study regarding synthetic tracks that could validate the view of the participants that these surfaces are causing more injuries to the animals that train and race on them.

Racehorse trainers by the very nature of the business deal with disappointment and adversity on a nearly daily basis (5). Even the favorite only wins 30% of the time. In the largely isolated world of the backstretch, a deep recession may be viewed as simply another marker in an already tough race. The fact that the trainers in this study emphasized younger horses and were expanding their business models to include bloodstock development and sales suggested a certain resiliency as well as a cautious optimism regarding the sport’s future in the Golden State.

Applications in Sports

A study commissioned by the American Horse Council and performed by accountants Deloitte and Touche in 2005 revealed that the direct economic impact on California from horseracing was 1.4 billion dollars annually, with another 1 billion dollars in indirect or induced benefits. Nearly 22,000 Californians were directly employed by the industry in 2009, with another 26,000 in ancillary jobs such as truck driving and feed production. Given the pivotal role trainers play in the economics of the sport, other interested parties, including owners, racetrack operators, breeding farms, grooms, and veterinarians are potential beneficiaries of this study, as their livelihoods are tied to the sustainability of horseracing in the state. That trainers for the most part are continuing to base operations in California despite the economic challenges and obvious advantages in moving their tack to other states has significant implications for others involved in the sport. A large-scale exodus of supporting “players” would drive up labor costs while simultaneously diminishing further the pool of owners willing to pay even higher training costs. For those considering participation in California horseracing, the sport’s relatively high cost in the state is offset by opportunities such as year-round racing (weather again) and the willingness of highly- regarded trainers to “stay the course.” Additionally, the data reflected trainer concerns about the relative “safeness” of synthetic tracks; in 2010 California horseracing regulators indicated a willingness to reconsider the requirement for synthetic surfaces.

References

Andersen, S. (2009, April 16). Hollywood lowers daily purse levels. Daily Racing Form. Retrieved from http://www.drf.com/news/article/103019.html.

Andersen, S. (2009, June 5). Hollywood drops final five Wednesdays. Daily Racing Form. Retrieved from http://www.drf.com/news/article/104424.html.

Costs behind the “Day Rate”: A closer look at training costs and historical inflation. (2006, Winter). Owners’ Circle, 48, 8-11.

Cummings, L. (1996). Down at the track – what policy, marketing, & technology offer the Sport of Kings. Gaming Research & Review Journal, 3(1), 33-54.

Helmer, J. (1991). The horse in backstretch culture. Qualitative Sociology, 14(2), 175-195.

Hereth, R., & Talbott, J. (1993). Economic and tax implications of thoroughbred racing. Journal of Accountancy, 176(5), 51-56.

LaMarra, T. (2009, February 13). Cracks in foundation of Kentucky racing. The Blood-Horse. Retrieved from http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/49163/cracks-in-foundation of-kentucky-racing.

Randl, J., & Cuneen, J. (1994). Demographic characteristics of racetrack patrons. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3(1), 47-52.

Shinar, J. (2009, January 15) CHRB Launches Synthetic Track Study. The Blood Horse Retrieved from http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/48820.html

Shulman, L. (2009, January 8). Trainers voice Santa Anita surface concerns. Retrieved from http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=13404

Appendix A

California Trainer Survey

Please give some background information about yourself as a trainer.
Describe your current racing operation.
What are the most significant economic challenges horseracing faces in this state?
Please describe your experience with California’s synthetic racing surfaces.
What are the benefits of racing in other states?
What are the benefits of racing in California?
Discuss how you plan to remain financially viable in the current horseracing climate?
Talk a little about the future of horseracing in California as you see it.

Corresponding Author

Dan Prince, MS: danielprince@cox.net
Note: Research was performed at California Baptist University

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:40:08-06:00July 9th, 2010|Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Preschool Children’s Level of Proficiency in Motor Skills and the Level of their Physical Fitness as Adolescents

Michelle Reillo, Eric Vlahov, Judith Bohren, Margaret Leppo, and Diane Davis

Full Title: A longitudinal study to determine and comprehend the relationship between preschool children’s level of proficiency in motor skills and the level of their physical fitness as adolescents

Abstract

The epidemic of pediatric obesity and associated health-related issues in America is correlated with sedentary behavior and physical inactivity. The purpose of this longitudinal research study was twofold: a) to determine if a relationship existed between the level of motor skill proficiency among children at preschool and the level of physical fitness in adolescence and b) to determine if the embedding of learned motor patterns associated with physical activity correlated with physical fitness longitudinally. In 1988, the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD), which assesses locomotor and object control skills, was administered to 140 preschool-aged children, ages 4 to 6 years, who were recruited purposively from two day care centers in a large metropolitan city. In 1999, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) Fitness test, which has correlational validity with the TGMD (p < 0.01) and assesses cardiorespiratory, muscular/strength, flexibility, and body composition, was administered to 140 of the original subjects, aged 14 to16 years. Data analysis was completed using multivariate statistical procedures. Results indicate that the level of proficiency in motor skills in early childhood is predictive and correlates with the level of physical fitness in adolescence (p < 0.001). Further, embedded motor patterns in the primary motor cortex can be physically assessed and correlate with the presence or absence of the targeted learning physical activity objectives. Physical activity in early childhood is positively correlated with physical fitness in adolescence, supporting the importance of pedagogical practices in physical education that promote the physiological and psychological embedding of behaviors which encourage physical activity. Future research is warranted to determine the relationship between physical fitness and cognitive development in children and adolescents.

Key Words: Adolescent, Childhood, Fitness, Abilities

Introduction

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in the year 2000, 64% of adults in the United States were overweight, depicting an epidemic of individuals at risk for health-related issues associated with obesity (6). As stated in Healthy People 2010, young citizens are potentially vulnerable for becoming sedentary with progressive age and a goal of the United States is to improve the health, fitness, and quality of lives through participation in daily physical activity (7).

Sedentary behavior is correlated with an increased incidence of cardio respiratory and endocrinologic disorders, including hyperlipedemia and Type II diabetes mellitus in children and adults (5). Immunologic dysfunction has likewise been associated with inactivity, and the reduction in the levels of circulating lymphocytes, particularly CD4 and CD8 cells, essential for the control of the development of malignancy, has been noted in sedentary patients (4). Eosinophilic proliferation, which is critical in the suppression of allergic reactions, has also been correlated with exercise (3). Further, hypokinetic activity is associated with the progression of cognitive and executive function decline in individuals with neurologic disorders such as Alzheimer’s and multi-infarct brain syndrome (2). Minimal human research has been conducted regarding cognition and exercise in normative pediatric cohorts. However, animal research correlates increased neurogenesis and the proliferation of neuronal cells, components associated with increased memory and learning capabilities, with physical activity levels (8).

The embedding of motor patterns in the primary motor cortex occurs in infancy and the repetition of rudimentary movements provides the foundation for the development of progressively more complex motor activities (1). Physiological attributes are associated with primary motor cortex development which naturally occurs throughout the human growth and development cycles (2). The literature is bereft of research which explores the relationship between early childhood physical activities and maintained physical fitness levels. The purpose of this longitudinal research study was twofold: a) to determine if a relationship existed between the level of motor skill proficiency among children at pre-school and the level of physical fitness in adolescence and, b) to determine if the embedding of learned motor patterns associated with physical activity correlated with physical fitness longitudinally.

Methods

In 1988, the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD), which assesses locomotor and object control skills, was administered to 140 healthy preschool children, aged 4 to 6 years, who were purposively recruited from two day care centers in a large metropolitan city. In 1999, the AAHPERD fitness test, which has correlational validity with the TGMD (p < 0.01) and assesses cardiorespiratory, muscular/strength, flexibility, and body composition, was administered to 140 of the original subjects, aged 14 to 16 years. Data analysis was completed using multivariate statistical procedures.

Results

Results indicate that the level of proficiency in motor skills in early childhood is predictive and correlates with the level of physical fitness in adolescence (p < 0.001) (Tables 1-5). Specific physical attributes associated with locomotor and manipulative skills measured at baseline and in adolescence by the TGMD and AAHPERD indicate primary motor cortex development, evident in limb and forearm movement, muscle composition, and coordination required to longitudinally perform physical activities, such as running, skipping, galloping, etc. (Table 6). Development and progression of skill acquisition is individualized, requiring assessment and instruction relative to the child. Implications for curriculum development for the training of physical education professionals is suggested in light of the physiological and neurological aspects of skill development.

Table 1
Means of TGMD and AAHPERD Scores

	Mean	Males	Females
TGMD
Locomotor Skill
Raw	16.11	16.03	16.20
Standardized	11.91	11.65	12.20
Manipulative Skill
Raw	9.19	11.09	6.98
Standardized	12.77	14.08	11.26
Total
Raw	25.29	27.12	23.18
Standardized	24.68	25.73	23.46
Age	4.8	4.84	4.77
AAHPERD
Time to Run	80.93	66.70	97.35
No. Sit-ups	46.40	51.53	40.48
Flexibility Reach	33.47	32.20	34.94
Triceps/Body Comp.	13.06	9.20	17.51

Table 2
Linear Regression: Time To Run 1.5 Miles

	Beta	S.E.	R Sq.	P Value (p < x)
Total TGMD Score as Predictor
Intercept	136.23	5.45	0.44	0.001
Total TGMD	-2.24	0.22
Total TGMD Score: Body Composition
Intercept	71.71	6.3	0.74	0.001
Total TGMD	-0.87	0.18
Body Composition	2.35	0.19
LSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	108.13	5.49	0.16	0.001
LSS Score	-2.28	0.44
LSS: Body Composition
Intercept	134.76	4.48	0.53	0.001
LSS Score	-0.76	0.27
Body Composition	2.72	0.17
MSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	134.76	4.48	0.53	0.001
MSS Score	-4.21	0.34
MSS Score: Body Composition
Intercept	74.66	6.4	0.75	0.001
MSS Score	-1.74	0.34
Body Composition	2.18	0.2

Table 3
Linear Regression Number Sit-ups

	Beta	S.E.	R Sq.	P Value (p < x)
Total TGMD Score as Predictor
Intercept	7.88	2.61	0.63	0.001
Total TGMD	1.56	0.10
Total TGMD Score: Body Composition
Intercept	26.11	401	0.70	0.001
Total TGMD	1.17	0.12
Body Composition	-0.66	0.12
LSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	23.90	2.88	0.33	0.001
LSS Score	1.89	0.23
LSS: Body Composition
Intercept	45.87	3.20	0.60	0.001
LSS Score	1.27	0.19
Body Composition	-1.11	0.12
MSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	12.90	2.42	0.60	0.001
MSS Score	2.62	0.18
MSS Score: Body Composition
Intercept	29.32	4.43	0.65	0.001
MSS Score	1.95	0.23
Body Composition	-0.60	0.14

Table 4
Linear Regression Flexibility / Reach

	Beta	S.E.	R Sq.	P Value (p < x)
Total TGMD Score as Predictor
Intercept	14.73	2.03	0.39	0.001
Total TGMD	0.76	0.08
Total TGMD Score: Body Composition
Intercept	9.08	3.41	0.41	0.001
Total TGMD	0.88	0.10
Body Composition	0.21	0.10
LSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	18.63	1.70	0.38	0.001
LSS Score	1.25	0.14
LSS: Body Composition
Intercept	20.21	2.43	0.38	0.001
LSS Score	1.20	0.15
Body Composition	-0.08	0.09
MSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	21.53	2.09	0.20	0.001
MSS Score	0.93	0.16
MSS Score: Body Composition
Intercept	19.18	4.08	0.21	0.001
MSS Score	1.03	0.21
Body Composition	0.09	0.13

Table 5
Linear Regression: Triceps Once / Body Composition

	Beta	S.E.	R Sq.	P Value (p < x)
Total TGMD Score as Predictor
Intercept	27.47	1.71	0.35	0.001
Total TGMD			-0.58	0.07
LSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	19.71	1.64	0.012	0.001
LSS Score			-0.56	0.13
MSS Score as Predictor
Intercept	27.56	1.40	0.45	0.001
MSS Score			-1.14	0.11

Table 6
Physical Assessment and Corresponding Motor Cortex Development

Skill	Primary Motor Cortex Motor Areas (X1 strong, X2 moderate, X3 weak)
	Hips	Knees	Ankles	Toes	Shoulder	Upper Arm	Elbow	Forearm	Wrist	Digits
Running	X1	X1	X1	X1	X2	X2	X2	X2	X3	X3
Walking	X1	X1	X1	X1	X2	X2	X2	X2	X3	X3
Hopping	X1	X1	X1	X1	X2	X2	X2	X3	X3	X2
Jumping	X1	X1	X1	X1	X3	X3	X2	X2	X2	X2
Leaping	X1	X1	X1	X1	X1	X2	X2	X2	X3	X3
Sliding	X1	X1	X1	X1	X1	X2	X2	X2	X3	X3
Stationary Bouncing	X3	X3	X3	X3	X2	X1	X1	X1	X1	X1
Overhead Throwing	X1	X2	X3	X3	X1	X1	X1	X1	X1	X2
Catching	X3	X3	X3	X3	X2	X2	X1	X1	X1	X1

Discussions and Conclusions

Physical activity in early childhood is positively correlated with physical fitness in adolescence, supporting the importance of pedagogical practices in physical education that promote the physiological and psychological embedding of behaviors which encourage physical activity. Further, physical assessment of attributes which correlate with primary motor cortex growth and development supports the presence or absence of embedded motor skills, supporting the need for tailoring specific lesson plans for motor cortex growth and development for individual learners. The development of assessment protocols and recommendations and educator training modules is warranted in light of the results of this research study.

Applications in Sports

Comprehension of the cerebral function in motor skills development is essential for the physical educator. In the acquisition of motor skills which facilitate learning of particular sports, specific and associated movements and patterns correlate with motor cortex growth and development. Therefore, comprehension of the physiology and stage of motor skill is essential for coaches and physical educators to enhance individual and team performance.

References

Fisher, A., Reilly, J. J., Kelly, L. A., Montgomery, C., Williamson, A., Paton J. Y., & Grant, S. (2005). Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical activity in young children. Medicine Science in Sports & Exercise 37(4): 684-688.

Hillman, C., Erickson, K., Kramer, A. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 40 (1): 166-172.

Leppo, M. (1978). Exercise: A facilitator in returning the body to homeostasis following stress as measured by a total white blood cell and eosinphil count. Dissertation Abstracts 39(6).

Maini, M. K., Gilson, N, Chavada, S., Gill, A., Fakoya, E., (2008). Reference ranges and sources of variability of CD4 counts in HIV-seronegative women and men. Genitourinary Medicine 72(1): (27-31).

McCloskey, M., Adamo, D., & Anderson, B. (2001). Exercise increases metabolic capacity in the motor cortex and striatum, but not the hippocampus. Brain Research 891(1): 168-175.

Mokdad, A., Marks, J., Stroup, D., & Gerberding, J. (Centers for Disease Control). (2004). Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 291(1): 1238-1245.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy People 2010. (2nd Edition). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zhang, C., Yehusa, H., Weiman, G., Fried, H., & Evans, R. (2008). A role for adult TL4 positive neural cells in learning and behavior. Nature 21(1): 1004-1007.

Corresponding Author

Michelle Reillo, RN, PhD: gasbear@aol.com

U.S. Sports Academy2015-10-02T23:26:50-05:00July 9th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice

Anthony Borgese

Abstract

Sports entrepreneurship courses are part of sports management programs because some students hope to own their own sports-oriented business, and major sports conglomerates look to hire employees with entrepreneurial skills. Sports management instructors prepare students for these challenges. However, not all sports entrepreneurship instructors have owned their own businesses nor worked for large sports corporations. As a result, this study was conducted to determine if sports entrepreneurship instructors and sports entrepreneurs agree on the content that should be taught in sports entrepreneurship courses in order to prepare students for the real-world.

Results of the study indicate that sports entrepreneurship instructors do agree on a set of content standards for sports entrepreneurship courses, specifically, the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education National Content Standards (1). Additionally, when ranking the content skills, sports entrepreneurship instructors and sports entrepreneurs agreed on four of the five top skills students should be taught in order to be successful sports entrepreneurs.

Key Words: Sports Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurs, Sports Education, Sports Entrepreneurship Courses

Introduction

Sport management programs continue to grow in number. Since the first sport management program was developed at Ohio University in 1966, programs continue to spread across the United States and the world. According to the North American Society for Sport Management, there are more than 200 sport management programs in the United States alone (6). This growth has prompted a need for innovation within sport management curricula and the development of courses that are high quality, content-rich, and flexible.

The sports industry is the third largest industry in the United States, accounting for more than $213 billion dollars a year in revenues (3). Kurtzman (4) outlined the importance of sports tourism as the impetus for the pursuit of business entrepreneurship, economic impact, and profitability. He categorized sports tourism jobs into categories of events, resorts, cruises, tours and attractions – along with listed subgroups in those categories. These subgroups, such as sports events planning and sports tour operators, are areas that are ripe for entrepreneurial endeavors.

An industry as large as the sports industry requires educated people to run a variety of sports related businesses. However, it should not be assumed that sports entrepreneurs are only owners of professional sports franchises. The sports industry entails a variety of sub-businesses, both large and small. For example, there are owners of health club facilities, sports arena and facility operators, league owner/operators, sporting goods store owners, sports ticket agencies, and sport physical therapists – just to name a few. Sport management students take sport entrepreneurship courses in order to learn the skills that are necessary to operate these types of sport-related businesses.

On the other hand, sport management instructors are entrusted with preparing their students for jobs in sport-oriented businesses. It is up to them to develop effective curriculum that prepares students for careers in an industry that is constantly changing and evolving. However, not all sport entrepreneurship instructors have owned their own businesses nor worked for large sports corporations. Research into what type of content and skills sport entrepreneurship instructors are teaching was sorely needed.

This study was conducted to compare what sport entrepreneurship instructors and practicing sport entrepreneurs believe are the important skills necessary to teach sport entrepreneurship students in order to be successful in running sport-oriented businesses. It is relevant to sports entrepreneurship educators as well as students of sports management programs – in regards to gauging what is currently being taught in sports entrepreneurship courses.

Methods

There were two research populations for this study. The research populations included: 1) NASPE/NASSM instructors of sport entrepreneurship courses in college level sport management programs that are accredited by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) and the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM). 2) Sport entrepreneurs located throughout the United States in a variety of sports oriented businesses.

Two hundred and seventeen (217) sport management instructors were identified through their faculty web pages. However, it should be noted that this was not a complete list of sport entrepreneurship instructors, because there is no way to determine how many of these sport management instructors actually taught sport entrepreneurship courses. The instructors that were contacted, were all members of sport management programs, and taught sports management related courses at the time the data was gathered. However, all sport management programs do not have sport entrepreneurship courses, nor do all sport management professors teach sport entrepreneurship. Therefore, it was impossible to get an exact count of how many sport entrepreneurship instructors exist in NASPE/NASSM accredited sport management programs. Ultimately, 43 (N = 43) sport entrepreneurship instructors participated in the study.

The second research population consisted of 250 sport-oriented businesses. The researcher randomly selected four sport-oriented businesses in each of the fifty states in the United States of America. Small sport-oriented businesses were chosen, as opposed to utilizing owners of large sports conglomerates. This is because they represented a good mix of sport-oriented businesses and they were more indicative of the types of businesses that would have been opened by recently graduating sports management students. Ultimately 67 (N = 67) sport entrepreneurs participated in the study.

The research instruments that were used to conduct this study were two questionnaires that were developed and piloted by the researcher and reviewed by a panel of experts to achieve validity and reliability.

The questionnaires were administered via email and regular mail for both research populations. The questionnaires were made available over the Internet to maximize participation. The researcher created electronic versions of the questionnaires and administered them on the Internet using www.surveymonkey.com.

Results

The Instructor Group was comprised of 88.4% males and 11.6% females, with 60.4% of the overall population between the ages of 36 and 55. A doctorate or master’s degree was held by 72.1% of the population. 60.4% were associate or full professors. 88.4% had 5+ years of general teaching experience. 90.7% had some type of online teaching experience. 93% had some type of blended teaching experience. 81.4% taught in 4-year colleges or universities or in graduate programs. Finally, 79.1% had sports entrepreneurship courses as an elective at their respective institutions.

An analysis of the descriptive data of the Sport Entrepreneur Group was as follows. 85.1% of the Sport Entrepreneur Group were males whereas 14.9% were female. 68.6% were between the ages of 36 and 55. 82.1% had some type of college degree. Sporting goods store owners were the largest type of business represented by this group at 37%. 25.4% of the Sport Entrepreneur respondents were relatively new businesses that had been in existence less than five years. On the opposite end, 20.9% of the group had been in business for over 25 years. The largest legal structure was a sole proprietorship at 34.3%. 38.8% of the business had over $500,000 in revenues. 17.9% only had themselves as the only employee whereas 83.6% had anywhere up to 14 employees.

To address the question of whether there is a universal set of content standards in sports entrepreneurship courses, both groups were asked if they thought that CEE’s National Content Standards (1) (Appendix A) were a complete list of all of the skills and traits necessary for sports entrepreneurship students to learn in order to become successful business owners. The results were as follows:

Table 1.1 Are CEE’s National Content Standards Complete? (Instructors)

Yes or No	Frequency	Percent
Yes	41	95.3
No	2	4.7

Table 1.2 Are CEE’s National Content Standards Complete? (Sports Entrepreneurs)

Yes or No	Frequency	Percent
Yes	65	97.0
No	2	3.0

For further analysis, a Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted to see if there were any differences between the two groups with regard to the whether they believed CEE’s National Content Standards were a complete list of the skills and traits necessary for sports entrepreneurship students to learn in order to become successful business owners. This test was administered with a .05 significance level. As the results indicated, the two tailed, significance was .650 – representing that there was no significant difference between the two groups. Table 1.3 demonstrates the results of the Mann-Whiney U Test.

Table 1.3 CEE’s National Content Standards Both Groups

	Is the CEE National Content Standards List Complete?
Mann-Whitney U	1416.500
Wilcoxon W	3694.500
Z	-.453
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	.650

Grouping Variable: Instructor or Entrepreneur

Because the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education’s 15 National Content Standards might be too ambitious to cover in just one sports management course, both groups were asked to rank the top five of the fifteen National Content Standards (1). This question is necessary because despite the course delivery mechanism (online, face-to-face), the top five content standards should be feasible to teach in any one course.

Table 1.4 Ranking of Top 5 Content Standards

Standards	Group	Rank #1	Rank #2	Rank #3	Rank #4	Rank #5	*TOTAL %*
Entrepreneurial Processes	Instructors	11.6%	4.7%	2.3%	2.3%	4.7%	25.6%
Entrepreneurial Processes	Entrepreneurs	14.9%	6%	1.5%		1.5%	23.9%
Entrepreneurial Traits/Behaviors	Instructors		7%	2.3%	2.3%	2.3%	14%
Entrepreneurial Traits/Behaviors	Entrepreneurs	3%	13.4%	4.5%	1.5%		22.4%
Business Foundations	Instructors	9.3%	9.3%	11.6%	4.7%	7%	41.9%
Business Foundations	Entrepreneurs	17.9%	7.5%	11.9%	1.5%	4.5%	43.3%
Communication/Interpersonal Skills	Instructors	37.2%	14%	4.7%	7%	2.3%	65.1%
Communication/Interpersonal Skills	Entrepreneurs	38.8%	13.4%	14.9%	4.5%	4.5%	76.1%
Digital Skills	Instructors	2.3%	2.3%	7%	4.7%	2.3%	18.6%
Digital Skills	Entrepreneurs			1.5%	3%	7.5%	11.9%
Economics	Instructors				2.3%	2.3%	4.7%
Economics	Entrepreneurs	3%		3%	1.5%		7.5%
Financial Literacy	Instructors	4.7%	7%	14%	2.3%	4.7%	32.6%
Financial Literacy	Entrepreneurs	1.5%	7.5%	9%	4.5%	6%	28.4%
Professional Development	Instructors	2.3%	2.3%	2.3%	4.7%		11.6%
Professional Development	Entrepreneurs	1.5%			4.5%		6%
Financial Management	Instructors	14%	32.6%	9.3%	2.3%		58.1%
Financial Management	Entrepreneurs	9%	28.4%	14.9%	10.4%	3%	65.7%
Human Resource Management	Instructors		7%	7%	9.3%	18.6%	41.9%
Human Resource Management	Entrepreneurs		7.5%	4.5%	10.4%	10.4%	32.8%
Information Management	Instructors		2.3%	18.6%	16.3%	2.3%	39.5%
Information Management	Entrepreneurs		4.5%	14.9%	1.5%	4.5%	25.4%
Marketing Management	Instructors	4.7%	2.3%	9.3%	18.6%	23.3%	58.1%
Marketing Management	Entrepreneurs	3%		7.5%	25.4%	19.4%	55.2%
Operations Management	Instructors		2.3%	7%	16.3%	11.6%	37.2%
Operations Management	Entrepreneurs		4.5%	1.5%	23.9%	17.9%	47.8%
Risk Management	Instructors		2.3%	2.3%		14%	18.6%
Risk Management	Entrepreneurs	1.5%	1.5%		3%	10.4%	16.4%
Strategic Management	Instructors	9.3%	2.3%	2.3%		2.3%	16.3%
Strategic Management	Entrepreneurs		1.5%	3%	3%	6%	13.4%

Table 1.4 indicates the individual content standard, along with the responses for the two research groups. Table 1.4 also indicates the percentage rankings of each content standard. The top five from both groups were: communication and interpersonal skills, financial management, marketing management, and business foundations. The two groups only differed in one of the top five areas. The instructor group listed human resources management in their top five, whereas the sports entrepreneur group listed operations management in their top five.

It is also interesting to note that the bottom three standards that both research groups felt were the least needed skills and traits were: Professional Development, Economics, and Digital Skills.

An Independent Samples T-test was conducted to compare the Instructor Group and Sport Entrepreneur Group rankings of the National Content Standards on an individual basis (Table 1.5). The Independent Samples T-test illustrated Levene’s Test of Quality Variance, a significance level, and a significance level for a two tailed test. The results indicated that there was significance in three of the fifteen National Content Standards: Digital Skills, Financial Management, and Strategic Management. This was determined by looking at the Sig. (two-tailed) column and finding the results that are below the 0.05 alpha level. SPSS provides two different statistics to choose from, depending on whether or not equal variances are assumed. One must look at the Sig. column first in order to determine if the numbers under the equal variances assumed, or equal variances not assumed row is to be used. If the Sig. level is over 0.05, then equal variances are assumed – so one would use the results in that row under the Sig. (two tailed) column.

Table 1.5 Independent T-test for Individual Rankings for Both Groups

								Lower	Upper
		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Diff.	Std. Error Diff.	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Entrepreneurial Processes	Equal variances assumed	4.112	.053	1.417	25	.169	.74	.521	-.335	1.812
	Equal variances not assumed			1.315	16.063	.207	.74	.561	-.451	1.929
Entrepreneurial Traits	Equal variances assumed	2.768	.113	1.783	19	.091	.80	.449	-.139	1.739
	Equal variances not assumed			1.445	6.560	.195	.80	.554	-.527	2.127
Business Foundation	Equal variances assumed	.014	.908	1.321	45	.193	.54	.406	-.282	1.354
	Equal variances not assumed			1.305	34.784	.200	.54	.411	-.298	1.371
Communication/Interpersonal Skills	Equal variances assumed	.138	.712	-.558	77	.579	-.16	.285	-.727	.409
	Equal variances not assumed			-.563	57.181	.576	-.16	.283	-.725	.407
Digital Skills	Equal variances assumed	.855	.371	-2.668	14	.018	-1.38	.515	-2.480	-.270
	Equal variances not assumed			-2.668	11.536	.021	-1.38	.515	-2.503	-.247
Economics	Equal variances assumed	2.959	.146	2.023	5	.099	2.10	1.038	-.569	4.769
	Equal variances not assumed			2.689	3.921	.056	2.10	.781	-.086	4.286
Financial Literacy	Equal variances assumed	.167	.686	-.816	31	.421	-.35	.433	-1.237	.530
	Equal variances not assumed			-.816	28.129	.422	-.35	.433	-1.241	.534
Professional Development	Equal variances assumed	.036	.854	-.482	7	.644	-.45	.933	-2.657	1.757
	Equal variances not assumed			-.474	6.062	.652	-.45	.950	-2.769	1.869
Financial Management	Equal variances assumed	8.228	.006	-2.248	67	.028	-.55	.243	-1.030	-.061
	Equal variances not assumed			-2.460	63.283	*.017*	-.55	.222	-.989	-.102
Human Resources Management	Equal variances assumed	.012	.914	.588	38	.560	.22	.369	-.530	.965
	Equal variances not assumed			.588	36.452	.560	.22	.369	-.531	.966
Information Management	Equal variances assumed	.311	.581	.804	32	.427	.24	.293	-.361	.831
	Equal variances not assumed			.804	29.471	.428	.24	.293	-.363	.833
Marketing Management	Equal variances assumed	1.631	.207	-.474	60	.638	-.13	.283	-.700	.432
	Equal variances not assumed			-.455	44.500	.651	-.13	.294	-.727	.459
Operations Management	Equal variances assumed	.002	.967	-.575	46	.568	-.16	.272	-.703	.391
	Equal variances not assumed			-.573	29.788	.571	-.16	.273	-.714	.401
Risk Management	Equal variances assumed	.080	.780	.316	17	.756	.19	.612	-1.098	1.485
	Equal variances not assumed			.324	16.506	.750	.19	.596	-1.066	1.453
Strategic Management	Equal variances assumed	.459	.509	-3.031	14	.009	-2.00	.660	-3.415	-.585
	Equal variances not assumed			-2.910	10.654	.015	-2.00	.687	-3.518	-.482

As demonstrated by the Independent Samples T-test, there was significance in Digital Skills, Financial Management, and Strategic Management. The significance levels for these content standards were: 0.018, 0.017 and 0.009 respectively. When consulting Table 1.4, it revealed that a larger percentage of the Instructor Group respondents thought that Digital Skills and Strategic Management were more important than the Sports Entrepreneur Group did. Conversely, a larger percentage of the Sports Entrepreneur respondents believed that Financial Management was more important than the Instructor Group believed it to be.

In order to be able to analyze the data and come to any conclusions, one needs to take a closer look at the descriptive data of each research group. It is interesting that the percentages of the gender and ages were pretty close for both respondent groups. Another important figure to note was the high percentage of respondents who indicated that sports entrepreneurship was an elective within their programs. The hardest part of this study to get a handle on was just how many sports management programs offered sports entrepreneurship courses. This high percentage indicated that sports entrepreneurship courses are being offered, but are not required.

For the Sport Entrepreneur Group, it was interesting to see that they were highly educated with college degrees. This is indicative of many entrepreneurs despite what most people may think. Entrepreneurs are often seen as uneducated, risk takers that started businesses because they did not like school, and that was just not the case for the sports entrepreneurs in this study. The Sport Entrepreneur group had a good mix of relatively new businesses and businesses with over 25 years of experience. This makes the results even more interesting because new business owners often make mistakes, and seasoned business owners may have learned from their earlier mistakes.

The 17.9% of the respondents in the Sport Entrepreneur Group that had only one employee is significant. This was an important finding for future research because many of the National Content Standards had skills and traits listed that might not necessarily have corresponded to one employee businesses. For example, if a business only has one employee then a skill like Human Resources Management might not have been beneficial for that business owner to learn. Additionally, for the sport entrepreneurs who made higher revenues, perhaps skills like Financial Management or Economics were more important to them and their business then it was to the small, low-income business.

The results of this study indicate that instructors of sports entrepreneurship courses and sports entrepreneurs agreed on the type of content that should be addressed in a sports entrepreneurship course. The Mann-Whitney U Test performed on the two research groups indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to how they responded to whether or not CEE’s National Content Standards were all of the skills and traits necessary to be learned in order for sports entrepreneurship students to become successful sports entrepreneurs. This is important for sports entrepreneurship instructors to note when planning course content.

The ranking of the content standards was necessary to show how each group felt about the importance of teaching or learning each individual content standard. Oftentimes, the amount of time it takes to administer an entire sports entrepreneurship course varied. For example, a three credit sports entrepreneurship course at a community college may have been thirty six hours long, whereas a four-year institution may have met for forty-five hours. If both research groups agreed to the top five content standards, then the rankings could have been used by instructors to guarantee that they covered the most important content standards, regardless of the amount of hours required to administer a course.

The results from the ranking of the National Content Standards indicated that each respondent group agreed on four of the five most important content standards: Communication and Interpersonal Skills, Financial Management, Marketing Management, and Business Foundations. The respondent groups did not agree on the fifth most important skill or trait. The Sports Entrepreneurs indicated that Operations Management was the fifth most important skill or trait, whereas the Instructor Group indicated that Human Resource Management was on of the top five most important skills or traits.

Despite the lack of agreement on the fifth most important content standard the results indicated that four of CEE’s National Content Standards were very important to both of these research groups. These results should also aid sports entrepreneurship instructors in planning their course content, especially when limited to teaching only one sports entrepreneurship course and not multiple courses. Although instructors should have no problem teaching more than five topics in one particular sports entrepreneurship course, these results also indicated that all of CEE’s National Content Standards do not have to be taught in order to prepare students to become sports entrepreneurs.

The Independent Samples T-test indicated that there were significant differences between the two research groups in the content areas of: Digital Skills, Financial Management, and Strategic Management. A further analysis of these results indicated that a larger percentage of the Instructor Group thought that Digital Skills and Strategic Management were worthy enough to be included in the top five most important content standards. This was consistent with their wanting to teach more of CEE’s National Content Standards than the Sports Entrepreneurs Group felt was necessary.

The differences between the two research groups in the Financial Management content standard simply indicated that a larger percentage of the Sports Entrepreneurs believed that Financial Management was more important than the Instructor Group believed it to be. It should be noted that 58.1% of the Instructor Group did have Financial Management as a top five most important content standard and that was good enough for that group to be the second most important content standard.

Applications in Sport

This study is relevant to all sports management educators that teach sports entrepreneurship courses. If you are a sports entrepreneurship instructor, then it is up to you to review this study in order to better understand what sports entrepreneurs do on a daily basis. Not every sports entrepreneurship instructor has had the opportunity to be a sports entrepreneur, so one might not be exactly sure of the content that should be taught future sports entrepreneurs. However, this study shows the relevant content sports entrepreneurship instructors should be teaching their students on a daily basis. This study focused on the practice of sports entrepreneurs and identified what skills and traits are needed in the field. All sports entrepreneurship instructors should look at this study and utilize the results for the benefit of their students.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge all of the participants, both sports management professors and sports entrepreneurs, for taking the time out of their busy schedules to participate in this study.

References

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, National Content Standards for Entrepreneurship Education. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.entre-ed.org/Standards_Toolkit/standards_summary.htm

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, (2001). Entrepreneurship everywhere: A guide to resources and models for entrepreneurship education. Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, Columbus, OH.

Howard, D., & Crompton, J. (2004). Financing sport, Fitness Information Technology, Morgantown, WV.

Kurtzman, J. (2005). Sports tourism categories, Journal of Sport Tourism, Vol. 10, No.1, p. 15-20.

Sport Management Program Review Council, (2000) Sport management program standards and review protocol, Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

The North American Society for Sports Management website. All data retrieved on November 20, 2009 from: www.nassm.com.

Corresponding Author

Dr. Anthony Borgese: aborgese@kingsborough.edu

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:42:32-06:00July 9th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Training to Improve Bone Density in Adults: A Review and Recommendations

Ed McNeely

Abstract

The loss of bone density is becoming a major health concern in industrialized societies. Increasing bone density during puberty and young adulthood is considered the best option for preventing the negative health consequences associated with osteoporosis, even in middle aged and older adults an exercise program can increase bone density. While low volume impact oriented aerobic activities like running have been shown to be effective at increasing bone density excessive endurance training has been linked to low bone density. Strength training remains the best option for adults wishing to increase bone density. A regular program of high load (60-85% 1RM) training three or more times per week using a variety of exercises that challenge all major muscles has been shown to significantly increase bone density even in elderly adults.

Key Words: Bone Density, Exercise, Osteoporosis, Training

Introduction

Osteoporosis, which has been defined as bone mineral density (BMD) more than 2.5 standard deviations below the young adult mean value (14), is a growing health problem for both men and women. In developed and developing countries, the incidence of osteoporosis is increasing at a rate faster than what would be predicted by the aging of the population alone (15). In the U.S., it has been estimated that by 2025 the number of hip fractures attributed to osteoporosis will double to nearly 2.6 million with a greater percentage increase in men than in women (12).

Epidemiological evidence suggests that genetic factors are the most important cause of osteoporosis (20) and can account for as much as 80% of the variability in bone density in the population (6), but a variety of environmental factors have been linked to bone density including: negative energy balance, low calcium intake, lack of fruit and vegetable consumption, low body mass index, strength, and hormone levels (13,22,9,7,23) – all of which may influence the ability to develop or maintain bone density.

A well designed exercise can have a tremendous impact on bone, increasing density, size, and mechanical strength (23) and may be one of the keys to preventing complications associated with osteoporosis. If bone density and maximum tensile strength are increased before osteoporosis sets in, subsequent complications could be minimized (21). Unfortunately many adults wait to start an exercise program once they are diagnosed with low bone density.

For middle aged and older adults one of the primary health goals of an exercise program is to maintain bone density. Without an exercise intervention, after the age of 40, bone mass decreases by about 0.5% per year, regardless of sex or ethnicity (15). Whether appreciable increases in bone density can occur for this age group is equivocal (15) and dependant on the duration of the exercise program, age, dietary factors, and history of physical activity. A variety of different types of exercise have been used in bone building programs middle aged or older adults.

Training Techniques

Strength training

Although not all studies have shown improvement in bone density with strength training (15), strength training, if done with a high enough intensity for a prolonged period of time, seems to be effective for improving bone density in middle aged and older women who have low bone density (16). Programs that have been successful at increasing bone density have several common characteristics; training intensity above 70% 1RM, programs that last more than 12 months, and training frequency greater than two times per week.

Endurance Training

Endurance training can be an acceptable form of exercise for maintaining or increasing bone density in middle aged or older adults provided there is sufficient impact. Stuart and Hannan (2000) examined the effects of cycling, running, or both on bone density in recreational male athletes. They found that runners had greater total and leg BMD than controls and that those athletes participating in both cycling and running had greater total and arm BMD – whereas the cyclists had decreased spine BMD compared to controls. The lack of impact involved in cycling may explain the lack of change in BMD even though all groups performed equal volumes of work throughout the study period. Walking programs, because of their low impact, tend to show only modest or no effects on BMD (3,18). Rowing, because of the high compressive and shear forces placed on the spine (4.6 times body weight) has been shown to increase lumbar spine BMD but not at other areas (17). Moderate training volumes seem to be more effective for increasing bone density. Running mileage of 20-30 km per week has a positive effect on bone, particularly lower leg and distal femur, but training volumes greater than this may cause a chronic increase in cortisol that negatively impacts bone (4) as running 92 km per week has been shown to result in bone density lower than sedentary controls (2).

Jump training

Although effective and popular in school based programs for increasing bone density in younger people jump training does not appear to be as effective in middle aged and older women. In a study comparing the effects of 12 months of vertical jumping on spine and proximal femur BMD in a group of pre and post menopausal women, Bassey, Rothwell, Littlewood and Pye (1998) found that 50 jumps six days per week increased BMD in the pre-menopausal group but not in the post menopausal group compared to group specific controls. Interestingly, the lack of change occurred even though the ground reaction forces and rate of force development on landing were higher in the post menopausal group resulting in a greater strain overload than in the pre menopausal group.

While a variety of exercise modalities have proven to be effective at maintaining bone density in adults, there are some basic principles that should be considered when designing a long-term program for people with osteoporosis:

Exercise Considerations

Use a Progressive Program

Increase resistance and intensity progressively. This is necessary because for bone to form it requires a minimum amount of strain. Once a bone adapts to a given strain level, the stimulus for bone to form is removed and a higher strain level becomes necessary for it to adapt further (10).

Use Dynamic Movements

Mechanical loading of bone has an osteogenic effect only if the loading is dynamic and variable, as static loading of bone does not trigger an adaptive response (23). Impact and rapid changes of direction can be particularly effective because ground reaction forces tend to be highest during these activities. Jumps, running, and more explosive or dynamic strength training activities should make up the majority of exercise in a bone-building program. In adults with advanced osteoporosis, more explosive exercises should be phased in gradually as their conditioning and bone strength improves.

Vary the Exercises

Bone adaptations occur primarily at insertion and origin points where muscles attach to the bones. Ryan et al. (1994) suggest that increased BMD from strength training and explosive activities is related to the load placed on the muscles that act as prime movers. A wide variety of exercises, which change every 2-4 weeks, exercising the whole body will help ensure that all bones receive stimulus to increase BMC or BMD.

Minimum Intensity

As with most training, there is a minimum level of intensity that is needed to stimulate increase in BMD. For strength training activities there is a linear relationship between weight lifted and improvements in bone density (5). Chilibeck, Sale and Webber (1995) suggest that for strength training intensities of at least 60%, 1RM are needed to increase BMD, with faster and greater increases in bone density coming as intensity climbs (16). For impact activities like running and jumping, ground reaction forces of greater than two times body weight can increase bone density with higher forces having a greater effect.

Training Frequency

Improvements in BMD can occur with relatively short training sessions if high impact activities like jumping are the core of the program. However, there is a need to perform these sessions frequently. Studies of jump training have found that where three or more sessions per week are sufficient to increase bone – two sessions per week has negligible effect on bone density (11).

Program Duration

Consistency is one of the keys to long term bone health. Like other tissues, bone undergoes both adaptation to training and detraining during periods of decreased activity. The bone remodelling cycle lasts four to six months (8); this is the minimum period of time needed for BMD to change significantly. Training programs need to be designed so that they offer the variety and adaptability for people to make them a year round part of lifelong fitness regime.

Conclusion

Decreased bone density is a growing problem in modern societies. Exercise remains one of the most potent alternatives to drug treatments for maintaining or improving bone density. An intensive program, three or more times per week featuring a variety of exercises that considers the individual needs of each person and promotes long term compliance can have a positive impact on bone density.

Applications in Sport

Over the past years, adults have become more and more active in age group sports, particularly in the endurance sports like running, cycling, and triathlon. The inclusion of an intensive strength training program will not only improve their performance, but will help offset the decrease in bone density that often accompanies aging and higher volumes of aerobic training.

References

Bassey, E. J., Rothwell, M.C., Littlewood, J.J., & Pye, D.W. (1998). Pre- and postmenopausal women have different BMD responses to the same high-impact exercise. J. Bone Miner. Res., 13, 1805– 1813.

Bilanin, J., Blanchard, M., & Russek-Cohen, E. (1989). Lower vertebral bone density in male long distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc., 21, 66-70.

Cavanaugh, D. J., & Cann, C.E. (1988) Brisk walking does not stop bone loss in postmenopausal women. Bone, 9, 201–204.

Chilibeck, P., Sale, D., & Webber, C. (1995). Exercise and bone mineral density. Sports Medicine, 19, 103-122.

Cussler, E. C., Lohman, T.G. Going, S.B., Houtkooper, L. B., Metcalfe, L.L., Flint-Wagner, H.G., Harris, R.B., & Teixeira, P.J. (2003). Weight lifted in strength training predicts bone change in postmenopausal women. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 35, 10 –17.

Dequeker, J., Nijs, J., Verstraeten, A., Geusens, P., & Gevers, G. (1987). Genetic determinants of BMC at the spine and radius: a twin study. Bone, 8, 207–209.

Duncan, C. S., Blimkie, C., Cowell, C.T., Burke, S., Briody, J.N., & Howman-Giles, R. (2002). Bone mineral density (BMD) in adolescent female athletes: relationship to exercise type and muscle strength. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 34(2), 286–294, 2002.

Epstein, S. (1988). Serum and urinary markers of bone remodelling: assessment of bone turnover. Endocrine Review, 9, 437-449.

Fisher, J.O., Mitchell, D.C., Smiciklas-Wright, H., Mannino, M.L.& Birch, L.L. (2004). Meeting calcium recommendations during middle childhood reflects mother-daughter beverage choices and predicts bone mineral status Am. J. Clin. Nutr.,79, 698 –706.

Frost, H. (1987). Bone mass and the mechanostat: a proposal. Anat. Rec., 219, 1-9.

Fuchs, R., Bauer, J., & Snow, C.(2001) Jumping improves hip and lumbar spine bone mass in prepubescent children: A randomized controlled trial. J. Bone Miner. Res., 16,148–156.

Gullberg, B., Johnell, O., & Kanis, J.A. (1997). World wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporosis. Int. 7, 407-413.

Helge, E. W., & kanstrup, I.L., (2002).. Bone density in female elite gymnasts: impact of muscle strength and sex hormones. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc., 34(1), 174–180.

Kanis, J. A., Melton, III, L.J., Christiansen, C., Johnsotn, C., & Khaltaev, N.(1994). The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J. Bone Miner. Res., 9,1137–1141.

Kohrt, W., Bloomfield, S., Little, K., Nelson, M., & Yingling, V. (2004). ACSM Position Stand: Physical Activity and Bone Health. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1985-1996

Laynes, J., & Nelson, M.(2001) Resistance training for the prevention of osteoporosis. In Resistance Training for Health and Rehabilitation. Graves, J., and Franklin, B., eds. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill. pp 385-404.

Morris, F., Smith, R., Payne, W., Galloway, A., & Wark, J. (2000). Compressive and shear force generated in the lumbar spine of female rowers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 518-523.

Nelson, M. E., Fisher, E.C., Dilmanian, F.A., Dallal, G.E. & Evans, W.J. (1991). A 1-y walking program and increased dietary calcium in postmenopausal women: effects on bone. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 53, 1304 –1311.

Ryan, A., Treuth, M., Rubin, M., Miller, J., Nicklas, B., Landis, D., Pratley, R., Libanati, C., Gundberg, C., and Hurley, B. (1994). Effects of strength training on bone mineral density: hormonal and bone turnover relationships. Journal of Applied Physiology. 77: 1678-1684.

Sigurdsson, G. Halldorsson, B.V. Styrkarsdottir, U., Kristjansson, K., & Stefansson, K (2008) Impact of Genetics on Low Bone Mass in Adults. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 23,1584-1590

Stone, M. (1992). Connective tissue and bone responses to strength training. In Strength and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi Editor. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Cambridge, Mass.

Stewart, A. D., and Hannan, J. (2000). Total and regional bone density in male runners, cyclists, and controls. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 32(8), 1373–1377.

Turner, C.H., & Robling, A.G. (2003) Designing exercise regimens to increase bone strength. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev., 31(1), 45–50.

Tylavsky, F.A., Holliday, K., Danish, R., Womack, C., Norwood, J.,& Carbone, L. (2004). Fruit and vegetable intakes are an independent predictor of bone size in early pubertal children. Am J Clin Nutr., 79, 311–7.

Zanker, C.L., & Cooke, C.B. (2004). Energy Balance, Bone Turnover, and Skeletal Health in Physically Active Individuals. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc., 36(8), 1372–1381.

Author Profile

Ed McNeely

Ed McNeely is the senior physiologist at the Peak Centre for Human Performance and a partner in StrengthPro Inc. a Las Vegas based sport and fitness consulting company he is also a National Faculty member of the United States Sports Academy

Corresponding Author

Ed McNeely, MS: e.mcneely@rogers.com

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:43:12-06:00July 9th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

An Analysis of Hammer Throw Facility Safety Factors in NCAA Division I

Lawrence W. Judge and Jeffrey Petersen

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of compliance with National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) track and field hammer facility recommendations at division I universities in the United States. A 35-item survey instrument was distributed to 279 applicable schools with a 28% response rate. A total of 78.1% participants in the study reported compliance with the NCAA minimum recommendations, and 38% also met the IAAF standards. An ANOVA of the coaches’ overall perception of hammer facility safety demonstrated significant differences for facility factors including the gate height, gate positioning, cage manufacturer, landing area security, and response time to maintenance issues. The NCAA may need to examine their present hammer facility guidelines and consider alignment with the new standards of the IAAF.

Key Words: Olympic, International, Track and Field, Equipment, Cage
(more…)

U.S. Sports Academy2016-10-20T14:42:06-05:00July 9th, 2010|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management|Comments Off