ISSN: 1543-9518|Vol. 24

A Look at Women’s Participation in Sports in Maryland Two-Year Colleges

ABSTRACT

Much research has been conducted on college athletics.  The populations studied most often are four-year, NCAA member institutions.  In higher education, 40 percent of the institutions in the United States are two-year colleges.  These two-year colleges enroll more than ten million students annually (IPEDS, 2002).  Although 56 percent of the students enrolled in these institutions are women, little research exists that examines the participation in two-year college athletic programs.  The purpose of this study was to examine the degree of participation and opportunity for female students and coaches at two-year colleges within the state of Maryland.  With 18 institutions reporting participation data, results of this study showed that female students participate in far fewer numbers in Maryland than do male students.  Results of this study also showed that relatively few women hold administrative or coaching positions within existing sport programs.

INTRODUCTION

Over the last thirty-two years, female students have seen substantial gains in sports participation opportunities.  These gains came as a result of the federally mandated legislation know as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Since the passage of this legislation, opportunities for girls and women to compete in sports have increased dramatically.  According to a longitudinal study by Acosta and Carpenter (1996), participation opportunities for women athletes by the late 1990’s hit an all-time high.  Increased female athletic participation is evident at all levels of sport, including high schools, colleges, and universities (NFSHSA, 2001; NCAA, 2000).

Much research (Acosta & Carpenter, 1996; Carpenter, 2003; Fitzgerald, 2003; Kramer & Marinelli, 1993) has been conducted with regards to college athletics, opportunity, and participation.  The populations studied most often are four-year, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) member institutions.  Within higher education, the two-year (also referred to as community or junior) college is taking on a greater significance.  According to a study by the U.S. Department of Education (2002), 40% of the institutions of higher education in the United States are now two-year colleges.  These two-year colleges enroll more than 10 million students annually.  Many of the athletes at these two-year colleges go on to star in major four-year athletic programs (Douchant, 2002). Although 56% of the students enrolled in these institutions are women, little research exists that examines the two-year college athletic program (Smith, 1997).  Thus, the specific purpose of this study was to examine the degree of participation and opportunity for female students and coaches at two-year colleges within the state of Maryland.

Overview of Title IX

The impetus for the change in opportunity and participation for females can be attributed to the passage of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and its Title IX provision.  Title IX was enacted to help remedy past discriminatory practices. Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 states that: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid” (Title IX, n.d., para. 1).

The passage of Title IX and the threat of litigation have resulted in the vast improvement in opportunities for girls and women in sport.  With regard to intercollegiate athletics, three primary areas determine if an institution is in compliance: athletic financial assistance, accommodation of interest and abilities, and equity in other specified program areas.

A three-part test for compliance is used in determining whether the required number of participation opportunities is being provided.
An institution must show:

  • that the intercollegiate participation opportunities for its students of each sex are substantially proportionate to its male and female undergraduate enrollments; or
  • a history and continuing practice of program expansion responsive to developing interests and abilities of members of the “underrepresented sex”; or
  • that the interests and abilities of the “underrepresented sex” are fully and effectively accommodated by the existing program (Carpenter, 2003).

Compliance is established when an institution can demonstrate that it has satisfied any one of these three tests.

Title IX requires that, for an institution to be in compliance, the interest and abilities of both sexes must be accommodated.  This includes the institution’s obligation to provide a sufficient number of participation opportunities for male and female athletes.  “Participation opportunities” are defined as the number of slots on teams as determined by the number of athletes on each team.  This definition is important because athletic directors at two-year institutions often define participation by the number of teams offered and not by the number of participants (Mumford, 1998).  According to Title IX policy interpretations and recent judicial decisions, participation in the intercollegiate sports program by women should be substantially proportionate to the number of women enrolled at the given institution.  For example, if 70 percent of the students enrolled at an institution are women, then approximately 70 percent of the students participating in intercollegiate athletics should be women (Lichtman, 1997).

The impact of Title IX policy has been felt a great deal more at the four-year level than at the two-year level of college athletics (Mumford, 1998).  Although many students have benefited from this federal policy, the consequences of this policy have also been unpleasant to many institutions.  Institutions have been subjected to expensive court battles as a result of lawsuits filed by female student-athletes and coaches.  Litigation from lawsuits has risen dramatically.  The costs and consequences of these lawsuits have had a negative impact on institutions.  Institutions found in violation of Title IX have been forced to pay expensive monetary damages, attorney fees, and program support funding.  These awards have been reported as high as $1 million (Fitzgerald, 2003).

Courts have also taken more control of athletic decision making.  They have ordered specific actions, such as hiring coaches and providing practice and other facilities.  In some instances, the litigation of one Title IX claim has generated even more claims (Kramer & Marinelli, 1993).

Research Questions

With the goal of exploring women’s participation in collegiate sports in mind, the purpose of the study was to determine the degree of participation and opportunity at two-year colleges within the state of Maryland for female student athletes and coaches.
Specific research questions which guided the study were:

  • What does the leadership, in terms of the gender of administrators, and coaches, look like at these institutions?
  • At what rates do women and men participate in two-year collegiate athletic programs?  Is their participation in proportion to that of the general student body population or are women underrepresented?
  • Are Maryland two-year colleges in compliance with Title IX?  If so, how?

Methodology

Respondents

Respondents for this study were athletic directors of all two-year colleges with membership in the Maryland Junior College Athletic Conference (MD JUCO).  The MD JUCO is comprised of 18 two-year colleges in the state of Maryland.

Instrumentation

A survey instrument was used in this study to gather demographic data on the leaders (athletic directors and coaches) of two-year colleges in the state of Maryland.  The survey instrument consisted of 33 items containing both closed-ended and open-ended questions.  The survey instrument was also designed to collect institutional programmatic information about coaching and intercollegiate sport opportunities.  Data was gathered for comparative purposes only.  Confidentiality of responses was guaranteed to all respondents.  The overall return rate of the survey was 83 %, which included responses from 15 subjects.

Procedure

Athletic directors (n=18) employed at degree-granting two-year colleges in the state of Maryland (MD JUCO) were mailed a cover letter, consent form, questionnaire, and a stamped self-return envelope.  Three weeks following the initial mailing, a reminder letter, survey, and stamped self-return envelope was sent to all subjects who had not responded (non-respondents).

Another method of gathering data was the review of related documents and archival records.  Documents used to gather data included the MD JUCO website, college catalogs, minutes from MD JUCO meetings, National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) Student Eligibility Forms, the NJCAA 2000-2001 Handbook & Casebook, and the NJCAA website. This method of data gathering provided complementary information to that obtained in the surveys.  In this manner, the researcher could triangulate and cross-check data provided by the survey (Wolcott, 1994).

RESULTS

Administration

The gender of athletic directors in Maryland two-year colleges included 16 men (89%) and two women (11%).  The ethnic background of the athletic directors included 17 Caucasian (94%) and one African-American (6%).

Participation

Respondents were asked to identify the number of teams offered at their institution for men and women.  They were also asked to indicate the total number of student-athletes that participated on those teams.  On average, two-year colleges in Maryland sponsored seven teams per institution (four teams for men and three teams for women).  On average, 96 student-athletes participate across those seven teams (65 male and 31 female). Respondents stated that 134 teams were offered by their institutions.  Of the 134 total teams, 69 teams (51%) were offered for men and 65 teams (49%) were offered for women.  A total of 1,719 student athletes participated on those 134 teams.  Of that number, 1166 participants (68%) were male and 553 participants (32%) were female.

Coaches

Respondents were asked to identify the number of coaches at their institution.  They were also asked to specify whether these coaches were employed on a full or part-time basis.  On average, colleges employed seven coaches per institution. Respondents stated that 117 coaches were employed at Maryland institutions.  Of the 117 total coaches, 22 coaches (19%) were employed full-time at the institutions and 97 coaches (81%) were employed on a part-time basis.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the participation opportunities for female students and coaches in Maryland two-year colleges. The criteria used to measure participation opportunities were based on Title IX guidelines. With regards to Title IX guidelines, the first test (Proportionate Athletic Opportunity) is referred to as a “safe harbor.” The safe harbor test is the measuring stick most often used by institutions to show Title IX compliance (Davis, 2003).

To demonstrate compliance, Maryland two-year institutions must show that the numbers of male and female participants in its intercollegiate sports program are substantially proportionate to its male and female enrollments. If this is the case, no further inquiry needs to be made.

Maryland JUCO institutions do not meet the requirements for compliance based on this first test.  Women comprise 61% of the total enrollment in the Maryland Community College institutions. Men comprise 39% of the total enrollment (see Figure 1 – Appendix A). Women comprise 32% of the total student-athlete population. Men comprise 68% of the total student-athlete population (see Figure 2 – Appendix B). All of the two-year colleges, all 18 institutions, had more male than female participants.

Title IX obligates institutions to provide a sufficient number of participation opportunities for individuals of each sex.  Looking at the number of teams offered gives the appearance of near compliance.  Of the teams offered for students, 49% of the teams (n=65) are for women and 51% of the teams (n=69) are for men.  Looking at the number of participants on each team shows a much different picture. Looking at the number of participants shows that Maryland two-year colleges are not in compliance.  Of the number of participants on the teams, 32% of the participants (n=553) are female and 68% of the participants (n=1166) are male.

One aspect that stands out in this data is that the institutions have relatively small athletic programs.  As a result, they offer very limited opportunities for men or women to participate in sports.  The number of sport offerings was small in comparison to four-year institutions and high schools in the state.

A second important observation from the data is that most of the two-year colleges in Maryland employ their coaches on a part-time basis, as these coaches often hold other full-time jobs outside of the college.  Of the head coaches at two-year colleges in the state, 81% are part-time.  Given the limited resources of many two-year colleges, it is economically advantageous to hire coaches in this manner.  Coaches in two-year colleges are often paid by stipend or released time from teaching or administrative duties.  In some cases, the amount of the stipend is set for a specific coaching position with no relationship to the coach’s background or experience (Bichy, 1997).

The majority of the women’s teams in Maryland two-year colleges are coached by men.  According to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1998 (n.d.), women comprise only 23 % of the coaches in the Maryland JUCO. This is significant because the majority of the female student-athletes in the state never get the opportunity to be coached by a woman.  The exclusion of women from the coaching ranks can provide fuel and support for the myth that male coaches are more capable than female coaches (Mumford, 1998).

Concluding Comments

The purpose of this study was to examine the participation of women in sports in Maryland two-year colleges.  Current national participation trends at the high school and college level show that women’s sports participation has increased dramatically and women are participating in sports in record numbers.  However, women remain underrepresented.  In Maryland two-year colleges, that is the case as well.  Female students participate in far fewer numbers in Maryland than do men.  In this area, Maryland’s two-year colleges are not in compliance with Title IX.

More concerns may arise as further examination is made in the areas of administration and coaching.  In these two areas of leadership, the two-year colleges in Maryland have maintained the status quo.  The athletic directors and coaches of these two-year colleges remain mostly Caucasian and mostly male.  Although women have made adequate gains on the playing field, they continue to be left behind in a dramatic fashion, when it comes to coaching or leadership opportunities.  In these areas, Maryland’s two-year colleges are not performing well at all.

References

Acosta, R.  & Carpenter, L.  (1996). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal study – nineteen year update, 1977-1996.  Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College: Brooklyn, NY.

Bichy, T.  (1997). Athletic/gender equity.  Unpublished manuscript, Montgomery College: Rockville, MD.

Carpenter, L.  (2003). Gender equity: Opportunities to participate.  In D. Cotton & J. Wolohan (Eds.), Law for Recreation and Sport Managers (pp. 548-558).  Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Davis, M.  (2003, March 5). Title IX review concludes with competing reports. Retrieved October 1, 2004, from the Education Week website: http://www.edweek.org

Douchant, M.  (2002, March 25).  Junior college jewels. Retrieved October 6, 2004, form the College Sporting News website: http://www.collegesportingnews.com

Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1998 (n.d.).  Retrieved November 1, 2004, from U.S. Department Education, Office of Postsecondary Education website: http://ope.ed.gov/Athletics/index.asp

Fitzgerald, M.  (2003). Gender equity: Coaching and administration.  In D. Cotton & J. Wolohan (Eds.), Law for Recreation and Sport Managers (pp. 548-558).  Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Higher Education General Information Survey.  (2002, November).  Retrieved February 21, 2004, from the U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics website: http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt243.asp

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems.  (2002, December).  Retrieved February 21, 2004, from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics website: http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt243.asp.

Kramer, W. & Marinelli, M.  (1993, September).  Title IX in intercollegiate athletics: Litigation risks facing colleges and universities.  Washington, DC: Baker & Botts L. L. P.

Lichtman, B.  (1997). Playing fair: What school leaders need to know about title ix and gender discrimination in athletic programs.  The American School Board Journal, 184 (8), 27.

Mumford, V.  (1998). Teams on paper: Title IX compliance in the Maryland junior college athletic conference.  Ann Arbor, MI: UMI

National Collegiate Athletic Association.  (2000, June 7).  NCAA sports participation numbers show largest increase in fourteen years [On-line].  Available: http://www.ncaa.org/releases/makemenu.cgi?research.

National Federation of State High School Associations.  (2001). Sports participation survey [On-line].  Available: http://www.nfhs.org.

Smith, H.  (1997, November). Association report: 2YC3 a federal perspective on community colleges.  Journal of Chemical Education, 74 (11), 1264.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. (n.d.).  Retrieved February 19, 2004, from U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management website: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

Wolcott, H.  (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

APPENDIX A
General Enrollment by Gender in Maryland Two-Year Colleges
Figure 1. Enrollment by Gender
Figure One

APPENDIX B
Total Athletes on Teams by Gender in Maryland Two-Year Colleges
Figure 2. Total Athletes on Teams
Figure 2

2016-10-12T14:44:24-05:00January 10th, 2005|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology, Women and Sports|Comments Off on A Look at Women’s Participation in Sports in Maryland Two-Year Colleges
Read More

Necessary Education for the Success of Athletics Directors: NCAA Presidents’ Perceptions

Submitted by: Robert C. Schneider & William F. Stier Jr.

Given the many demands placed on the current day athletics director, the necessity of appropriate education has become paramount. Several years ago, Leith (1983) recognized the need for athletic administrators to be competent in a variety of skills. Today, the need for athletics directors to be well versed in multiple job-related skills has become even more apparent.

The current status of athletic administration among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) colleges and universities suggest that occupational demands are being placed on sport administrators at an increasing rate (Bradley, 1993; Lea & Loughman 1993; Neilsen, 1990). Copeland and Kirsch (1995) recognized the escalating responsibilities and the inherent demands of contemporary sport in order to maintain competitive programs. It was discovered in a study undertaken by Cleave (1993) that intercollegiate administrators generally perceived their jobs as becoming more complex.

Coursework and Standards Pertinent to the Athletics Director

Schneider and Stier (2001) stressed the importance of prospective athletics directors obtaining formal education through specific college/university courses in order to become knowledgeable as an athletics director. Courses deemed most pertinent for the position of athletics director were athletic administration, legal liability, facilities and equipment, and communications (Hall & Bradwin,1989). Stier and Schneider (2000) stated that colleges and universities must recognize the need for potential athletics directors to be competent in the areas of fundraising and promotions, and offer courses accordingly. Hatfield, Wrenn, and Bretting (1987) found that NCAA athletics directors and professional sport managers deemed the following educational courses to be most important for career preparation: athletic administration, speech communication, public relations, marketing, and business management.

Research/literature should play a role in ensuring that coursework is effectively preparing athletics directors to succeed upon their employment as an athletics director. For example, when the results of research, such as that completed by Hums, Barr, and Gullion (1999), indicate that sport industry managers need to recognize and confront ethical issues, the area of ethics should be taken into consideration when developing and continually updating formal education courses and strategies.

The View of Intercollegiate Presidents

Hoch (1998) noted the importance of informing and educating presidents of universities to the challenges within an athletic department and the skills necessary to meet those challenges.
Presidents, according to Covell and Barr (2001), feel the need to address, in detail, the many problems associated with athletics. According to Seidler, Gerdy, and Cardinal (1998) as a result of problems in intercollegiate athletics, university presidents have taken an active role in the oversight of athletic departments.

To date, this present investigation is the only national study of all NCAA institutions, separated by division, asking presidents what type of formal and informal education they believed to be important for the success of the athletics director at the collegiate level. The purpose of this study was to find out how formal and informal education is related to the success of the athletics director at the collegiate/university level. More specifically, this study sought to determine – in the opinions of presidents of colleges and universities – the specific content areas and levels of education, essential to the success of the college/university athletics director.

METHODS

Subjects

The subjects were the presidents of NCAA affiliated colleges and universities throughout the United States. Current addresses of the subjects were obtained from the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. Surveys were coded by division (NCAA I, II, and III) enabling the researchers to differentiate between divisions and making it possible to make divisional comparisons.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of 19 formal and informal areas of education in the form of Likert type scale statements. In selecting one of the five Likert type scale responses – essential, very important, important, not very important, irrelevant – the presidents selected the level of importance of specified formal and informal areas of education necessary for the successful completion of duties and responsibilities of an athletics director.

The respondents to the questionnaire included all of the presidents of the NCAA affiliated colleges and universities throughout the United States. Division I presidents returned 161 of 318 surveys for a return rate of 50.6%; Division II presidents returned 137 of 248 surveys for a 55.2% return rate; and Division III presidents returned 201 of 395 surveys for a 50.8% return rate.

Results

This investigation ascertained NCAA presidents’ views related to the importance of formal and informal areas of education necessary for the successful completion of duties and responsibilities of athletics directors. The results that follow, along with discussion, provide insights that can be of value for prospective as well as current athletics directors.

Table 1 displays the rate at which the NCAA presidents at Divisions I, II, and III believed each of the 19 formal and informal areas of education were essential, very important, important, unimportant, or irrelevant to the success of athletics directors. There were results for 17 formal areas of education (5 degrees and 12 courses) and 2 informal areas of education (sport/administrative clinic attendance and professional reading).

When examining the results of the formal degrees, the baccalaureate degree was easily judged to be the most essential by the presidents of Division I (81.4%), Division II (82.0%), and Division III (89.2%) for the success of athletics directors. Judged as the second most essential area of education, by the presidents, was the master’s degree. The master’s degree was believed to be at least important (combining the essential, very important and important responses) by presidents of Division I (94.1%), Division II (93.9%), and Division III (93.9%). A certificate beyond the master’s degree was thought to be not very important or irrelevant by the presidents of Division I (59.3%) and Division III (53.3%), yet was believed to be at least important by presidents of Division II at 56.0%. The Specialist (Ed.S.) Degree was also believed to be not very important or irrelevant by presidents of Division I (72.1%), Division II (67.3%), and Division III (66.2%). Finally, in terms of degrees, a doctoral degree was viewed to be not very important or irrelevant by the presidents of Division I (69.6%), Division II (63.8%), and Division III (63.5%).

The presidents provided their opinions regarding the importance of completing formal coursework in order to succeed as an athletics director. A total of 12 different college level courses were included. Taking a class in socio-cultural dimensions in sport was believed to be not very important or irrelevant by 54.2% of Division I presidents; however 31.4% of Division I presidents believed socio-cultural dimensions in sport to be important. Division II presidents, at a rate of 62.1%, believed that taking courses in socio-cultural dimensions in sport was at least important. And, Division III presidents at a rate of 64.9% believed taking courses in socio-cultural dimensions in sport to be at least important.

Management and leadership in sport courses were believed to be at least important (combining the essential, very important and important responses) by Division I presidents (61.0%), Division II presidents (65.5%), and Division III presidents (70.2%). Completing sport management ethics courses was believed to be not very important or irrelevant by over one-third of the Division I presidents (37.3%), whereas Division II and III presidents believed taking sport management ethics courses to be at least important at a rate of 69.0% and 83.8% respectively. Marketing in sport courses were believed be at least important by Division I presidents (61.9%), Division II presidents (65.5%), and Division III presidents (72.3% ). And, communication in sport courses were believed to be at least important by Division I presidents (60.2%), Division II presidents (64.6%), and Division III presidents (70.9%).

Of all the formal coursework areas, across the three NCAA divisions, budget and finance courses were believed to be the most important by the presidents. The Division I presidents believed budget and finance to be essential at a rate of 10.2% and when combining the responses for essential, very important, and important the rate increased to 61.9%. Division II and III presidents thought budget and finance to be at least important, at rates of 65.5% and 74.3% respectively.

Legal aspects of sport courses were believed to be at least important by Division I presidents (61.0%), Division II presidents (65.3%), and Division III presidents (77.1%). Economics in sport courses were thought to be at least important by Division III presidents (61.6%), yet were thought to be not very important or irrelevant by Division I presidents (48.3%) and Division II presidents (51.7%). Venue and event management in sport courses were believed to be not very important or irrelevant by 55.1% of Division I presidents; yet were perceived to be at least important by Division II (53.5%) and Division III (58.1%) presidents.

The results showed Division I presidents to be somewhat indifferent to governance in sport courses, as 51.6% viewed governance in sport as at least important and 48.4% viewed it as not very important or irrelevant. Division II and III presidents had similar opinions, as they viewed governance in sport as at least important at 52.6% and 54.7% respectively, yet believed governance in sport to be not very important or irrelevant at rates of 47.4% and 45.3% respectively.

Field experiences in sport courses were believed to be not very important or irrelevant by 56.7% of the Division I presidents. Division II and III presidents, somewhat contrarily, believed field experiences in sport courses to be at least important at respective rates of (56.9%) and (51.4%).

Of all the formal coursework, research in sport courses were believed to be the least important by the presidents. Over one-fourth (27.2%) of the Division I presidents believed research in sport to be irrelevant and when combined with those that thought it to be not very important (35.6%), the rate of presidents believing research in sport to be not very important or irrelevant increased to 62.8%. Division II presidents also believed research in sport to be not very important or irrelevant at a rate of 62.8%. Division III presidents felt nearly the same, as 62.2% of them believed research in sport to be not very important or irrelevant.

When examining the two informal education areas of sport/administrative clinic attendance and professional reading it was learned that the presidents across the NCAA divisions found these two informal areas of education to be at least important at high rates. Sport/administrative clinic attendance was believed to be at least important by the presidents of Division I (80.5%), Division II (95.6%), and Division III (90.6%). Additionally, Division II presidents believed sport/administrative clinic attendance to be essential at a rate of 14.7%. Professional reading was believed to be at least important by presidents of Division I (92.4%), Division II (94.9%), and Division III (94.6%). When examining the rate at which presidents of all three NCAA divisions found professional reading to be essential for the success of an athletics director the results were noteworthy. Over one-third (35.8%) of Division III presidents believed professional reading to be essential as did 16.4% of Division II presidents and 17.8% of Division I presidents.

Discussion

Given the effect that intercollegiate presidents can have on the employment status of their athletics directors, it is necessary that athletics directors, at the very least, make themselves aware of the opinions that presidents hold concerning the importance of athletics directors possessing different types of formal and informal education. Certainly, the athletics director can perform more effectively if he/she is aware of the degrees of importance that presidents have placed on selected areas of formal and informal education in this national study of college and university presidents of all three divisions of the NCAA.

In terms of educational degrees, it is essential to the success of an athletics directors to attain a baccalaureate degree and it is very important that they earn a master’s degree. Although a certificate beyond a master’s degree, a specialist (Ed.S.) degree, and a doctoral degree would be helpful, these three degrees are not considered essential or very important to the success of the athletics director.

The two areas of informal education – sport/administrative clinic attendance, and professional reading – were the two areas in the study that were believed to be important to the success of athletics directors by the highest rate of presidents at each of the three NCAA divisions. Given this information, administrators would be wise to budget funds for professional development in the form of clinics and strongly encourage or require their athletics directors to attend. As for professional reading, athletics directors should identify, subscribe to, and read current professional literature related to their profession.

Not surprisingly, socio-cultural dimensions in sport courses, management and leadership courses in sport, and marketing in sport courses were all believed to be important by the presidents. These courses should not only be sought out and completed by athletics directors but should also be offered as part of professional preparation programs for the purpose of training prospective athletics directors.

In order to gain an understanding of the legal environment of athletic departments, legal aspects courses should be completed by athletics directors. In this litigious society, in order to protect the financial well being of the athletic department it makes sense that athletics directors – as was indicated by the presidents – understand legal aspects related to the athletic environment.

Somewhat surprising was the higher than expected rate at which Division I presidents believed field experiences to be not very important or irrelevant for the success of athletics directos. It might be that the Division I presidents simply do not believe a field experience can capture the realities of directing athletics at the Division I level. Division II and III presidents, overall, viewed field experience as important, which is more what the researchers expected.

Athletics directors at each of the three NCAA Divisions should make sure they understand the finances of athletic departments and are also competent in the area of athletic budgets. The ability to balance the athletic department budget, which includes financial decisions that directly affect men’s and women’s programs, must be an area in which athletics directors are competent. Without strong fiscal management skills, goals of the athletic department will become difficult to realize.

It seems that ethics in the area of athletics has been somewhat forgotten, given the relatively low rate of presidents who believed ethics to be important. This is quite disturbing since one might argue that ethics in athletic departments begins with the upper administration and trickles down to the players. If ethics is not believed to be important by presidents and athletics directors, the chances that players will behave ethically during sporting contests is unlikely.

As academia attempts to offer formal coursework that will prepare the potential athletics director for the rigors of the job, the importance of identifying the necessary elements required for the success of the athletics director, becomes imperative. Educators must possess an awareness of the essential, as well as the very important formal and informal educational components, necessary for the success of the athletics director. This identification process becomes even more challenging, given the increased depth and breadth of the tasks required of the current day athletics director. The findings of this study should also be used as part of the ongoing process of developing and refining curriculums intended to prepare the prospective athletics director.

Recommendations

It is recommended that various athletic department personnel be surveyed as a means of ascertaining their opinions concerning the degrees of importance of formal and informal education necessary for the success of the athletics director. Used in combination with the results of this study – that surveyed presidents – a more broad understanding of the overall degrees of importance associated with the success of the athletics director might be gained.

References

  1. Bradley, M. (1993, September). In the thick of it. Athletic Management, 5, 16-22.
  2. Cleave, S. (1993). Applicability of job diagnostic survey to administrative positions in university physical education and sport. Journal of Sport Management, 7, 141-150.
  3. Copeland, B., & Kirsch, S. (1995). Perceived occupational stress among NCAA
    division I, II, and III athletic directors. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1),
    70-77.
  4. Covell, D., & Barr, C.A. (2001). The ties that bind: Presidential involvement with the development of NCAA Division I initial eligibility legislation. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(4), 414-452.
  5. Hall, K. G., & Bradwin, G. (November/December 1989). Qualifications for secondary school athletic directors. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 60(9), 65-68.
  6. Hatfield, B.D., Wrenn, J.P., & Bretting, M.M. (1987) Comparison of job responsibilities of intercollegiate athletic directors and professional sport general managers. Journal of Sport Management, 1, 129-145.
  7. Hoch, D. L. (1998). Educating your school administrator. Coach and Athletic Director, 68(4), 4-5.
  8. Hums, M. A., Barr, C.A., & Gullion, L. (1999). The ethical issues confronting managers in the sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(1), 51-56.
  9. Lea, M., & Loughman, E. (1993, October). Crew, compliance, touchdowns and torts: The growth of the modern athletics department, its legal needs and models for satisfying them. Athletics Administration, 28(5), 48-51.
  10. Leith, L. M. (1983). The underlying process of athletic administration. Physical Educator, 40(4), 211-217.
  11. Neilsen, F. E. (1990). A competency analysis of NCAA athletic administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(3), 785A.
  12. Schneider, R. C., & Stier, W. F. Jr. (2001). Recommended educational experiences for high school athletic directors (AD’s). The Physical Educator, 58(4), 211-221.
  13. Seidler, T.L., Gerdy, J.R., & Cardinal, B.J. (1998). Athletic director authority in
    division I intercollegiate athletics: perceptions of athletic directors and university presidents. International Sports Journal, 2(2), 36-46.
  14. Stier, W. F. Jr., & Schneider, R. C. (2000). What high school principals expect of their athletics directors: A national investigation. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(8), 45-49.
2015-03-20T11:16:24-05:00January 8th, 2005|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Necessary Education for the Success of Athletics Directors: NCAA Presidents’ Perceptions
Read More

Consumer Discrimination in the NBA Trading-Card Market

Submitted by: Philip Broyles & Bradley Keen

Abstract

This research examines consumer discrimination in the NBA trading-card market. Using a sample of 298 NBA trading cards for the 1991-92 season, we find that race does not affect whether a trading cards sell above the common-player price. This is consistent with previous research on NBA trading cards. However, it was found that among players with common-player priced cards (average players), blacks out perform whites in points-per-game and assists-per-game. Further research is needed to see if black-white performance differences are related to discrimination in entry or retention in the NBA.

Introduction

Of the major professional sports, basketball may seem the least likely place for racial discrimination. Since its integration in the 1940s, professional basketball has achieved the highest level of African American representation of the major professional sports in the United States. Today over 80 percent of NBA players are African American. Moreover, many of the most celebrated athletes today, such as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, are African American basketball players. It is therefore surprising that numerous studies provide evidence of discrimination in the NBA labor market.

Labor market discrimination is defined as unequal treatment of equally qualified workers. A great deal of research on labor market discrimination has focused on the racial pay differences of NBA athletes (see Kahn, 2000, 1991). The results vary greatly. Rockwood and Asher (1976) and Mogul (1977, 1981) found no significant difference in white and black player’s salaries in the 1970s. Using a sample from the early 1980s, Scott et al. (1985) also found no relationship between player’s race and earnings. These studies, however, were based on small samples of athletes (N<30). Studies with larger samples from the 1980s consistently show a significant relationship between race and earnings. Kahn and Sherer (1988) found that white players earned 21-25 percent more than their black counterparts. Similarly, Wallace (1988) found that white players earned 18 percent more than black players and Koch and Vander (1988) found the difference to be 12 percent. Recent research by Hamilton (1997) suggests that differences in pay between black and white players may be disappearing. Using a sample of players from the 1994-95 season, Hamilton found that black players out-earned whites through the 75th percentile but at the top (90th percentile) whites were paid slightly more than blacks.

Kahn (2000) suggests that consumer discrimination may explain some of the racial pay gap observed in basketball. If fans are prejudiced against African Americans, teams may hire more white players or pay white players more. There is evidence from the 1980s that is consistent with this hypothesis. Numerous studies show that black players lower revenues or attendance (Kahn, 1991). For example, Kahn and Sherer (1988) found that during the 1980-86 period, white players generated as many as 13,000 additional fans per year. And other researchers have found that the racial makeup of NBA teams was similar to the racial composition of the area in which they were located (Burdekin and Idson, 1991; Hoang and Rascher, 1999). More recent research suggests that consumer discrimination may be on the decline. Dey (1997) found that in the 1987-93 period, white players only brought in an average of 60 additional fans per season.

Few studies have examined consumer discrimination more directly. One exception is a study by Stone and Warren (1999), which examines the price of NBA players’ trading cards. Using a sample of 258 NBA players from the 1976-77 season, they found that the price of NBA trading cards did not vary by player’s race. Their methodology, however, was based on the assumption that consumer discrimination is pervasive throughout the ability distribution. It is possible that card collectors only discriminate against the star athletes. Consumers may have discriminatory preferences for white stars but no real preference among black and white athletes of average ability. If this is the case, then the trading cards of white stars will be valued more than the cards of black stars. This hypothesis is consistent with Hamilton’s (1997) research on earnings discrimination, which showed that white players only had an advantage over black players at the superstar level-at the top of the earnings distribution. To further understand this issue, we examine a sample of 298 NBA trading cards produced in 1992.

Data and Methodology

Our sample consists of a complete set of Fleer NBA trading cards issued in 1992. We picked Fleer over other brands because they have been producing basketball cards the longest time and have had NBA production rights since 1986. Specialty cards (coaches, multiple players and so forth) were eliminated from the set, leaving a final sample of 298 cards representing NBA players active during the 1991-92 season-all have since retired. Eighty percent of the trading cards are of black NBA players.

The value of a player’s card is determined largely by the performance of the player. Unlike studies of other labor markets, job performance of professional athletes can be precisely measured. Comprehensive basketball statistics are kept for all facets of the game. In this study, we use multiple measure of performance, including field goal percentage, three-point field goal percentage, free throw percentage, rebounds per game, assists per game, points per game and games played. The performance data was collected from The Official NBA Encyclopedia (2000), which is a comprehensive source on basketball statistics. Additional information was collected from The Sporting News Official NBA Register (2000, 2001).

The value of a player’s card is also determined by the scarcity of the card, which is related to the age of the card and the number of cards. The influence of scarcity on card prices is minimal when a single set of cards is considered because cards from the same set are produced in the same number and are the same age-though there may be some small difference in the actual number of cards in circulation because cards are lost over time. Because we have selected trading cards from a single set, scarcity will not be a major determinant in the price of the cards we are examining.

A couple other factors also affect the value of cards. First, the condition of the card affects the value of player’s cards. Cards in better condition are worth more that others. To control for this effect, we examine cards in mint condition. Second, rookie cards are often worth more than other cards. Cards that mark the debut of a player are highly prized by collectors, especially those of star players. To control for this bias, we use a dummy variable to indicate rookie status. There are 42 (14%) rookie cards in the sample.

Several price guides exist for basketball trading cards. The most comprehensive and respected source for trading card prices is Beckett’s price guide. We use the Beckett 2003 Official Price Guide for Basketball Cards to determine the price for trading cards in mint condition. Most cards sell at the “common player” price, which is the minimum value of a card and is not related to performance of a player. Of the cards in our sample, 213 (71%) have the common-player price, only 85 (29%) are priced higher. The common-player price is $.05 and the maximum mint value for the sample is $2.00. Because a large number of cards in the sample are valued at the common-player price and because there is small variation among those cards priced above the common-player price, we can essentially identify two groups for comparison: average players (those with common-player priced cards) and star players (those with higher priced cards). Therefore, card price is coded as a dummy variable, contrasting common-player priced cards with higher priced cards.

Findings

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for the performance variables by race. Overall, there is little difference between the performance of black players and white players, with the exception of points-per-game. Black players score just under two points more per game than do white players. Black players appear to outperform white players slightly in rebounds-per-game and assists-per-game, but the differences are not statistically significant. Black players also play more games, on average, than do white players.

A linear regression was run to see if performance differences between black and white players affected the value of trading cards. Table 2 presents the results for the logistic regression. As the results in Table 2 indicate, three of the major performance variables are statistically significant: rebounds-per-game, points-per-game, assists-per-game. Each of these variables increases the odds that a trading card is worth more than the common-player price. For example, an increase of one point per game increases the odds of a trading card being worth more than the common-player price by 26 percent. Performance variables based on shooting percentages are not significant. Field goal and free throw percentages have no affect on whether cards are worth more than the common-player price. However, the number of games played also increases the odds that a card is worth more than the common-player price. And, as expected, rookie cards are more likely to be priced above common-player price, too.

Consistent with Stone and Warren (1999), race of the player has no significant effect on the value of NBA trading cards in our sample. Although the beta coefficient for race suggests that being white increases the odds that the player’s trading card is worth more than the common-player price, the coefficient is not statistically significant. Trading card enthusiasts do not value white NBA stars more than black stars. These findings lend to the mounting evidence that consumer discrimination may be declining in professional basketball.

Although it appears that consumers do not discriminate against black stars, it is still possible that consumers discriminate against average black players. To explore this issue, we calculated black and white means of performance variables for trading cards that were priced at the common-player price. Table 3 presents the means for the 213 cards that were priced at the common-player price. The results show that average black players outperform white players in points-per game and assists-per-game. The differences are rather small. Black players average almost two more points per game and less than one assist more per game than white players. Nonetheless, it appears that blacks must perform better than whites to retain a place on the bench. This may reflect consumer discrimination. Coaches may keep white players who don’t perform as well to appease white fans. It may also reflect employer discrimination by coaches. Coaches may have higher expectations for black players than for white players. Further research is needed to disentangle these processes.

Conclusion

This research adds to the mounting evidence that consumer discrimination in the professional basketball is on the wane. Similar to Stone and Warren (1999), little evidence was found of discrimination in the trading card market. Trading-card collectors show little preference for white stars over black stars. This may largely be due to the rise of popular superstars like Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan, whose celebrity appeal crosses racial lines. Fans today can identify with, and desire to emulate, black NBA stars.

Future research should examine the role of these performance differences in entry and retention discrimination.

References

  1. Beckett, James (2002), Beckett 2003 Official Price Guide for Basketball Cards, New York: The Crown Publishing Group.
  2. Burdekin, Richard C. K. and Todd L. Idson, (1991) “Customer Preferences, Attendance and the Racial Structure of Professional Basketball Teams,” Applied Economics, 23:179-186.
  3. Dey, Matthew S., (1997), “Racial Differences in National Basketball Association Players’ Salaries: Another Look,” The American Economist, 19 (3):293-318.
  4. Hamilton, Barton Hughes, (1997),”Racial Discrimination and Professional Basketball Salaries in the 1990s,” Applied Economic, 29:287-296.
  5. Hoang, Ha and Dan Rasher, (1997), “The NBA, Exit Discrimination, and Career Earnings,” Industrial Relations, 38 (1):69-91.
  6. Hubbard, Jan., (ed.), (2000), The Official NBA Encyclopedia, New York: Doubleday.
  7. Kahn, Lawrence M., (2000), “A Level Playing Field? Sports and Discrimination,” Pp. 115-130 in William S. Kern (ed.), The Economics of Sport Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
  8. Kahn, Lawrence M. (1991), “Discrimination in Professional Sports: A Survey of the Literature,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44 (April):395-418.
  9. Kahn, Lawrence M., and Peter D. Sherer, (1988), “Racial Differences in Professional Basketball Players Compensation,” Journal of Labor Economics, 6 (1):40-61.
  10. Koch, James V., and C. Warren Vander Hill, (1988), “Is there Discrimination in the ‘Black Man’s Game’?” Social Science Quarterly, 69 (1) 83-94.
  11. Mogul, Robert G., (1981), “Salary Discrimination in Professional Sports,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 21(3):106-110.
    12. Robert G., (1976), “A Note on Racial Discrimination in Professional Basketball: A Reevaluation of the Evidence,” American Economist, 21 (2):71-71.
  12. Paur, Jeff, David Walton, John Gardella and John Hareas (eds.), (2000), The Sporting News 2001-2002 Official NBA Register, St. Louis: The Sporting News.
  13. Rockwood, Charles E. and Ephraim Asher, (1976), “Racial Discrimination in Professional Basketball Revisited,” American Economist, 20 (1):59-64.
  14. Scott, Frank A., Jr., James E. Long and Ken Somppi, (1985), “Salary vs. Marginal Revenue Product under Monopsony and Competition: The Case of Professional Basketball,” Atlantic Economic Revue, 13 (3):50-59.
  15. Stone, Eric W. and Ronald S. Warren, (1997), “Customer Discrimination in Professional Basketball: Evidence from the Trading-Card Market,” Applied Economics, 31 (6): 679-686.
  16. Wallace, Michael, (1988), “Labor Market Structure and Salary Determination among Professional Basketball Players,” Work and Occupations, 15 (3):294-312.
  17. Walton, David and John Gardella (eds.), (2000), The Sporting News Official NBA Register 2002-2003 Edition, St. Louis: The Sporting News.
TABLE 1. Means for Performance Variables by Race (N=298)
Means Standard Deviation 
Number of Games Played

 

 Black

White

 712.67

658.24

 326.13

328.30
Field Goal Percentage Black

White

 .466

.469

 .040

.037
Three Point Percentage Black

White

 .238

.268

 .116

.143
Free Throw Percentage Black

White

 .743

.757

 .077

.093
Rebounds Per Game Black

White

 4.36

4.02

 2.48

2.32
Assists Per Game Black

White

 2.59

2.12

 2.00

1.90
Points Per Game* Black

White

 10.75

8.99

 4.92

5.00
*Statistically significant difference between means at the .05 level

 

TABLE 2. Logistic Regression Coefficients
Variable Beta Standard Error 
Constant -6.961 4.188
Race .616 .541
Rookie Card 3.436* .649
Center -1.349 .765
Number of Games Played .003* .001
Field Goal Percentage -7.629 7.147
Three-Point Field Goal Percentage 2.164 2.380
Free Throw Percentage .947 3.621
Rebounds Per Game .432* .129
Assists Per Game .278* .111
Points Per Game .228* .064
-2 Log Likelihood 194.781
*p < .01

 

TABLE 3. Means for Performance Variables by Race for Average Players (N=213) 
Means Standard Deviation 
Number of Games Played

 

 Black

White

 629.59

570.82

 316.15

306.85
Field Goal Percentage Black

White

 .462

.463

 .042

.036
Three Point Percentage Black

White

 .224

.246

 .115

.146
Free Throw Percentage Black

White

 .737

.738

 .079

.096
Rebounds Per Game Black

White

 3.76

3.68

 2.00

2.09
Assists Per Game* Black

White

 2.19

1.67

 1.67

1.50
Points Per Game* Black

White

 9.10

7.37

 3.89

4.16
*Statistically significant difference between means at the .05 level
2015-03-20T11:13:22-05:00January 7th, 2005|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Consumer Discrimination in the NBA Trading-Card Market
Read More

The Implementation of Ethical and Social Standards in Youth High-Performance Sport on the Basis of Olympic Ideals

Submitted by: Kristina Bohnstedt & Norbert Müller

Introduction:

Ethical issues are coming to the fore in our society as a result of numerous problematic developments.

In addition to doping and profit orientation, child and teenage high-performance sport is a recurrent focus of discussions about ethical responsibility. The person’s responsible, particularly leading members of sports associations and sport scientists, must make their position clear and help parents to shed their fears.

In this connection, a specific ethic for trainers is increasingly being demanded. The German Sport Association responded to this demand in 1997 by publishing the “Code of Conduct for Trainers”.

As early as 1984, the sport educationalist MEINBERG (Cologne) formulated ethical principles for child and teenage high-performance sport, which have lost nothing of their importance. In fact, they are more important than ever in 2004, as a result of professionalization and media attention.

According to MEINBERG, an optimum approach to training children and teenagers in high-performance sport depends on the following ethical principles:

  1. using another person as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end,
  2. the principle of respect,
  3. the principle of equality,
  4. the principle of solidarity,
  5. the principle of fairness,
  6. the principle of suitability for children/teenagers,
  7. the principle of reasonableness,
  8. the principle of helping,
  9. the principle of trust,
  10. the principle of participation,
  11. the principle of responsibility,
  12. the principle of achievement – making no fetish of achievement,
  13. a body ethic suitable for children/teenagers – not exploiting the body.

Aim of survey and methods

The paper investigates whether child and teenage high-performance athletes think that their trainers observe MEINBERG’s 13 ethical principles for a humane high-performance sport. The young high-performance athletes were asked to evaluate the implementation of ethical standards during daily training situations.

Research data were collected through a survey using a standardized questionnaire, which was filled in under supervision. The interviewees, aged between 14 and 19, attend sport-orientated schools in the German cities of Berlin, Erfurt, Kaiserslautern and Koblenz, and the House of Athletes at the Olympic Centre in Frankfurt/Main.

Results and interpretation

The sample survey

Altogether 181 young high-performance athletes participated in the survey, 80 of them female (44.2%) and 101 male (55.8%). 15.5% of the athletes belong to sports with a young high-performance age (e.g. gymnastics, figure skating, swimming), 30.9% to team sports (volleyball, handball, basketball, football) and 53.6% to various other sports (athletics, cycling, table tennis, rowing etc.).

Training in their main sport starts at the average age of 8.7, and 11.2 years is the average age for the start of high-performance training (daily training, regular competitions and training camps). The young athletes train at different training centers. Approximately 40% train at two centers. About half of the athletes are members of training groups at their sports club, at the Olympic training center and at their sport-orientated school. Thus, 52% of the athletes work with at least two different trainers, and 20.7% even with three. 27.6% of the athletes live in a full-time-boarding school, 11% attend a part-time-boarding school, and 61.3% live with their families. Irrespective of their living arrangements, 90.1% of the young athletes say that they have become more independent through high-performance training.

Before the survey, 65.0% of the athletes had already discussed practice-oriented ethical questions at school.

Given the age of the interviewees, it can be assumed that under normal circumstances they possess a sufficient capacity for ethical judgement. This would not be the case with children, but teenagers can be considered mature enough. Their involvement with high-performance sport may in the course of time affect their evaluation of trainer behavior and of their own situation.

The teenagers’ answers show, however, that they are able to critically judge both their own situation and the behavior of their trainers. The fact that the majority of interviewees pursue sports with a late high-performance age positively affects the starting age for high-performance training.

Olympic values in youth high-performance sport

The analysis focusses on the attitudes of young high-performance athletes. The questionnaire was intended to show whether the teenagers’ values, including their evaluation of trainer behavior, had already been influenced by their involvement with high-performance sport and the concomitant concentration on achievement. In addition, the teenagers’ general value systems were to be compared with the values conveyed by their trainers, and the values perceived in competitions.
The majority of interviewees above all want their main sport to teach them achievement-oriented values. At the top of the hierarchy of desirable values are

– ambition (93.4%),
– competitiveness (90.1%) and
– assertiveness (75.7%).

While fairness (68.5%),
– independence (65.7%),
– friendship (64.6%),
– health (47%) and
– willingness to take risks (44.2%) still play a fairly important role for the young athletes, they consider values like

– happiness (35.9%),
– honesty (27.6%),
– justice (27.1%) and
– equal opportunities (22.7%) to be less important.

It can be seen from the athletes’ answers that trainers tend to teach the achievement-oriented values much more frequently than the others.

An examination of correlations shows that – except for the values of ambition and justice – there is a statistically significant correlation between the athletes’ desire to learn these values through their main sport, and the frequency with which these values are taught by the trainer.

The assessment of values in competitions reveals an even stronger emphasis on achievement-oriented values. Thus, 98.8% of the athletes hold competitiveness and 95% hold ambition to be very important in competitions, while values such as justice and friendship play a secondary role

Since the young high-performance athletes prioritize achievement-oriented values, which they expect their main sport to teach them, and which they consider even more important in competitions, we must conclude that trainer behavior may likewise be assessed on the basis of the principle of achievement. This tendency seems to be further strengthened by the fact that the athletes consider those values to be particularly important which are taught most often by their trainers. Accordingly, in their moral assessment of trainer behavior, the athletes may be following the ethical standards of their trainers. The close connection between the values of trainers and athletes casts some doubt on the young high-performance athletes’ ability to judge their trainers’ behavior objectively and critically. However, it is not clear whether the values held by the athletes are shaped by the trainers or by parents or other factors such as personality. The data suggest that the interviewees judge the behavior of their trainers as well as their own situation from an achievement-oriented perspective.

The implementation of MEINBERG’s ethical principles using the example of trainer behavior

Questions concerning trainer behavior were intended to show whether, in dealing with the young athletes, the main trainer (i.e. the trainer with whom the athlete works most of the time) follows MEINBERG’s 13 ethical principles in order to ensure a humane high-performance sport. At the same time, the analysis examined possible connections between the implementation of these principles and factors such as the athletes’ gender, their particular school, their age or their main sport.

The most important results of the survey are shown in the following table:

Using another person as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end My TRAINER wants me to win so that I can enjoy success. 61.3 %
My TRAINER accepts that my body cannot always achieve perfect results. 53.0 %
The principle of respect My TRAINER is very often ready to listen to my wishes and fears. 52.5 %
My TRAINER always respects my opinion. 48.1 %
My TRAINER is sometimes ready to listen to my wishes and fears. 42.5 %
The principle of equality My TRAINER sometimes asks me what I think. 54.7 %
My TRAINER listens to my criticism and responds to it. 53.3 %
My TRAINER very often asks me what I think. 30.9 %
The principle of solidarity My TRAINER only reproaches me when there is a good reason. 82.3 %
My TRAINER never reproaches me when I am not successful. 9.4 %
My TRAINER always reproaches me when I am not successful. 8.3 %
My TRAINER critically examines both his/her own work and mine when I am not successful. 79.0 %
My TRAINER lays the entire blame on me when I am not successful. 14.9 %
My TRAINER also blames himself/herself when I am not successful. 6.1 %
The principle of fairness My TRAINER is equally happy for all when they do well. 81.8 %
My TRAINER supports us all equally. 68.0 %
The principle of suitability for children/teenagers My TRAINER knows how old I am and treats me accordingly. 84.0 %
My TRAINER involves me in more decisions as I grow older. 54.1 %
The principle of reasonableness I never feel afraid during training. 76.8 %
I sometimes feel overtaxed during training. 68.0 %
The principle of helping My TRAINER immediately tries to help me when I say I have a problem. 82.2 %
My TRAINER always listens to me when I have a problem. 66.7 %
The principle of trust I very often trust my TRAINER. 70.7 %
My TRAINER makes all decisions together with me. 65.7 %
I sometimes discuss personal problems with my TRAINER. 50.8 %
I sometimes have a say in which competitions I enter. 40.3 %
The principle of responsibility My TRAINER sometimes talks with my parents. 60.8 %
I take part in both team and individual competitions. 59.6 %
My TRAINER sometimes organizes activities outside training for us. 58.6 %
My TRAINER reduces the training load when there are many exams and I have problems at school. 54.1 %
My TRAINER sometimes helps me to make plans for school and for my career. 47.0 %
My TRAINER never helps me to make plans for school and for my career. 44.2 %
My TRAINER sometimes talks to my teachers in order to coordinate the demands of school and training. 41.7 %
My TRAINER never talks to my teachers in order to coordinate the demands of school and training. 38.3 %
My TRAINER never reduces the training load. 29.8 %
The principle of achievement – making no fetish of achievement My main TRAINER is happy in competitions when I do well. 94.5 %
Our training is achievement-oriented and fun-oriented. 59.7 %
Our training is purely achievement-oriented. 40.3 %
A body ethic suitable for children/teenagers – not exploiting the body When I am physically exhausted in training, I still have to carry on until the end of the training session. 44.2 %
When I am physically exhausted in training, I am allowed a short break during training. 43.6 %

In general, while the majority of trainers are largely guided by MEINBERG’s ethical principles in their work with the young high-performance athletes, a critical examination of individual principles also reveals some transgressions. The athletes noted incidences of behavior on the part of trainers which fall short of their ethical expectations and have to be considered problematic or irresponsible.

Correlations between the kind of sport and the degree of conformity with individual principles are rare. Sport-specific differences only occur with the implementation of the principle of equality, the principle of suitability for children/teenagers, the principle of participation and a body ethic suitable for children/teenagers.

As far as these principles are concerned, ethical boundaries are transgressed most frequently by trainers in team games. But a disregard of ethical principles by trainers working with young high-performance athletes can be found in all kinds of sport. This indicates that adherence to ethical principles depends on the individual personality of the trainer rather than on other factors.

More detailed results could be obtained by examining the implementation of these ethical principles in all kinds of youth high-performance sport on an even broader basis.

Conclusion

It has become clear that MEINBERG’s principles, while very theoretical and general, have a practical application and can be used for critically examining the behavior of trainers in different kinds of sport.

The teenagers’ assessment of their own situation and of individual problems shows that MEINBERG’s demands are realistic. The athletes most frequently criticize the disregard for individual principles on the part of trainers and coaching assistants.

The Olympic Movement must become more aware of its responsibility for the ethical and social conditions under which young athletes live and train. Surveys like the present one should therefore be conducted on a large international scale.

References

  1. ABRAHAM, A.: Identitätsprobleme in der rhythmischen Sportgymnastik: Eine Untersuchung zur Auswirkung sportartspezifischer Identitätskonstitutionen auf die Identitätsfindung nach Beendigung der leistungssportlichen Laufbahn. Schorndorf 1986.
  2. BETTE, K.-H.: Die Trainerrolle im Hochleistungssport. System- und rollentheoretische Überlegungen zur Sozialfigur des Trainers. St. Augustin 1984.
  3. BETTE, K.-H.: Körperspuren: Zur Semantik und Paradoxie moderner Körperlichkeit. Berlin – New York 1989.
  4. BETTE, K.-H./NEIDHARD, F.: Förderungseinrichtungen im Hochleistungssport – Strukturen und Probleme. Schorndorf 1985.
  5. BRETTSCHNEIDER, W.-D./HEIM, R.: Heranwachsende im Hochleistungssport. In: Leistungssport 31 (2001) 4, 34-38.
  6. BRETTSCHNEIDER, W.-D./RICHARTZ, A.: Jugendliche im Leistungssport – Entwicklung im Spannungsfeld von Schule und Sport. In: Leistungssport 26 (1996) 5, 6-10.
  7. CACHAY, K./THIEL, A.: Sozialkompetenz für Trainerinnen und Trainer im Hochleistungssport. In: ANDERS, G./HARTMANN, W. (eds.): Sozialkompetenz von Trainerinnen und Trainern: Dokumentation des Workshops vom 28. September 1996. Cologne 1997, 11-28.
  8. DEUTSCHER SPORTBUND (ed.): Kinder im Leistungssport. Grundsatzerklärung. In: Deutscher Sportbund 1982-1986. Bericht des Präsidiums. Frankfurt am Main 1986, 225-230.
  9. DEUTSCHER SPORTBUND: Ehrenkodex für Trainerinnen und Trainer im Sport. In: ANDERS, G./HARTMANN, W. (eds.): Sozialkompetenz von Trainerinnen und Trainern: Dokumentation des Workshops vom 28. September 1996. Cologne 1997, 88-90.
  10. DIGEL, H.: Ist der Hochleistungssport verantwortbar? In: Leistungssport 32 (2002) 1, 9-13.
  11. FREI, P./LÜSEBRINK, I./ ROTTLÄNDER, D./THIELE, I.: Belastungen und Risiken im weiblichen Kunstturnen. Part 2: Innensichten, pädagogische Deutungen und Konsequenzen. Schorndorf 2000.
  12. FUNKE, J.: Wie erfahren jugendliche Kunstturnerinnen ihren Hochleistungssport? In: Sportpädagogik 9 (1985) 5, 8-9.
  13. HACKFORT, D.: Karriere im Sport – psychosoziale Aspekte eines Karrieremanagements. In: Leistungssport 31 (2001) 4, 55-58.
  14. HEINEMANN, K.: Einführung in die Soziologie des Sports. Vol. 1. Schorndorf 19984.
  15. HERMS, E.: Ist Sportethik möglich? In: DEUTSCHER SPORTBUND (ed.): Die Zukunft des Sports. Schorndorf 1996, 84-110.
  16. HOTZ, A.: Klippen für ein Nachwuchstalent auf dem Weg zur Weltspitze. In: Leistungssport 28 (1998) 1, 29-30.
  17. HOTZ, A.: “Doping und Ethik” – ein Thema mit Tradition und offenbar ohne Ende! In: Leistungssport 33 (2003) 1, 17-22.
  18. KAMINSKI, G./MAYER, R./RUOFF, B. A.: Kinder und Jugendliche im Hochleistungssport. Schorndorf 1984.
  19. KURZ, D. (with BINZ, C./KUHLMANN, D.): Pädagogische Grundlagen des Trainings. Schorndorf 1988.
  20. LENK, H.: Aspekte einer Pragmatisierung der Ethik – auch für die Sportethik. In: CACHAY, K. et al. (eds.): Sport und Ethik. Clausthal-Zellerfeld 1985, 1-20.
  21. LÜSEBRINK, I.: Lebenswelten von Kunstturnerinnen. Sankt Augustin 1997.
  22. MEINBERG, E.: Kinderhochleistungssport: Fremdbestimmung oder Selbstentfaltung? Cologne 1984.
  23. MEINBERG, E.: Sportethik/Moral des Sports. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 498-504.
  24. MEINBERG, E.: Trainerethos und Trainerethik. Cologne 2001.
  25. MÜLLER, N.: Olympische Erziehung. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 385-395.English translation on the homapge CEO Barcelona.
  26. MÜLLER, N.: Olympismus. In: RÖTHIG, P./PROHL, R. (eds.): Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon. 7th ed., Schorndorf, Hofmann, 2004, 414-416.
  27. MÜLLER,N. (red.). Fair play for all. Declaration on Fair play. Paris: International Fair Play Committee, 1991.
    OERTER, R.: Hochleistungssport unter entwicklungspsychologischer Perspektive. In: Leistungssport 12 (1982) 1, 6-12.
    OTT, K.: Ethische Ansätze. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 131-142.
  28. PATSANTARAS, N.: Trainer(in)/Training/Trainerethos. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 566-569.
  29. RICHARTZ, A.: Jugendliche Leistungssportler im Internat – typische Beziehungsmuster und ihre pädagogische Bedeutung. In: Leistungssport 28 (1998) 1, 12-17.
  30. ROSE, L.: Das Drama des begabten Mädchens. Lebensgeschichten junger Kunstturnerinnen. Weinheim – Munich 1991.
  31. WEBER, M.: Politik als Beruf. In: WINKELMANN, J. (ed.): Gesammelte politische Schriften. Tübingen 1971, 505-560.
  32. WEISCHENBERG, K.: Kindheit im modernen Kinderhochleistungssport. Untersuchungen zur alltäglichen Lebensumwelt von C- und D- Kader Athletinnen im Kunstturnen auf der Grundlage eines konkreten Kindheitsverständnisses. Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – New York – Paris – Vienna 1996.
2015-03-20T11:05:34-05:00January 6th, 2005|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on The Implementation of Ethical and Social Standards in Youth High-Performance Sport on the Basis of Olympic Ideals
Read More

High-Visibility Athletic Programs and the Prestige of Public Universities

Submitted by: Michael J. Lovaglia & Jeffrey W. Lucas

Introduction:

Why are athletic programs such a prominent part of higher education in the United States? Lately, educators have been questioning the value of a connection between high-visibility athletic programs and the academic mission of higher education (Sperber 2003). Do high-visibility athletic programs add value to a university education?

We conducted a study to test the idea that high-visibility athletic programs at major public universities can increase the prestige of their academic programs. That is, a high-visibility athletic program may increase the value of a university’s degree, increasing the prestige of its graduates in general. If so, then increased university prestige may provide an explanation for the growth of university athletic programs and their prominent role in higher education.

As the budgets for high-visibility athletic programs at major universities grow ever larger, common explanations for the increase have not been supported by empirical evidence. The competition among university athletic programs has been likened to an “arms race” as major universities strive to avoid being left behind. Why universities continue to increase their athletic budgets, however, has been difficult to explain. Research fails to support the common assumption that the substantial revenue from ticket sales, TV contracts, and apparel endorsements brought in by high-visibility athletic programs helps to support their universities. Nor has it been demonstrated that bigger athletic budgets increase alumni donations.

The NCAA commissioned a study (Litan, Orszag and Orszag 2003) to investigate the effects of increasing budgets for university athletic programs. The study found little evidence for several common explanations for increasing athletic budgets. Rather than contribute revenue to general university operations, high visibility athletic programs are revenue neutral. That is, big-time university athletic programs cost their universities about as much money as they generate. Litan, Orzag and Orzag (2003) found that an additional dollar spent on a Division I-A football or basketball program produces about the same amount of increased revenue to the university. Moreover, winning programs are no more likely to contribute net revenue to the university than are losing programs (Sheehan 2000). In addition, Litan, Orzag and Orzag (2003) found no relationship between increased budgets and alumni contributions. Shulman and Bowen (2001, p. 257) examined in detail a wide variety of athletic programs at universities and colleges. They concluded, “Whatever the other benefits of athletic programs are, or are perceived to be, the pursuit of net revenues is very difficult to accept as a justification.”

Anecdotal evidence suggests that winning athletic programs increase the number and quality of student applicants to universities. This justification for the growth in athletic budgets has been labeled the “Flutie effect” after a dramatic increase in student applications at Boston College in the years immediately following quarterback Doug Flutie’s Heisman Trophy. The spike in student applications was short-lived as applications returned to earlier levels along with the performance of the football team after Flutie’s graduation, further suggesting that the football team’s success was responsible for increased student applications. Further, increased student applications could affect academic quality by allowing universities selectively to admit better students. Thus, there could be a positive relationship between a university’s athletic success and its academic quality, at least theoretically. While Litan, Orzag and Orzag (2003) found no relationship between increased athletic expenditures and academic quality, considerable evidence supports the idea that athletic success increases student applications (Murphy and Trandel 1994, Zimbalist 1999).

We propose that students prefer universities with high-visibility athletic programs in part because they associate increased prestige with academic degrees from those schools. If so, then the prestige rank that students assign to value of academic degrees from major public universities will correspond to the visibility of the universities’ athletic programs.

PRESTIGE RANKING OF UNIVERSITIES

We asked undergraduate students in introductory classes at the University of Iowa to rank states based on the prestige of graduates from the states’ main public universities. Although to some extent a convenience sample, the wide variety of students who take introductory sociology are particularly appropriate for this study. Because they recently had to make a decision about which university to attend, it is likely that the relative prestige of various universities is more salient to them than to the average person. We do not expect that students are consciously aware of objective criteria for ranking state prestige. Rather, we created an indicator to assess the students’ general impressions of the prestige of various states with particular reference to contributions of their public university graduates to society:

“Please think about the main state university in each state. Then rank each state based on how important you feel its main state university is and how valuable the graduates of those universities are to the success of U.S. society.”

Students then examined a column of 19 states presented in alphabetical order. States were chosen to provide a range of universities from various regions and with athletic programs of varying visibility:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina

Athletics was not mentioned during the study. Rather, the study was presented as an investigation of how effectively states support higher education.

A total of 479 students ranked each state from 1 to 19 with 1 indicating the most valuable graduates and 19 the least valuable graduates. We calculated mean student rankings for each state and then used those means as one variable in a data set where each state represented one case.

RATING ATHLETIC PROGRAM VISIBILITY

Two coders familiar with university athletics rated the visibility of the athletic programs of the major university in each state on the list. The coders’ independent ratings were based on the following instructions:

Consider the main public university in each state. If a state has more than one major public university, pick the university with the most prominent athletic program. Then indicate the national visibility of that university’s athletic program using the following codes.

Rate the state university athletic program:

  1. 1 if it has a major football or basketball program familiar to most adults in the United States.
  2. 2 if it has a football or basketball program familiar to intercollegiate sports fans but not more generally.
  3. 3 if it has minimal visibility football and basketball programs.

The two coders’ ratings corresponded exactly for 14 of the 19 states. Ratings were averaged for the remaining 5 states.

OTHER STATE FACTORS THAT MIGHT AFFECT PRESTIGE

A number of state characteristics might influence the prestige of public university graduates. We gathered data from a U.S. Census Bureau website,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/, for the following variables:

  • State Population Size (natural log): States with larger populations may seem more important and have more resources to devote to higher education, potentially leading to higher university prestige.
  • State Per Capita Annual Income (in thousands of dollars): States with wealthier residents may seem more important and prestigious.
  • Mean Higher Education Level (% of state residents over age 25 with at least a bachelor’s degree): Higher education may seem more prestigious in states with more highly educated citizens.

We also included variables to control for geographical region and the order in which states were presented to participants.

PREDICTION

We predicted a positive relationship between the visibility of a state university’s athletic program and the prestige of that state university’s graduates. If high visibility athletic programs at public universities increase a state’s prestige, then the graduates of those universities should be highly ranked in terms of their importance to society.

RESULTS

Table 1 lists means and standard deviations for the variables used in the multivariate analysis.

Table 1

<th”>Variable <th”>Mean <th”>SD

Variables Used to Analyze State Prestige Rank, N = 19.
State Prestige Rank 8.63 3.99
Log State Population 15.49 .92
Income Per Capita ($1000’s) 20.79 3.14
% Highly Educated 22.63 3.93
Region

  1. Northeast (4 states)
  2. Midwest (4 states)
  3. West (5 states)
  4. South (6 states)
 2.68 1.16
Athletic Program Visibility

  1. Highly visible (9 states)
  2. Somewhat Visible (6 states)
  3. Little Visibility (4 states)
 1.63 .72
Order Presented

  1. First 6 states
  2. Middle 7 states
  3. Last 6 states
 2.00 .82

Table 2 presents the results of regression analysis with State Prestige Rank as the dependent variable.

Table 2

<th”>Variable <th”>B <th”>SE <th”>p

Regression Coefficients Predicting State Prestige Rank, N = 19.
Order Presented -3.30 .86 .002
Log State Population -2.22 .68 .007
Income Per Capita ($1000) – .30 .38 .455
% Highly Educated – .40 .25 .138
Region – .64 .70 .378
Athletic Program Visibility 2.54 .91 .016

R2 = .788
Adjusted R2 = .682

R2 was relatively high for an analysis of this type indicating that the predictor variables explain most of the variation in State Prestige Rank. A high R2 increases confidence that a missing variable is not a better predictor of State Prestige Rank than those included in the analysis.

Two of the control variables, Order Presented and Log State Population, had p-values that suggest a significant relationship with prestige. The order in which states appeared on the form presented to participants had a negative relationship with State Prestige Rank (B = -3.30). Log State Population also had a significant negative coefficient (B = -2.22) indicating that states with larger populations were ranked higher in prestige than those with smaller populations.

In support of the study’s main prediction, the coefficient for Athletic Program Visibility (B = 2.54) is positive and significant (p = .016) indicating that states with highly visible university athletic programs were rated as having university graduates who made more important contributions to society.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study supported the prediction that a high-visibility athletic program can enhance the prestige of a university’s graduates. The result is potentially important because it connects the visibility of university athletic programs to the prestige of their academic programs, a connection that has been seen as tenuous at best (Bowen and Levin 2003).

The study has limitations that should be noted. First, the prestige rankings for public universities are restricted to a sample of students at the University of Iowa. While the prestige of universities may be particularly salient to them, data from students at different universities as well as from non-students would improve confidence in the results. Second, the ranking exercise turned out to be cognitively challenging. The effect of presentation order suggests that more research is needed to determine how students went about the task. Third, several variables have too few categories to be considered properly continuous. The results, however, hold up well using alternative categorical analyses and non-parametric statistics sensitive to ranked data (available from the authors).

Why do high-visibility athletic programs enhance academic prestige? The idea seems counterintuitive. Certainly some the highest prestige universities in the United States, Harvard, Yale, and University of Chicago for example, do not emphasize their athletic programs. But it may not be the case that these high prestige institutions gain prestige from their neglect of high-visibility athletics. Rather, they may have had a historical prestige advantage that allowed them to opt out of the athletic arms race. Perhaps because of their position as elite academic institutions, they can afford not to compete athletically.

REFERENCES

  1. Bowen, W.G. and S. A. Levin. 2003. Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  2. Litan, R. E., J. M. Orszag and P. R. Orszag (2003). The Empirical Effects of Collegiate Athletics: An Interim Report. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
  3. Murphy, R. G., G. T. Trandel (1994). “The relation between a university’s football record and the size of its applicant pool.” Economics of Education Review, 13, 383-387.
  4. Shulman, J. L. and W. G. Bowen (2001). The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  5. Sperber, M. 2000. Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education. New York: Henry Holt.
  6. Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-Time College Sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2016-11-15T07:42:48-06:00January 5th, 2005|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on High-Visibility Athletic Programs and the Prestige of Public Universities
Read More
Go to Top