ISSN: 1543-9518|Vol. 24

A New Scale Measuring Coaches’ Unethical Behaviors for Comparison by Gender, Age, and Education Level of Coach

Submitted by: Semiyha Dolaşir Tuncel – Ankara University

Abstract

An effort to develop a scale measuring coaches’ unethical behaviors included two phases. In the first, factor and reliability analyses were made of potential survey items meant to gather data from athletes describing coaches’ behavior. In the second, select items were incorporated in a survey randomly administered to 221 male and female taekwondo competitors at a national competition in 2006, for comparison of behaviors by coach gender, age, and education. Behavior was not found to differ significantly by gender (n = 219, t = 1.71, p > .05), age (n = 216, t = 1.13, p > .05), or education (n = 217, t = 1.60, p > .05).

A New Scale Measuring Coaches’ Unethical Behaviors for Comparison by Gender, Age, and Education Level of Coach

In coaching, a code of ethics is a tool providing a minimum standard of conduct and behavior expected of the coach as he or she develops into a professional. Many other professions, including medicine and law, also expect members to adhere to a behavior code requiring them to do their best and maintain professional standards (Ring, 1992). Codes established for coaches provide common values and guidelines for performing one’s job.

It has been suggested that there is a sensitive relationship between physical education and moral education. Stoll (1995), who is with the University of Idaho Center for Ethical Theory and Honor in Competitive Sports, emphasized that “physical education and athletic programs could be harmonious in promoting the development of sportsmanlike behaviors, ethical decision-making skills, and a total curriculum for moral character development.” Many studies by philosophers of sport concern the relationship of moral education and competition concepts; many conclude that a completed sports education involving both competition and development of an understanding of fair play effects a moral education (i.e., an education in moral values such as honesty, equality, justice, and respect) (Bergmann, 2000; Carr, 1998; Priest, Krause, & Beach, 1999; Singleton, 2003; Spencer, 1993). Sabock (1985) argued that sports provide students an important opportunity to develop ethical behaviors including honesty and fairness. Bergmann (2000) noted a logical relationship between physical education and moral education, one based on students’ understanding of the concept of success and their acceptance of the importance of competitions. Bergmann added that, through competition, students have opportunities to compare their skills and talents to those of others, which motivates them to gain practical knowledge meeting certain standards.

As role models for athletes, coaches can help them develop fair and ethical behavior by demonstrating how these can be applied in sports. Coaches have the capacity to teach and reinforce ethical behavior by athletes and indeed are central to value development in young people, since they are role models of institutional norms (Wandzilak, 1985).

Today, however, unethical behavior exhibited in the course of coaching is decreasing respect for coaches and for sports. Too many coaches approach their duties without adequate regard for values such as honesty, objectivity, and justice. This is so despite the fact that many sports organizations and communities have published codes of ethics that coaches are expected to uphold (American National Youth Sports Coaches Association, n.d.; American Psychological Association, 1992; Australian Sports Commission, n.d.; British Institute of Sports Coaches, n.d.; Canadian Professional Coaches Association, 2003; International Coaches Federation, 2003; Sports Medicine Australia, n.d.; Sports Coach, n.d.). Figure 1 presents a summary of the standards set out by these codes of conduct, classifying them as either a responsibility of coaches or a form of respect coaches are expected to demonstrate.

Responsibility Respect
1. A coach should provide a healthy environment for competition and practice.2. A coach should always work toward personal development, in order to continuously improve his or her job performance.

3. A coach should provide the media and members of the public with correct information.

4. A coach should direct injured athletes to medical treatment and act in accord with medical professionals’ instructions and suggestions.

5. A coach should help athletes with their personal and family problems.

6. A coach’s support should extend to athletes in need, whether or not they are his or her own athletes.

7. A coach should work cooperatively with any expert who might contribute to the development of athletes.

8. A coach should inform athletes of how they should behave during media interviews.

9. A coach should not use training techniques that are harmful to athletes.

10. A coach should select equipment carefully to ensure athletes’ safety.

11. A coach should have the injured athlete’s well-being in mind when deciding whether to permit a return to competition and should never permit return ahead of complete recovery.

12. A coach should assign athletes appropriate responsibilities in order to contribute to their development.

13. A coach should take a protective stance toward athletes when it comes to harmful drugs, by informing athletes about drugs’ dangers.

14. A coach of nonprofessional athletes should schedule practice and competitions that do not interfere with athletes’ need to develop academically.

15. A coach should develop effective ways of communicating to athletes and their families their rights and responsibilities as part of the team.

16. A coach should emphasize education’s importance to athletes, as well as sports’ importance.

17. A coach should instill in athletes the idea that winning results from good team work.

18. A coach should always ensure that athletes receive an explanation of the objectives of training.

19. A coach who disciplines an athlete through punishment should not, in so doing, harm the athlete’s personality.

20. A coach should always explain for athletes the objectives of any rule that will be applied.

 1. A coach should have respect for each athlete’s being.2. A coach should avoid behavior that is likely to diminish the respect afforded him or her by the society.

3. A coach should not exaggerate his or her capabilities.

4. A coach should encourage fair play and sportsmanlike behavior.

5. A coach should keep confidential all personal information on athletes (e.g., personal problems, family problems) and all information about the coach’s job (e.g., budget, recruitment policy), unless disclosure is required by law.

6. A coach should emphasize honesty in competition.

7. A coach should respect the rules of competition.

8. A coach should respect written and unwritten rules of fair play.

9. A coach should respect decisions of referees during competitions.

10. A coach should not encourage athletes or spectators to disrespect referees.

11. A coach should always have his or her behavior under control.

12. A coach should not use negative words to criticize other coaches or organizations.

13. A coach should take responsibility in areas in which he or she feels confident.

14. A coach should not criticize athletes publicly or act to hurt them.

Figure 1. Summary of coaching behaviors mandated by various organizational codes of ethics.

When such standards are ignored, unethical coaching behaviors typically fall into four main categories, according to the United States Olympic Committee (DeSensi & Rosenberg, 1996). They are (a) offending athletes verbally or physically, (b) treating athletes inhumanely, (c) encouraging athletes’ use of performance-enhancing drugs; and (d) ignoring the athletic program’s educational goals. In its various forms, unethical behavior in coaching is becoming an important topic in the physical education literature. The present study’s purpose was to develop a valid and reliable scale measuring the extent of unethical behavior by coaches and then to test whether their unethical behavior was associated with gender, age, or educational level.

Method

Sampling and Research Design

The study collected data in 2006 from 221 competitors in a national taekwondo championship, 86 of whom were female (38.9%) and 135 of whom were male (61.1%). The majority of the sample (76.9%) were ages 17 to 23 years. The mean length of their experience in taekwondo was 7 ± 3 years. The average age at which they began high-performance training (attending training camps and national and international competitions regularly) was 8 ± 2 years.

Instruments and Data Collection

The instrument was developed in three phases. First, from a review of the codes of ethics of the American National Youth Sports Coaches Association (n.d.), American Psychological Association (1992), British Institute of Sports Coaches (n.d.), Canadian Professional Coaches Association (n.d.), International Coach Federation (n.d.), Sports Medicine Australia (n.d.), Sports Coach (n.d.), and several Olympic committees, a pool of 48 survey items was created and subsequently analyzed.

Second, with the 48 items providing a basis, an instrument was developed that used a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to assess perceived ethical or unethical nature of coaching behaviors (see Table 1). This instrument was administered to a group of 18 taekwondo coaches, taekwondo players, and faculty members or instructors knowledgeable of the sport. They read each item on the instrument and circled a response. The 18 participants unanimously assigned a score of 5 to 35 of the items, so these 35 were accepted by the researcher as describing unethical behaviors (Balci, 1993). The scale was dubbed the Coaches’ Unethical Behaviors Scale, or CUBS.

Table 1

Score Levels Reflected in 5-Point Likert-Type Scale

Choice Score Level
1 Strongly disagree 1.00–1.79
2 Disagree 1.80–2.59
3 Undecided 2.60–3.39
4 Agree 3.40–4.19
5 Strongly agree 4.20–5.00

In the third phase, the final CUBS instrument of 35 items (with 5-point Likert-type response categories) was administered to the 221 taekwondo contestants. Each item posed a scenario involving coaching behavior; respondents circled the numeral indicating how strongly they agreed that they had experienced their coaches demonstrating the unethical behavior.

Statistical Analysis

The construct validity of CUBS was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA seeks to identify a factor or factors based on relationships among variables (Kline, 1994; Stevens, 1996; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The reliability of CUBS was assessed using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and Spearman-Brown (split-half) correlation. In order to test whether coaches’ unethical behaviors change with gender, age, and educational level, a t test and one-way ANOVA analysis were applied.

Findings

Factor Structure of CUBS: Construct Validity

Results of exploratory factor analysis assessing CUBS’ validity showed 11 of the 35 items to have a factor loading below .45. These 11 were extracted, and the analysis was repeated with the remaining 24 items. Of these, 14 could be classified as pertaining to coaches’ responsibility for athletes, for rules, and for the integrity of the coaching profession; the 14 became Factor 1. The remaining 10 could be classified as forms of respect coaches are charged with upholding (for example, respect for individuals, personalities, gender, and health). These became Factor 2.

For Factor 1, factor loading ranged from .562 to .847, while for Factor 2 it ranged from .561 to .782. Factor 1 accounted for 50.34% of variance, and Factor 2 accounted for 11.31%, so together the factors accounted for 61.65% of total variance (see Table 2).

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Communalities Variance
1 .562 .466 .533
2 .589 .424 .527
3 .761 .359 .708
4 .674 .426 .635
5 .719 .352 .641
6 .641 .436 .601
7 .758 .155 .599
8 .747 .192 .594
9 .794 .328 .738
10 .833 0.61 .698
11 .811 .228 .710
12 .720 .285 .600
13 .847 .262 .786
14 .834 .281 .774
15 .777 0.46 .606
01 .211 .675 .500
02 .301 .721 .611
03 .377 .561 .456
04 .236 .667 .501
05 .131 .709 .519
06 .191 .737 .580
07 .308 .782 .706
08 0.94 .753 .576
09 .180 .752 .597

Reliability

The reliability of CUBS was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and the Spearman-Brown correlation. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicate internal consistency; for the two CUBS subscales administered to the 221 athletes, Cronbach’s alpha was .78 for Factor 1 and .77 for Factor 2. The total internal consistency for the scale was .76. The Spearman-Brown correlation yielded .98 for Factor 1 and .93 for Factor 2. Total correlation for CUBS was thus .92.

Corrected item total correlations, which ranged from .63 to .87, are shown in Table 3, along with t-test scores for the items in CUBS. Statistical significance at a level of p < .01 was attained for each item’s mean score.

Table 3

Corrected Item Total Correlations and t Scores for Items in CUBS

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 t p
1 .67 -7,122 .000
2 .70 -8,587 .000
3 .81 -9,341 .000
4 .77 -10,376 .000
5 .79 -10,645 .000
6 .76 -10,468 .000
7 .74 -9,826 .000
8 .75 -11,786 .000
9 .86 -11,590 .000
10 .78 -9,253 .000
11 .82 -12,238 .000
12 .76 -11,763 .000
13 .87 -14,444 .000
14 .86 -9,477 .000
15 .69 -11,574 .000
01 .67 -11,814 .000
02 .74 -9,108 .000
03 .63 -12,701 .000
04 .66 -10,988 .000
05 .74 -10,084 .000
06 .68 -10,174 .000
07 .74 -12,483 .000
08 .81 -11,849 .000
09 .70 -10,783 .000

Unethical Behaviors of Coaches

Using the data from the surveyed taekwondo competitors, coaches’ unethical behaviors were measured with descriptive statistics (see Table 4). As Table 4 illustrates, the athletes reported they had observed in the behavior of their coaches the 24 unethical behaviors reflected in CUBS, although the values measured for these behaviors were low. Observed unethical behavior did not, according to t-test results, appear significantly dependent on gender (n = 219, t = 1.71, p > .05), age (n = 216, t = 1.13, p > .05), or education level (n = 217, t = 1.60 p > .05).

Table 4

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Percentages for Coaches’ Unethical Behaviors as Indicated by CUBS Respondents

Unethical Behaviors M SD %
Responsibility
1. The coach does not deal honestly with athletes. 1.56 1.01 5.50
2. The coach does not inform athletes about harmful effects of drugs (drug abuse). 1.75 1.14 12.70
3. The coach does not build respectful, effective communication with athletes. 1.60 0.95 4.10
4. The coach encourages athletes’ weight loss via means that may harm their health. 1.75 1.02 7.30
5. The coach does not provide athletes necessary information about training. 1.61 0.98 7.70
6. The coach does not continuously improve his or her professional knowledge and skills. 1.72 1.16 10.90
7. The coach does not care about honesty in competition. 1.80 1.17 10.40
8. The coach does not know the legal regulations relevant to his or her sport. 1.53 1.00 5.00
9. The coach does not have sufficient knowledge of training science. 1.73 1.16 13.6
10. The coach abuses his or her authority as a coach. 1.61 0.99 6.80
11. The coach is not honest about the finances of competition. 1.62 1.04 5.90
12. The coach does not prepare effective training programs reflecting athletes’ ability levels. 1.84 1.11 7.20
13. The coach does not evaluate athletes’ performances as they reflect established goals. 1.66 1.00 5.90
14. The coach does not provide athletes with feedback about their performances. 1.68 0.99 7.20
Respect
1. The coach does not treat athletes respectfully. 1.39 0.95 5.90
2. The coach discriminates among athletes based on gender, religion, or language. 1.44 0.82 3.20
3. The coach curses or uses street language. 1.41 0.77 9.00
4. The coach does not respect the being of the athletes. 1.42 0.76 3.60
5. The coach is not careful to avoid harming athletes’ personalities when using punishment to discipline them. 1.56 0.89 5.50
6. The coach causes athletes physical harm in the course of using punishment to discipline them. 1.61 0.95 7.70
7. The coach discriminates among athletes based on reasons other than individual merit. 1.97 1.22 15.00
8. The coach degrades athletes with insults. 1.52 0.87 6.40
9. The coach becomes publicly angry and displays violence after a defeat in competition. 1.62 1.02 8.60
10. The coach does not respect rules and referees. 1.67 1.04 6.80

Discussion and Results

The present study’s purpose was to develop a valid and reliable scale measuring the extent of unethical behavior by coaches and then to test whether their unethical behavior was associated with gender, age, or educational level. CUBS is such a scale, according to the results of factor and reliability analysis (Kline, 1994; Stevens, 1996; Tabachick & Fidell, 2001).

Data obtained with CUBS were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis that suggested the three most frequent unethical behaviors in coaching are discrimination among athletes based on reasons other than individual merit; lack of technical knowledge; and failure to offer athletes facts about harmful drug use. Coaches’ unethical behaviors did not change to a significant degree with changes in gender, age, or education level, according to ANOVA and t-test results.

Addressing ethical issues is becoming a standard part of a coach’s duties. Increasingly, sports coaches must be able to teach and model fair play, respect for officials, paramount concern for athletes’ well-being (rather than the win-loss record), and the wise and legitimate use of power. At the same time, they must steer athletes away from harmful drug use, cheating, bullying, harassment, and eating disorders. The coach’s position on these issues, reflected in his or her coaching behaviors, has enormous impact on athletes, shaping their enjoyment of sports, their attitudes toward their peers in a sport, their self-esteem, and their continued involvement in sports.

The sports ethicist’s basic goal is to see individuals in sports accept a pertinent ethical code (Wuest & Bucher, 1987) and embody that code in their behavior patterns. The aim for the profession of coaching is each coach’s acceptance of an ethical code for his or her sport, exhibited in daily behavior. A scale like CUBS can not only indicate the level of unethical behaviors coaches engage in, it can point the way to the most urgently needed additions to coach education and development programs.

Knowledge and skills are vital to a profession, but appropriate attitudes and behaviors—professional ethics—are just as important. Professional ethics involve written codes containing rules tailored to specific professions and founded in general moral values like honesty, equality, justice, and respect (Fain, 1992; Pritchard, 1998). Unlike in the past, a workforce today is likely to include people of various races, ages, religions, educational levels, and socioeconomic statuses. They are likely to possess divergent values (Lankard, 1991; Frederick, Post, & Davis, 1988). Inculcating a set of professional ethics ensures that, although they are very different people, members of a profession together espouse common standards and rules designed to protect both themselves and the people they serve. The changing nature of the business world has increased the need for professional ethics, the most important characteristic of which is the need for systems, structures, and management that can secure compliance.

A common understanding of sports is that they consist of various activities people pursue that lead to competition (Penney & Chandler, 2000). In fact, sports is a multidimensional phenomenon. It involves social structures (an indispensable part of human life), and it is based on long-established ethical and value systems (Whitehead, 1998). A number of sports organizations want to see the essential ethical nature of sports brought home to spectators and the society by developing athletes’ and coaches’ ethics (Wuest & Bucher, 1987).

Concern for ethics (or the lack of concern) will have an important role in how sports continues to develop; much of the related work will fall to coaches, who are expected to do their jobs honestly, objectively, openly, and with respect and a sense of justice, tying their work to universal values and principles (Wuest & Bucher, 1999). Coaches who may be held responsible for demonstrating ethical behaviors need, first of all, to understand their sports’ particular ethical codes.

The present study was the very first research conducted in Turkey into unethical behaviors exhibited in coaching. Moreover, to date the literature worldwide has offered few studies on coaches’ unethical behaviors. For this reason, further research employing various designs, with various samples, is likely to contribute to understanding of the topic.

References

American National Youth Sports Coaches Association. (n.d.). Coaches’ code of ethics. Retrieved March 22, 2004, from http://www.nays.org

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.

American Psychologist, 47(12), 1597–1611.

Australian Sports Commission (n.d.). Ethics in sports: Code of behavior. Retrieved August 31, 2007, from http://www.ausport.gov.au/ethics

Balci, A. (1993). Research in social science: Method, technique and principles. Ankara: Öncü.
Bergmann, D. S. (2000). The logical connection between moral education and physical education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(4), 561–573.

British Institute of Sports Coaches. (n.d.). Code of ethics and conduct for sport coaches. Retrieved April 26, 2002, from http://www.brianmac.co.uk/ethics.htm

Canadian Professional Coaches Association (n.d.). Coaches of Canada coaching code of ethics: Principles and ethical standards. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from http://coach.ca/eng/certification/documents/REP_CodeofEthics_01042006.pdf

Carr, D. (1998). What moral educational significance has physical education? A question in need of disambiguation. In M. J. McNamee & S. J. Parry (Eds.), Ethics and sport (pp. 119–133). London: E & FN Spon.

DeSensi, J. T., & Rosenberg, D. (1996). Ethics in sports management. Morgantown, WV: Fıtness Information Technology.

Fain, G. S. (1992). Ethics in health, physical education, recreation and dance. (Report No. ED342775 1992-04-00). Washington, DC: ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED342775)

International Coach Federation (n.d.). The ICF code of ethics. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.coachfederation.org/ICF/For+Current+Members/Ethical+Guidelines/

Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.

Lankard, B. A. (1991). Resolving ethical dilemmas in the workplace: A new focus for career development. (Report No. ED334468 1991-00-00). Washington, DC: ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED334468)

Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2000). Physical education: What future(s)? Sport, Education and Society, 5(1), 71–87.

Priest, R. F., Krause, J. V., & Beach, J. (1999). Four-year changes in college athletes: Ethical value choices in sports situations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 170–178.

Ring, J. J. (1992). An alliance to excellence: To preserve medical professionalism. Vital Speeches of the Day, 58(12), 367–368.

Sabock, R. (1985). Coach (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Singleton, E. C. (2003). Rules? relationships?: A feminist analysis of competition and fair play in physical education. Quest, 55, 495–209.

Spencer, A. F. (1996). Ethics in physical education and sport education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(7), 37­–39.

Sports Medicine Australia. (n.d.). Sports Medicine Australia sports first-aider/sports trainer code of ethics. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from http://www.sma.org.au/sportstrainers/ethics.asp

Stevens, J. P. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stoll, S. K. (1995). Should we teach morality?: The issue of moral education. In A. E. Jewett, L. L.

Bain, & C. D. Ennis (Eds.), The curriculum process in physical education (2nd ed.), 334.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sports Coach (n.d.). Code of ethics and conduct for sports coaches. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from http://www.brianmac.co.uk/ethics.htm

Wandzilak, T. (1985). Values development through physical education and athletics. Quest, 37, 176–185.

Whitehead, M. E. (1998). Sport ethics and education. Sport, Education and Society, 3(2), 239–241.

Frederick, W. C., Post, J. E., & Davis, K. (1988). Business and society: Corporate strategy, public policy, ethics (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.

Wuest, D. A., & Bucher, C. A. (1986). Foundations of physical education and sport (10th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Wuest, D. A., & Bucher, C. A. (Eds.). (1999). Foundations of physical education and sport (13th ed.). New York: WCB/McGraw-Hill.

2017-08-07T11:39:17-05:00January 8th, 2009|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on A New Scale Measuring Coaches’ Unethical Behaviors for Comparison by Gender, Age, and Education Level of Coach
Read More

Sports Tourism in Cyprus: A Study of International Visitors

Submitted by: Nicos L. Kartakoullis, Stavros Pouloukas and Christina Loizou – University of Nicosia, George Karlis – University of Ottawa and Thanos Kriemadis – University of the Peloponnese

Abstract

A decline in the number of tourists visiting Cyprus from 2000 to 2007 prompted the Cyprus Tourism Organization to examine sports tourism as a means of appealing to international visitors. Face-to-face interviews were conducted at airports in the cities of Larnaca and Pafos with 802 international tourists departing Cyprus. The respondents were surveyed about their experiences with three types of sports tourism in Cyprus: competitive (elite- and amateur-level athletic training or other preparation as well as competition), recreation (competition without trophy rewards), and leisure (sports-related play or pastimes). Statistical analysis showed most respondents had engaged in swimming, water sports, or other leisure-type sports tourism, with minimal numbers participating in the other two types.

Sports Tourism in Cyprus: A Study of International Visitors

In industrial nations, sports tourism contributes 1% to 2% of gross national product, while the contribution of tourism in general is 4% to 6% (Hudson, 2003). In the United States, the Travel Industry Association (TIA) reports that the crisis in tourism following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and elsewhere did not extend to sports tourism; the number of sports tourists remained steady (Neirotti, 2005). Although sports tourism has been an emerging trend in the tourism industry only since the mid-1990s (Gibson, 1998; Hinch, Jackson, Hudson, & Walker, 2005), it seems to be one form of tourism not marked by decline during difficult times (Karlis, 2006).

The nation of Cyprus has traditionally relied on the sun and sea in marketing its tourism industry. But a recent steady decrease in tourism in Cyprus (during 2000–2007, visits fell from 2,434,285 to 2,416,086) has the Cyprus Tourism Organization (CTO) considering new approaches to selling its tourism product. A focus on sports tourism is one approach being weighed.

In 2003 the CTO adopted a tourism development plan, and accompanying strategy for implementation, with 2010 as the target date. The plan identified competitive and recreational sports as likely contributors to the achievement of its five objectives: (a) increasing per-tourist expenditure, (b) improving winter season tourism, (c) extending tourists’ stays in Cyprus, (d) increasing repeat visits, and (e) increasing the number of tourist arrivals in Cyprus. The CTO’s plan called specifically for the development of sports services and sports-related human resources and for the organization of sports events.

Research by Papanikos (2002) indicates that countries interested in expanding sports tourism must carefully consider how to go about that task. Building new facilities is not necessarily the right approach to establish a sports tourism market, and Papanikos advises officials like those in Cyprus to pursue extensive research before investing in the sports tourism industry (2002). Thus the CTO, prior to creating its 2010 plan, completed a SWOT analysis—an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats characterizing an enterprise—to evaluate sports tourism’s appropriateness as a major pillar of the strategic plan for tourism in Cyprus (Kartakoullis & Karlis, 2002). The analysis by Kartakoullis and Karlis (2002) indicated that potential existed for developing sports tourism in Cyprus. Strengths and opportunities were plentiful, and the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece, would provide a means to educate the international community about Cyprus’s sports tourism potential. The analysis also noted, however, that positioning Cyprus as a sports tourism destination would demand the collaboration of the nation’s tourism and sports industries and experts, given certain internal weaknesses such as lack of existing expertise in sports tourism. Organizations assuming a role in developing sports tourism in Cyprus would be able to administer services effectively only if proper strategic management were provided.

Kartakoullis and Karlis’s SWOT analysis (2002) was the initial study concerning sports tourism in Cyprus. It argued that Cyprus has all the necessary elements of a sports tourism destination, and it comprised a first guide for the CTO and the national government, as well as interested private tourism and sports groups. None of these players had a formal policy on sports tourism, and all were likely to be needed to administer future sports tourism services. A series of issues was identified that the three players would need to consider. The present study grew from those identified issues and represents expanded research on sports tourism’s potential in Cyprus, as called for by Kartakoullis and Karlis.

To suit the present study’s purpose, the definition of sports tourism offered by Gibson, Attle, and Yiannakis (1997)—namely, that sports tourism is travel undertaken in order to participate in recreational or competitive sports—was expanded. A third type of sports tourism, leisure sports tourism, was added. Sports tourism here, then, refers to travel for reasons related to (a) elite or amateur athletic competition, training, or other related preparation; (b) recreation sports, defined as participation in competitive sports without trophy rewards; or (c) leisure sports, defined as play or pastimes involving a sports activity. The study examined the sports tourism experiences of all three types that international visitors to Cyprus self-reported during interviews. Specific objectives of the study were to assess the purposes of tourist visits to Cyprus; to identify sports activities in which tourists participate while in Cyprus; and to explore tourists’ intentions concerning future sports tourism visits to Cyprus.

Procedures

To begin the study, we obtained from the Department of Civil Aviation in Cyprus a list of July and August 2005 departures from the country’s two main international airports, which are in the cities of Larnaca and Pafos. The destinations of the departing flights included the United Kingdom, countries in western Europe, countries in eastern Europe, countries in the Middle East, and other destinations. The four regions and catchall category (other destinations) supplied categories used to ensure that a representative sample of departing tourists would be interviewed. Using the list of departures from the two airports, we prepared a timetable for data collection, covering all destination categories at various times of the day and night.

Keeping to this timetable, a team of trained interviewers conducted 489 face-to-face interviews in Larnaca and 313 in Pafos. An interview lasted approximately 5–10 minutes as the respondent prepared to take a departing flight. The interviewers asked participants a series of quantitative questions, including basic demographic questions as well as questions about the current trip to Cyprus. Respondents were asked about (a) the purpose of their travel to Cyprus, (b) any sports activities they participated in while in Cyprus, and (c) whether their intention was to visit Cyprus again for sports-related purposes. The questionnaire was designed to generate basic descriptive statistics in the form of frequency counts and percentages.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Males comprised a slight majority of respondents, 51% (n = 407); females comprised 49% (n = 395). The occupational status of the majority of the respondents—65% , or 511 respondents—was white-collar professional or white-collar personnel (see Table 1). British tourists have long been a mainstay of Cyprus’s hospitality industry. In this study, respondents from the United Kingdom, at 62.5% of the sample, characteristically outnumbered those from other nations. German tourists were next most numerous, comprising 8.6% (see Table 2).

Table 1

Respondents’ Occupation Status, Most Represented to Least Represented

Occupation Status Number of respondents indicating this status Percentage of respondents indicating this status
White-collar personnel 374 47
White-collar professional 142 18
Blue-collar worker 139 17
Student 81 10
Retired 35 4
Homemaker 31 4

Table 2

Respondents’ Country of Residence, Most Represented to Least Represented

Country Number of respondents (N = 802) Percentage of all respondents
United Kingdom 501 62.5
Germany 69 8.6
Sweden 48 6.0
Norway 42 5.2
Ireland 27 3.4
Greece 19 2.4
Netherlands 17 2.1
Switzerland 13 1.6
Israel 11 1.4
Denmark 10 1.2
Hungary 9 1.1
Russia 9 1.1
Belarus 3 0.4
Austria 2 0.2
Bahrain 2 0.2
Canada 2 0.2
Hong Kong 2 0.2
Iran 2 0.2
Japan 2 0.2
Jordan 2 0.2
Oman 2 0.2
United States 2 0.2
Other countries 6 0.7

Current Trip to Cyprus

The largest percentages of tourists interviewed for the study had secured accommodations (for the main part of their current stay in Cyprus) in the tourist destinations Pafos (sometimes spelled Paphos) (39%) and Ammohostos (38%) (see Table 3). The next most popular sites for accommodations were Limassol (sometimes called Lemesos) (11%) and Larnaca (9%). Three percent of those interviewed had stayed mainly in the capital city of Nicosia, which, while it is a business center, is not widely considered a place for tourists (see Table 3). Fully half of the respondents had stayed 6 to 10 days in Cyprus; another 29% had spent 11 to 15 days on the island (see Table 4).

Table 3

Site of Respondents’ Main Accommodations in Cyprus, Most to Least Popular

City Number of respondents (N = 802) with accommodations in city Percentage of respondents with accommodations in city
Pafos (Paphos) 312 39.0
Ammohostos 306 38.0
Limassol (Lemesos) 92 11.0
Larnaca 71 9.0
Nicosia 21 3.0

Table 4

Duration of Respondents’ Visits to Cyprus, in Days

Days Number of respondents (N = 802) Percentage of respondents
1-5 126 16.0
6-10 398 50.0
11-15 232 29.0
More than 15 46 6.0

The respondents were asked the reason for their current travel to Cyprus and were allowed to offer more than one reason. Including the multiple responses, 864 reasons for visiting Cyprus were recorded for the 802 respondents (see Table 5). The most common reason was tourism/recreation; 87.8%, or 704 respondents, said they traveled to Cyprus for that purpose (see Table 5). A reason involving sports tourism specifically was given by 16 respondents, or 2.0%. (The breakdown by type of sports tourism was as follows: recreation sports tourism, 1.2%, and competition sports tourism, 0.8%, with 0.4% of the latter representing preparation for competition and 0.4% representing actual participation in competition.)

Of the 16 respondents who traveled to Cyprus for sports tourism purposes, 13 were male and 3 were female (see Table 6). The largest percentage of people visiting Cyprus in order to pursue sports-related activities were aged 20–29 years; the next largest group of sports tourists were aged 60 or more. All respondents indicating they had visited Cyprus for sports tourism purposes were from western Europe (see Table 8). Those who came because of sports competitions stayed in Cyprus 11–15 days, whilst those who came to prepare for competition spent 6–10 days (see Table 8).

Table 5

Purpose of Respondents’ Current Travel to Cyprus, Most to Least Common (Sports-Related Purposes Shaded)

Number of respondents stating this purpose Percentage of all respondents
Tourism/recreation 704 87.8
Business 72 9.0
Visiting relatives 32 4.0
Attending a wedding 20 2.5
Visiting friends 18 2.2
Recreation sports tourism 10 1.2%
Competition sports tourism—actual competition 3 0.4%
Competition sports tourism—preparation 3 0.4%
Attending a funeral 1 0.1%
Honeymooning 1 0.1%

Note.Because respondents were not limited to a single purpose for travel, 864 responses were recorded for the interview item on purpose of travel. To obtain the percentages in the column headed “Percentage of all respondents,” the number of respondents stating a particular purpose (middle column) was divided by 802 (the sample size). The right-hand column entries total 107.7% (= 864/802). For the same reason, entries in the middle column of Tables 6-13 do not equal 802 and entries in the tables’ right-hand columns do not equal 100%.

Table 6

Purpose of Respondents’ Current Travel to Cyprus, by Gender

Male Female
Number of male respondents stating this purpose (n = 407) Percentage of male respondents stating this purpose Number of female respondents stating this purpose Percentage of female respondents stating this purpose
Tourism/recreation 354 87.0 350 88.6
Business 52 12.8 20 5.1
Visiting relatives 14 3.4 18 4.6
Attending a wedding 10 2.5 10 2.5
Visiting friends 5 1.2 13 3.3
Recreation sports tourism 8 2.0 2 0.5
Competition sports tourism—actual competition 2 0.5 1 0.3
Competition sports tourism—preparation 3 0.7 0 0.0
Attending a funeral 0 0.0 1 0.3
Honeymooning 1 0.2 0 0.0

Note. See note for Table 5.

Table 7

Purpose of Respondents’ Current Travel, by Age (in Years), as Percentage of Respondents in Each Age Group n

Percentage of those < 20 years old (n = 43) stating this purpose Percentage of those 20–29 years old (n = 210) stating this purpose Percentage of those 30–39 years old (n = 233) stating this purpose Percentage of those years old 40–49 (n = 168) stating this purpose Percentage of those years old 50–59 (n = 96) stating this purpose Percentage of those > 60 years old (n = 52) stating this purpose
Tourism/recreation 90.7 88.1 88.4 83.9 89.6 90.4
Business 2.3 12.4 8.2 11.3 5.2 3.8
Visiting relatives 7.0 1.9 2.6 6.5 5.2 5.8
Attending a wedding 0.0 1.9 5.6 0.6 2.1 0.0
Visiting friends 0.0 1.9 2.1 3.6 1.0 3.8
Recreation sports 0.0 2.4 1.3 0.0 1.0 1.9
Competition sports tourism—actual competition 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Competition sports tourism—preparation 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Attending a funeral 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Honeymooning 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 8

Purpose of Respondents’ Travel, by Country of Residence, as Percentage of n

Percent of those from the United Kingdom (n = 501) stating this purpose Percent of those from Western Europe (n = 249) stating this purpose Percent of those from Eastern Europe (n = 23) stating this purpose Percent of those from the Middle East (n = 19) stating this purpose Percent of those from other countries (n = 10) stating this purpose
Tourism/recreation 86.45 92.0 95.7 68.4 70
Business 8.6 7.6 8.7 21.1 40
Visiting relatives 4.4 2.8 4.3 5.3 10
Attending a wedding 3.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Visiting friends 3.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0
Recreation sports 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Competition sports tourism—actual competition 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Competition sports tourism—preparation 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Attending a funeral 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Honeymooning 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note. See note for Table 5.

Respondents’ Sports Activities While Visiting Cyprus

Most respondents (85.8%, or 688 individuals) indicated they had participated in some type of sports experience during their visit to Cyprus (see Table 9); 114 respondents said they did not participate in any type of sports in Cyprus (14.2%). Swimming was most widely participated in (by 82.9%, or 665 respondents), followed by water sports (24.7%, or 198 respondents), and soccer (7.2%, or 58 respondents). For males and females alike, swimming and water sports were the top two sports pursued. In the subsample of females, however, it was beach volleyball rather than soccer that was the third most popular sports activity.

Visitors from the United Kingdom and western Europe tended to participate more in sports activities while in Cyprus than did visitors from eastern Europe or the Middle East (see Table 11). Visitors who stayed mainly in Ammohostos and Pafos were most likely to have participated in sports during their time in Cyprus; those staying in Nicosia were least likely to have (see Table 12). Finally, those respondents staying in Cyprus for more than six days showed the highest rate of sports participation during a visit (see Table 13).

Table 9

Sports the Respondents Participated in While in Cyprus, Most to Least Commonly

Number of respondents stating this sport Percentage of respondents stating this sport
Swimming 665 82.9
Water sports 198 24.7
No sports activity 114 14.2
Soccer 58 7.2
Cycling 56 7.0
Beach volleyball 52 6.5
Tennis 51 6.4
Orienteering 34 4.2
Golf 12 1.5
Jogging 10 1.2
Gymnastics 6 0.7
Aerobic exercise 4 0.5
Fishing 3 0.4
Bungee jumping 2 0.2
Equestrian sports 2 0.2
Miniature golf 2 0.2
Parachuting 2 0.2
Bowling 1 0.1
Go-Karting 1 0.1
Diving 1 0.1
Judo 1 0.1
Karate 1 0.1
Table Tennis 1 0.1

Note. See note for Table 5.

Table 10

Sports the Respondents Participated in While in Cyprus, by Gender, as a Percentage

Percentage of males stating this sport Percentage of females stating this sport
Swimming 80.8 85.1
Water sports 27.5 21.8
No sports activity 14.7 13.7
Soccer 13.8 0.5
Cycling 8.4 5.6
Beach volleyball 4.2 8.9
Tennis 7.9 4.8
Orienteering 3.9 4.6
Golf 2.5 0.5
Jogging 1.5 1.0
Gymnastics 0.7 0.8
Aerobic exercise 0.0 1.0
Fishing 0.5 0.3
Bungee jumping 0.2 0.3
Equestrian sports 0.0 0.5
Miniature golf 0.2 0.3
Parachuting 0.0 0.5
Bowling 0.0 0.3
Go-Karting 0.2 0.0
Diving 0.2 0.0
Judo 0.2 0.0
Karate 0.2 0.0
Table Tennis 0.2 0.0

Note. See note for Table 5.

Table 11

Sports the Respondents Participated in While in Cyprus, by Country of Residence, as a Percentage

Percentage of visitors from United Kingdom stating this sport Percentage of visitors from Western Europe stating this sport Percentage of visitors from Eastern Europe stating this sport Percentage of visitors from Middle East stating this sport Percentage of visitors from other countries stating this sport
Swimming 82.2 84.3 82.6 73.7 100.0
Water sports 26.7 22.1 21.7 21.1 0.0
No sports activity 15.0 12.4 17.4 21.1 0.0
Soccer 9.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycling 8.6 4.8 4.3 0.0 0.0
Beach volleyball 8.4 3.6 4.3 0.0 0.0
Tennis 5.6 8.4 0.0 10.5 0.0
Orienteering 5.2 2.4 0.0 5.3 10.0
Golf 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Jogging 0.8 2.0 0.0 5.3 0.0
Gymnastics 0.8 0.4 0.0 5.3 0.0
Aerobic exercise 0.2 0.8 4.3 0.0 0.0
Fishing 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bungee jumping 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equestrian sports 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miniature golf 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parachuting 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bowling 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Go-Karting 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diving 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Judo 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Karate 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table Tennis 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note. See note for Table 5.

Table 12

Sports Participated in While in Cyprus, by Site of Main Accommodations, as a Percentage

Percentage of visitors to Pafos stating this sport Percentage of visitors to Ammohostos stating this sport Percentage of visitors to Limassol stating this sport Percentage of visitors to Larnaca stating this sport Percentage of visitors to Nicosia stating this sport
Swimming 81.1 90.5 76.1 77.5 47.6
Water sports 21.2 30.1 25.0 21.1 9.5
No sports activity 14.1 8.8 21.7 19.7 42.9
Soccer 12.5 3.6 4.3 4.2 4.8
Cycling 13.5 1.3 5.4 7.0 0.0
Beach volleyball 11.5 2.6 8.7 0.0 0.0
Tennis 9.9 3.6 5.4 4.2 4.8
Orienteering 5.8 3.6 1.1 5.6 0.0
Golf 2.6 0.3 1.1 1.4 4.8
Jogging 1.0 2.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Gymnastics 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.4 4.8
Aerobic exercise 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.0
Fishing 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0
Bungee jumping 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equestrian sports 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0
Miniature golf 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parachuting 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bowling 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0
Go-Karting 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Diving 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Judo 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Karate 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Table Tennis 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note. See note for Table 5.

Table 13

Respondents’ Participation in Sport Activities by Duration of Stay (in Days), as a Percentage

Percentage of visitors staying 1–5 days stating this sport Percentage of visitors staying 6–10 days stating this sport Percentage of visitors staying 11–15 days stating this sport Percentage of visitors staying more than 15 days stating this sport
Swimming 69.8 86.4 84.1 82.6
Water sports 17.5 23.6 30.6 23.9
No sports activity 28.6 11.3 11.6 13.0
Soccer 11.1 7.5 4.7 6.5
Cycling 4.8 8.8 4.7 8.7
Beach volleyball 10.3 7.8 3.4 0.0
Tennis 4.8 6.8 7.3 2.2
Orienteering 4.8 4.0 3.0 10.9
Golf 2.4 1.8 0.9 0.0
Jogging 0.8 1.5 1.3 0.0
Gymnastics 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.0
Aerobic exercise 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.0
Fishing 0.0 0.3 0.4 2.2
Bungee jumping 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0
Equestrian sports 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0
Miniature golf 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0
Parachuting 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Bowling 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Go-Karting 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Diving 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
Judo 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Karate 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Table Tennis 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note. See note for Table 5.

Intention to Visit Cyprus Again to Participate in Sports Tourism

The respondents were asked during their interviews whether it was their intent to visit Cyprus again in order to participate in sports tourism; 87% said they did intend to do so, and 13% indicated they had no intention of returning to Cyprus to participate in sports activity at any future time.

Discussion

A major limitation of the study was that data were collected only during the summer months. Data collected in the winter season might generate different results, because Cyprus also features mountainous regions, like Troodos, where winter sports like cross-country and alpine skiing, snowboarding, and snowshoeing are available. Conducting a similar airport-interview study during the winter months would be interesting.

In any case, the summer study results indicate that few sports tourists come to Cyprus to pursue either the competition (whether actual competition or training or preparation for competition) or recreation types of sports. And it certainly is no surprise that most sports tourists in Cyprus are leisure sports tourists. The climate and the beaches of Cyprus provide ample opportunities to pursue leisure swimming and water sports, and these were indeed the sports activities most widely pursued by the respondents in our study.

The study generated information that may be useful for the further development of sports tourism in Cyprus. For example, the data show that sports tourists tend to come to Cyprus from the United Kingdom and western Europe. As Weed and Bull have suggested (2004), the proximity of Europe to Cyprus should support growth in sports tourism by Europeans in Cyprus. The CTO’s sports tourism marketing strategies in Europe, then, might promote Cyprus as a sports tourism destination. (The marketing strategies for eastern Europe and the Middle East might follow suit.)

Particular CTO campaigns targeting Europe and other regions should address the fact (supported by our data) that many who visit Cyprus engage in leisure sports activities rather than competitive or recreation ones. More competitive and recreation sports tourists might be drawn to the country if its resources for competitive and recreation sports tourism were actively marketed. The experience of the United Kingdom’s Olympic team, which trained in Cyprus prior to the Athens Games, offers a starting place. After the Games had concluded, the British Olympic performance manager, Richard Simmons, commented that “We made the right decision to choose Cyprus as not just our training base for the Athens Olympic Games but also our warm weather training centre of operations for at least the next ten years. Cyprus now offers great training facilities for a huge range of sports, and is blessed with wonderful weather and a superb environment. Athletes and coaches from whatever the sport and whatever level could not choose a better place” (Simmons, 2005).

The benefits of a plan to build sports tourism in Cyprus would extend to the nation’s citizens as well as tourists (Hall, 2000). Whether or not new sports facilities are part of it, such a plan can be expected to point the way to development of local economies as well as to citizens’ increased use of improved sports services and available facilities. Our data show that most respondents say they would return to Cyprus specifically for sports tourism experiences. There is, then, potential for Cyprus to become a sports tourism destination, enjoying the financial impact such tourism can bring. The Cyprus Tourism Organization might consider moving in a direction that develops and broadens Cyprus’s sports tourism role.

References

Cyprus Tourism Organization. (2003). Tourism development strategy and implementation plan: 2003–2010. (Available from the Cyprus Tourism Organisation, Lemesou Ave. 19, P. O. Box 24535, CY 1390, Lefkosia, Cyprus)

Cyprus Tourism Organization. (2007). Annual report 2007. (Available from the Cyprus Tourism Organisation, Lemesou Ave. 19, P. O. Box 24535, CY 1390, Lefkosia, Cyprus)

Gibson, H. (1998). Sport tourism: A critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1(1): 45–76.

Gibson, H. J., Attle, S., & Yiannakis, A. (1997). Segmenting the active tourist market: A life span perspective. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4(1): 52–64.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning. New York: Prentice Hall.

Hinch, T., Jackson, E. L., Hudson, S., & Walker, G. (2005). Leisure constraint theory and sport tourism. Sport in Society, 8(2): 142–163.

Hudson, S. (2003). Sport and adventure tourism. New York: Haworth Press.

Karlis, G. (2006, September). Assessing the needs of “sport volunteer tourists” at the Olympic Games: Implications for administrators of mega sport events. Keynote address presented at the 14th congress of the European Association for Sport Management, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Kartakoullis, N. L., & Karlis, G. (2002). Developing Cyprus as a sport tourism destination: The results of a SWOT analysis. Journal of Sport Tourism, 7(4): 1–16.

Neirotti, L. D. (2005). Sport tourism markets. In J. E. S. Higham (Ed.), Sport tourism destinations: Issues, opportunities and analysis (pp. 1–16). Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK: Elsevier.

Papanikos, G. (2002, May). Tourism in Greece. Paper presented at the meeting of the OKE (Economic and Social Council of Greece), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Simmons, R. (2005, February). Choosing a pre–Olympic Games training destination. Paper presented at the meeting of the Cyprus Tourism Organization, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Weed, M., & Bull C. (2004). Sports tourism: Participants, policy and providers. New York: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

2016-10-12T14:57:35-05:00January 8th, 2009|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Sports Tourism in Cyprus: A Study of International Visitors
Read More

Characteristics Contributing to the Success of a Sports Coach

Submitted by: Jefrey L. Frost – United States Sports Academy

Abstract

Identifying particular characteristics (qualities and abilities) of successful sports coaches could offer other coaches help in improving their performance. Toward this end, 15 high school coaches completed a survey on 17 possible such characteristics, ranking 5 of them above the rest (≥ 90th percentile): quality of practice, communicating with athletes, motivating athletes, developing athletes’ sports skills, and possessing knowledge of the sport. Coaches seeking to enhance their success might focus on these characteristics.

(more…)

2016-09-30T08:25:51-05:00January 7th, 2009|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science|Comments Off on Characteristics Contributing to the Success of a Sports Coach
Read More

Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions

Submitted by: Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen – Ball State University

Abstract

Strength of religious faith of athletes and nonathletes attending (a) a religiously practicing institution (RPI) and (b) a non–religiously practicing (NRPI) institution in NCAA’s Division III was studied using the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA sought differences in strength of faith of RPI students (n = 201) versus NRPI students (n = 174). Results show RPI students displayed stronger faith than NRPI students, F(1, 367) = 25.44, p < .01. A significant interaction showed RPI nonathletes more faithful than RPI athletes, F(1, 367) = 6.73, p < .05; NRPI athletes did not differ significantly from NRPI nonathletes. Women’s faith was stronger than men’s, F(1, 367) = 12.99, p < .01.

Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions

An increase in research examining the purpose of religion in the lives of intercollegiate athletes has occurred in recent years (Balague, 1999; Storch & Storch, 2002a; Storch & Storch, 2002b; Storch, Storch, & Adams, 2002; Storch, Storch, Kovacs, Okun, & Welsh, 2003). Religion can be an important aspect in athletes’ lives and may serve a protective function against psychological distress and maladaptive behaviors such as substance use or aggression (Storch, Roberti, Bravata, & Storch, 2004). Viewers of sporting events can frequently observe athletes pointing to the sky, engaging in team prayer on the court or field, and glorifying God following athletic competitions.

Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, & Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance. First, athletes may identify with religious beliefs for direction and humility. Second, athletes may turn to religion to gain a sense of optimism and security, benefiting from such beliefs following a disappointing athletic performance. Third, religion can be used for emotional and psychological support in stressful circumstances like the uncertainty of athletic competition, which can cause athletes an overwhelming amount of anxiety. Religious beliefs can offer the internal strength to persevere through the stress. Fourth, religion “provides a cognitive framework conducive to the relief of anxiety associated with competition” (Storch et al., 2001, p. 347). This framework allows relief from fear and anxiety on the basis of the athlete’s understanding (i.e., belief) that a supreme being is in complete control of the situation. For example, athletes may rely on religious faith to place a poor athletic performance in perspective.

Although research investigating the impact of religion within sports has recently increased, an abundance of such literature does not yet exist. Studies that are currently available of religion’s impact on the lives of students, in particular, have focused on athletes and nonathletes at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I institutions (Fischer, 1997; Storch et al., 2001; Storch et al., 2004). There is a significant shortage of literature assessing religiosity in athletes in other collegiate settings, for example at institutions in the NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), or National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA). An athlete’s experience in any of these unique university environments may have a significant effect on his or her athletic, academic, and social development. In examining students at NCAA Division III institutions, the present study addressed this shortage. In addition, it is the first published investigation comparing the level of religious faith of athletes and nonathletes attending a religiously practicing institution (RPI). Given religion’s importance to the lives of many athletes (Balague, 1999), a need existed to investigate the impact of religion on students attending an NCAA Division III RPI and an NCAA Division III non–religiously practicing institution (NRPI).

The study’s purpose was to assess and compare the strength of religious faith characterizing athletes and nonathletes at an institution of each type. Acknowledging the impact of religious faith may help coaches understand athletes and may help clinicians and sports consultants develop appropriate interventions for athletes who are religious. For example, psychological interventions designed for sports, for example relaxation and visualization techniques, may make some religious athletes uncomfortable, if such psychological methods create a feeling of dissonance with the athletes’ religious creeds. Furthermore, knowledge of the role of religion in an athlete’s life can enhance the athlete-sports consultant relationship, as well as facilitate communication between the athlete and coach (Storch & Farber, 2002; Storch et al., 2001).

The following research questions guided this study:

  • Were there significant differences in strength of religious faith between students attending an NCAA Division III RPI and students attending an NCAA Division III NRPI?
  • Were there significant differences in strength of religious faith between athletes and nonathletes attending an NCAA Division III RPI?
  • Were there significant differences in strength of religious faith between athletes and nonathletes attending an NCAA Division III NRPI?
  • Were there significant gender differences in strength of religious faith of athletes and nonathletes attending the NCAA Division III RPI and the NCAA Division III NRPI?

Methods

Participants

The population for this study was undergraduate students enrolled at two institutions in the Midwest that have intercollegiate athletic programs competing at the NCAA Division III level. One institution was deemed an RPI, for purposes of the study, because of its membership in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the mandatory chapel/worship services and religion courses students must attend. The other institution was deemed an NRPI, because it was not a member of CCCU and had not established religious requirements for its students. The RPI and NRPI codes used in the present investigation were developed by the primary researcher.

Of the study participants, 53.60% attended the RPI (n = 201), while 46.40% attended the NRPI (n = 174). Compiled demographics for the RPI and NRPI participants showed their average age to be 20.19 years (SD = 2.60). The youngest participant age was 18 years, the oldest 41 years; 53.60% of the participants were female (n = 201), and 46.40% were male (n = 174). Participants reported their ethnicity as follows: white/Caucasian (89.30%), African American (6.10%), Asian American (0.08%), Hispanic American (0.05%), Native American (0.03%), and other (2.90%). Freshman and sophomore students contributed 62.40% of the participant pool (see Table 1). The distribution of the participants in terms of their academic status or year at the institution was an accurate reflection of institution-wide distribution by academic status at each institution. Concerning current athletic participation, 53.30% of the participants did not currently participate in intercollegiate sports (n = 200), while 46.70% of the students did currently compete in intercollegiate sports (n = 175). The four sports in which the athletes in the sample most commonly participated were football, multiple sports, track and field, and basketball (see Table 2). Most participants indicated their religious affiliation was either Protestant (n = 111) or nondenominational (n = 110) (see Table 3).

Table 1

Frequencies and Percentages by Year at the Institution (i.e., Academic Status), Athletes and Nonathletes

Year Frequency (n) Percentage
Freshman 102 27.2
Sophomore 132 35.2
Junior 79 21.1
Senior 62 16.5

Table 2

Frequencies and Percentages by Sport(s) Played, Athletes Only

Sport Frequency (n) Percentage
Football 44 25.1
Multiple sports 37 21.1
Track and field 22 12.6
Basketball 20 11.4
Volleyball 17 10.0
Golf 11 6.2
Baseball 6 3.4
Soccer 5 2.9
Softball 2 1.1
Cross country 2 1.1
Tennis 2 1.1
Cheerleading 2 1.1
No response 3 1.7

Table 3

Frequencies and Percentages by Individual Religious Affiliation, Athletes and Nonathletes

Religious Affiliation Frequency (n) Percentage
Protestant 111 29.60
Catholic 42 11.20
Nondenominational 110 29.30
No affiliation 30 8.00
Other 81 21.90
No response 1 .03

Measures

The present study used the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSRFQ), developed by Plante and Boccaccini (1997). Additionally, a demographic assessment created by the primary researcher was used to collect information on age, gender, ethnicity, institution attended, year at institution (i.e., academic status), current participation in intercollegiate athletics, sport(s) played, and religious affiliation.

The SCSRFQ is a 10-item inventory assessing strength of religious faith regardless of religion or denomination, using statements such as “My religious faith is important to me” and “I look to my faith as a source of comfort.” Items are scored with a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree), and higher scores indicate greater strength of religious faith. A cumulative score for the strength of religious faith is determined by summing the individual scores for each item. Cumulative scores may range from 10 (low strength of religious faith) to 40 (high strength of religious faith). Analyses have determined that the SCSRFQ has well-established psychometric properties. Its internal reliability is high (Cronbach’s alpha = .95) as is its split-half reliability (r = .92) (Plante & Boccaccini, 1997). In addition, an investigation by Plante, Yancey, Sherman, Guertin, and Pardini (1999) found the SCSRFQ to be significantly correlated with various measures of religiosity, including the Duke Religion Index (Koenig, Parkerson, & Meador, 1997), which assesses religious involvement; the Age Universal Religious Orientation Scale (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983), which examines both intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness; and the Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale (Hoge, 1972), which measures religious motivation.

Procedures

Participants were recruited in selected psychology classes and from selected intercollegiate athletic teams at the two institutions. Both introductory psychology classes and more advanced psychology classes were included, creating a more balanced representation (by both age and academic major) of the participating institutions. The subsample of athletes was obtained by surveying selected male and female intercollegiate athletic teams at each institution; data from athletes whose teams had not been selected but who participated in the study through a selected psychology class were also included in the data analysis for athletes. All participants completed a packet comprising a demographic assessment and the SCSRFQ.

Results

Prior to addressing the research questions, descriptive statistics were calculated for the three independent variables of interest, which were gender, current athletic participation, and institution attended (see Table 4). Following these analyses, a 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA (Gender × Current Athletic Participation × Institution Attended) was utilized to explore significant differences between various participants’ strength of religious faith (see Table 5). The 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA addressed each research question, the first of which asked whether significant differences in strength of religious faith distinguished students attending an NCAA Division III RPI from those attending an NCAA Division III NRPI. The results showed a significant main effect for institution attended, F(1, 367) = 25.44, p < .01. Students attending the RPI and those attending the NRPI differed in terms of the strength of their religious faith. Specifically, participants attending the RPI (M = 32.99, SD = 6.65) reported stronger religious faith than participants attending the NRPI (M = 29.09, SD = 7.02).

The second research question inquired whether significant differences in strength of religious faith differentiated athletes attending the NCAA Division III RPI from nonathletes at the same institution. The results showed a significant interaction for Athlete × Institution Attended, F(1, 367) = 6.73, p < .05. Athletes at the RPI differed significantly from nonathletes there, in terms of the strength of their religious faith. Specifically, the RPI nonathletes (M = 34.43, SD = 5.25) reported stronger religious faith than the RPI athletes (M = 30.76, SD = 7.89).

The third research question asked whether the strength of religious faith of athletes attending the NCAA Division III NRPI differed significantly from the strength of religious faith of nonathletes attending that NRPI. As already noted, the data analysis showed a significant Athlete × Institution Attended interaction, F(1, 367) = 6.73, p < .05. However, the strength of religious faith reported in this study by athletes attending the NRPI did not differ significantly from that of the nonathletes at that NRPI. Specifically, the NRPI athletes (M = 29.09, SD = 6.63) reported the strength of their religious faith to be at a level similar to that of the NRPI nonathletes (M = 29.08, SD = 7.52).

The fourth research question concerned whether significant gender differences in strength of religious faith existed among students attending the NCAA Division III RPI and NRPI. The results indicated a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 367) = 12.99, p < .01. Female and male participants differed significantly in terms of the strength of their religious faith. Specifically, females (M = 32.77, SD = 6.41) reported stronger religious faith than males (M = 29.33, SD = 7.39). Despite this finding, however, no significant interactions were found for Gender × Athlete, F(1, 367) = 2.94, p > .05, or Gender × Institution Attended, F(1, 367) = 0.16, p > .05.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics for Gender, Institution Attended, and Current Athletic Participation

Gender Athlete Institution M SD n
Male No RPI 34.23 4.52 30
NRPI 27.32 8.01 25
Total 31.09 7.18 55
Yes RPI 28.57 8.27 49
NRPI 28.49 6.75 70
Total 28.52 7.38 119
Total RPI 30.72 7.56 79
NRPI 28.18 7.08 95
Total 29.33 7.39 174
Female No RPI 34.49 5.49 92
NRPI 29.91 7.20 53
Total 32.82 6.53 145
Yes RPI 34.33 5.74 30
NRPI 30.73 6.10 26
Total 32.66 6.13 56
Total RPI 34.45 5.53 122
NRPI 30.18 6.83 79
Total 32.77 6.41 201
Total No RPI 34.43 5.25 122
NRPI 29.08 7.52 78
Total 32.34 6.74 200
Yes RPI 30.76 7.89 79
NRPI 29.08 6.63 96
Total 29.85 7.25 175

Table 5

2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA for Gender, Institution Attended, and Current Athletic Participation

Variables Sum of squares df MS F
Gender 562.16 1 562.16 12.99**
Athlete 70.08 1 70.08 1.62
InAt 1,101.13 1 1,101.13 25.44**
Gender X athlete 127.06 1 127.06 2.94
Gender X InAt 6.79 1 6.79 0.16
Athlete X InAt 291.36 1 291.36 6.73*
Gender X athlete X InAt 162.82 1 162.82 3.76
Error 15,884.35 367
Total 383,288.25 375
Corrected total 18,778.46 374

Note. InAt = institution attended.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

In terms of the first research question, analyses showed that students attending the RPI reported stronger religious faith than students attending the NRPI. Religious institutions tend to appeal to students, whether athletes or nonathletes, who adhere to the religious beliefs and ideals the institutions promote. For example, a high school senior who values his or her Christian beliefs may apply to a college expected to provide a venue for strengthening those beliefs. In this study, then, the strength of the religious faith of students attending the RPI may be greater than that of students at the NRPI because Christian universities tend to attract and recruit highly religious individuals. In addition, according to the findings of Arnett and Jensen (as cited in Barry & Nelson, 2005), “emerging adulthood may be best characterized as a time during which young people: (a) question the beliefs in which they are raised, (b) place greater emphasis on individual spirituality and affiliation with a religious institution, and (c) pick and choose the aspects of religion that suit them best” (p. 246). At an NRPI, students may be exposed to secular viewpoints and perspectives during their academic experience. Professors at non–religiously practicing institutions often do not promote a certain religion, and they may deliberately keep their classrooms free of discussion on religion and spirituality. In contrast, students attending the RPI involved in this study were required by the institution to attend weekly religious services and to enroll in religion courses, which constitute part of the institution’s core curriculum. In addition, professors at Christian institutions tend to intertwine religion and academics by seeking the “integration of Christian faith with the living and learning experiences” (Schroeder & Scribner, 2006, p. 40). These reasons help explain the finding that students attending the RPI reported stronger religious faith than students attending the NRPI.

Concerning the second research question, analyses showed that the nonathletes attending the RPI reported stronger religious faith than the athletes at that RPI. Prior to the present research, most studies comparing the religiosity of athletes and nonathletes had been conducted at NCAA Division I public institutions and had suggested that athletes were more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch et al., 2001; Storch et al., 2004). The results of the present study appear to contradict the published literature, although the contradiction may be substantially explained by society’s glorification of winning in athletics. That is, even at religiously practicing institutions, coaches feel pressure to win. Coaches at Christian institutions may tend to incorporate prayer in athletic practices and competitions, to make decisions based on Christian ideals, and to strive to be Christian role models (Schroeder & Scribner, 2006). In a context of athletics, they may work to teach such Christian values as self-discipline, hard work, perseverance, humility, and graciousness. But athletic success, even at Christian institutions, stems directly from the number of victories accumulated by a team. A victorious athletic program can be used as a “platform to market the college and encourage people in the community to have a connection with the institution, through sports” (Schroeder & Scribner, 2006, p. 49). Resulting pressure to win may lead even coaches at religious institutions to recruit athletes based on athletic ability rather than commitment to Christian beliefs. The adequacy of this explanation offers a topic for subsequent investigation focusing on recruiting practices of coaches at religiously practicing institutions versus those of coaches at non–religiously practicing institutions.

The present statistical analyses generated no significant results related to the third research question, in that athletes at the NRPI involved in this study reported the strength of their religious faith to be at a level similar to that reported by nonathletes at the NRPI. This result does not support previously published findings for athletes and nonathletes at NCAA Division I institutions (Fischer, 1997; Storch et al., 2001; Storch et al., 2004). It may, then, indicate a role for institutional environment. The NCAA Division III NRPI involved in the present study was located in the Midwest, a region in which residents typically adhere to conservative ideals and values. The cited investigations at NCAA Division I institutions were conducted in other regions of the United States, where moral standards may differ from those in the Midwest. Furthermore, it may be true that, in general, an NRPI in NCAA’s Division III may offer an institutional environment that more closely resembles the institutional environment of an NCAA Division I institution than that of an RPI in Division III.

As for the fourth research question, the present analyses showed that females reported stronger religious faith than males, a result supporting the majority of the previous research. Specifically, studies have found females to obtain higher intrinsic spirituality scores (Knox, Langehough, Walters, & Rowley, 1998), to pray more frequently, and to attend church more often than males (Francis, 1997b). In addition, a study of athletes and nonathletes by Storch et al. (2001) found that female athletes and female nonathletes (as well as male athletes) reported a higher degree of religiousness than male nonathletes did. Another study suggested that females may derive greater spiritual benefits than males from a Christian college experience (Ma, 2003). Perhaps such results can be explained by socialization factors. According to previous research, in general females have been taught to be relatively submissive, passive, obedient, nurturing, and gentle, as compared to males (Miller & Hoffmann, 1995; Thompson, 1991). Expressive personality characteristics like these are associated with higher levels of religiosity (Miller & Hoffmann, 1995) and have been categorized as a feminine gender orientation (Thompson, 1991). In other words, females (and males) who exhibit these personality characteristics tend to be more religious than females (and males) who do not exhibit them (Francis, 1997a). Perhaps, then, researchers should begin examining differences in religiosity not by gender but by specific gender role orientation (i.e., masculine gender orientation, feminine gender orientation) within each gender.

Conclusion

In this study, students attending the RPI reported stronger religious faith than students attending the NRPI. Institutional environment and relative overall appeal of RPIs and NRPIs may play a significant role in explaining this finding. In addition, nonathletes attending the RPI reported stronger religious faith than athletes attending the RPI. Societal pressure—even on the coaching staffs of religiously practicing institutions—to recruit athletes based on athletic ability rather than character may help explain this result.

Athletes attending the NRPI in this study did not differ significantly from nonathletes at the institution, in respect to strength of religious faith. This result does not support previous studies, which had revealed a significant difference in religiosity between athletes and nonathletes. This finding may be attributable to the institutional environment at the NRPI. Finally, in this study, females reported stronger religious faith than males, a result that may potentially be attributable to gender role orientation and socialization factors in our culture.

Findings from the present study provide direction for future research. First, levels of spirituality should be assessed, along with religious faith. Although many people equate religion and spirituality, the two are distinct concepts that can be addressed separately as well as collectively. Second, future studies should incorporate unstructured opportunities (i.e., interviews) allowing participants to express their religious beliefs. The SCSRFQ is a self-report scale not accommodating qualitative accounts of the role of religion as perceived by participants. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative methods should be utilized. Third, future investigators ought to study institutions at the NCAA Division II, National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, and National Junior College Athletic Association levels. While the majority of existing research was conducted among NCAA Division I athletes, insight into the importance of religion at a variety of athletic levels is needed. Fourth, future studies should examine levels of religious faith by type of sports. They might ask, for instance, whether athletes in individual sports are more religious than athletes in team sports or whether athletes in contact sports display stronger religious faith than athletes in noncontact sports. Fifth, future investigations should evaluate levels of religious faith by individual religious affiliation, exploring, for example, whether Catholics report higher levels of religious faith than Protestants. Finally, further research must be conducted on the role of religions other than Christianity—Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism—in sports and in the lives of athletes.

References

Balague, G. (1999). Understanding identity, value, and meaning when working with elite athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 89–98.

Barry, C. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2005). The role of religion in the transition to adulthood for
young emerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 245–255.

Fischer, G. J. (1997). Abstention from sex and other pre-game rituals used by college
male varsity athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(2), 176–184.

Francis, L. J. (1997a). The psychology of gender differences in religion: A review of
empirical research. Religion, 27, 81–96.

Francis, L. J. (1997b). Personality, prayer, and church attendance among undergraduate
students. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7(2), 127–132.

Gorsuch, R. I., & Venable, G. G. (1983). Development of an “age universal” I-E revised
scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181–187.

Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369–376.

Knox, D., Langehough, S. O., Walters, C., & Rowley, M. (1998). Religiosity and
spirituality among college students. College Student Journal, 32(3), 430–432.

Koenig, H. G., Parkerson, G. R., & Meador, K. G. (1997). Religion index for psychiatric research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 885–886.

Ma, S. Y. (2003). The Christian college experience and the development of spirituality
among students. Christian Higher Education, 2, 221–239.

Miller, A. S., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Risk and religion: An explanation of gender
differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(1), 63–75.

Plante, T. G., & Boccaccini, M. T. (1997). The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith
Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45(5), 375–387.

Plante, T. G., Yancey, S., Sherman, A., Guertin, M., & Pardini, D. (1999). Further validation for the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 48(1), 11–21.

Schroeder, P. J., & Scribner, J. P. (2006). “To honor and glorify God”: The role of religion
in one intercollegiate athletics culture. Sport, Education, and Society, 11(1), 39–54.

Storch, E. A., & Farber, B. A. (2002). Psychotherapy with the religious athlete. Annals of
the American Psychotherapy Association, 3(6), 15–17.

Storch, E. A., Kolsky, A. R., Silvestri, S. M., & Storch, J. B. (2001). Religiosity of elite
college athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 346–351.

Storch, E. A., Roberti, J. W., Bravata, E. A., & Storch, J. B. (2004). Strength of religious faith: A comparison of intercollegiate athletes and non-athletes. Pastoral Psychology, 52(6), 485 489.

Storch, E. A., & Storch, J. B. (2002a). Correlations for organizational, nonorganizational, and intrinsic religiosity with social support among intercollegiate athletes. Psychological Reports, 91, 333–334.

Storch, E. A., & Storch, J. B. (2002b). Intrinsic religiosity and aggression in a sample of intercollegiate athletes. Psychological Reports, 91, 1041–1042.

Storch, E. A., Storch, J. B., & Adams, B. G. (2002). Intrinsic religiosity and social anxiety of intercollegiate athletes. Psychological Reports, 91, 186.

Storch, E. A., Storch, J. B., Kovacs, A. H., Okun, A., & Welsh, E. (2003). Intrinsic religiosity and substance use in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 248–252.

Thompson, E. H. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender variations in
religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(4), 381–394.

Author Note

Nathan T. Bell, School of Physical Education, Sport, and Exercise
Science, Ball State University; Scott R. Johnson, School of Physical
Education, Sport, and Exercise Science, Ball State University; and
Jeffrey C. Petersen, School of Physical Education, Sport, and Exercise
Science, Ball State University.

Nathan T. Bell is now with the American Sport Education Program at
Human Kinetics publishing.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan
T. Bell, Associate Acquisitions Editor, ASEP–Human Kinetics, 1607 N.
Market St.,Champaign, IL 61820.

2013-11-25T20:07:51-06:00January 7th, 2009|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions
Read More

Protective Headgear for Soccer Players: An Overview

Submitted by: Michael Gray, Jennifer Bain, and Lindsay Willis – Northern Kentucky University

Abstract

Protective headgear has been worn by thousands of American soccer players in youth leagues, high schools, colleges, and even professional leagues. While some current studies indicate that concussions occur among soccer players at a rate similar to that among football players, other studies contradict such results and the issue remains disputed. Moreover, studies disagree on whether heading the ball can cause concussions or long-term brain impairment. This article examines the causes and occurrence of head injuries in soccer and the possible role of protective headgear in preventing those injuries.

Protective Headgear for Soccer Players: An Overview

Since the International Federation of Association Football, or FIFA, soccer’s Zurich-based world governing body, began to allow the practice, thousands of American soccer players have worn protective headgear in youth league play, high school and college competition, and professional play. Such headgear gained international visibility during the 2003 Women’s World Cup and the 2004 Athens Olympics (Longman, 2004). In the United States itself, the United States Soccer Federation, National Collegiate Athletic Association, and National Federation of State High School Associations all now permit the use of protective headgear in soccer (Delaney, 2008). But these developments did not occur without controversy.

The U.S. Soccer Federation, which permits protective headgear but does not endorse it, fears that wide use of the gear would undermine the assertion that soccer is a safe alternative to football. When soccer officials voice doubts like this, similarities to the failed arguments once made against bicycle helmets, automobile seat belts, and even soccer shin guards may give them a familiar sound (Longman, 2004). According to Jeff Skeen, founder of one soccer headgear company, “Soccer officials are trying to thwart the evolution of headgear in soccer because they think it will scare soccer moms away from the sign-up table” (Longman, 2004, p. 1). “And they also think [headgear use] could be viewed as an admission that heading the ball itself is dangerous,” Skeen added (Longman, 2004, p. 1).

Anson Dorrance, who has coached the women’s team at the University of North Carolina to 19 national championships, has noted that compulsory use of shin guards did not change the nature of soccer, as many feared it would. It is Dorrance’s prediction that headgear will not change soccer’s nature either (Longman, 2004). Steve Ryan, commissioner of the Major Indoor Soccer League (which has approved the use of headgear), agreed. “I remember when baseball players didn’t wear batting helmets,” he said. “You see some resistance in soccer, which is natural. But I expect, over time, you will see [protective headgear use] broadly accepted” (Longman, 2004, p. 1)

Adding to the controversy is the fact that some headgear manufacturers pay professional players the equivalent of $50–$100 per game to endorse their products and furthermore have paid some state soccer associations $4,000–$10,000 for endorsements (Longman, 2004). This arrangement makes company claims of injury reduction suspect, according to the U.S. Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer Federation, 2005). But several independent studies have shown that head injuries, particularly concussions, have become a significant issue in soccer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that doctors treat more than 200,000 children annually for soccer-related injuries including concussions (Francois, 2006). A recent independent study by Scott Delaney of Canada’s McGill University, published in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, found that the rate of head injuries among soccer players was similar to the rate among football players (Francois, 2006).

While concussions are significant potential sports injuries that the U.S. Soccer Federation takes seriously (U.S. Soccer Federation Statement on Head Injuries, 2005), there is disagreement about whether heading the ball can cause concussions or long-term brain impairment. Studies have presented contradictory results, and the matter remains disputed as the soccer federation undertakes a long-term examination of head injuries (Longman, 2004). For example, a survey of college-age players (athletes 18 to 22 years old) conducted by Boden et al (cited in Kirkendall & Garrett, 2001). demonstrated that a team can anticipate having one player each season sustain a concussion. However, concussions reported for Boden and colleagues’ survey were largely due to game situations not involving purposeful heading of the ball. Kirkendall and Garrett have stated (2001) that 4%–20% of all injuries in soccer are “head injuries,” under which term they include concussions, nasal fractures, injuries of the eye, lacerations, and contusions.

Powell and Barber-Foss (cited in Kirkendall & Garrett, 2001) reported that mild traumatic brain injuries account for 3.9% of all injuries in boys’ scholastic soccer and 4.3% of all injuries in girls’ scholastic soccer. Powell and Barber-Foss’s ongoing survey of high-level youth soccer players (12 to 18 years old) in North Carolina to date shows that about 15% of all injuries were to the head (though these were not solely concussions) and involved player-to-player or player-to-ground contact (Kirkendall & Garrett, 2001). The researchers noted that, “The most frequent mechanism of injury was head-to-head contact, followed by head-to-ground and then head-to-other body part (e.g., foot, knee, and elbow). Importantly, purposeful heading was never a mechanism of injury, but injuries did occur when the player was accidentally struck by the ball (the head and neck were not stabilized).”

According to a study of concussions in soccer players by Dick, Putukian, Agel, Evans, and Marshall (2007), 67.7% of reported concussions were due to player contact, while 18.3% were associated with contacting the ball and 13.4% with contacting the playing surface. Less than 1% were associated with contacting the goal. The study found that concussions represented 6.0% of severe game injuries—those resulting in 10 or more days lost from practice and play (Dick, Putukian, Agel, Evans, & Marshall, 2007).

Delaney’s study of 328 Canadian university football players and 201 university soccer players reporting for training in fall 1999 found that 70.4 % of the football players and 62.7% of the soccer players had experienced symptoms of a concussion in the previous year. Delaney said that concussions are a proven problem, one that, in the lab, protective headgear alleviates. He questioned why players are not being offered the protection (Longman, 2004). “Girls, in general, are more prone to concussions in soccer, and they may be more aware of the possible benefits of wearing headgear,” Delaney, who practices at McGill University’s sports medicine clinic, has noted (Delaney, 2008).

Other studies have yielded contradictory results. For example, 100 male and female athletes were asked to complete neuropsychological tests before and after two training sessions, one session involving heading the ball and one avoiding heading. The tests included the alphabet backwards test, Trail Making Test (Parts A and B), Stroop Color and Word Test, and VIGIL/W. No test yielded significant differences between the control (no-heading) condition and experimental (heading) condition (Kirkendall & Garrett, 2001). Fuller et al. (cited in Dick et al., 2007) investigated 248 cases of head and neck injuries and found only a single incidence of cervical strain that could be attributed to purposeful heading of the ball, while Anderson et al. (cited in Dick et al., 2007) did not identify heading the ball as a mechanism for head injury. These results and others do not show purposeful heading to be a primary cause of concussions. Nor has contact with the ball been consistently identified as a mechanism of head injuries in general, although player-to-player contact has been (Dick et al., 2007).

It appears that definitive evidence for one side or the other in the soccer headgear controversy is not available. But there does seem to be solid evidence that more concussions occur as the level of play and competition advances (Kirkendall & Garrett, 2001). The use of protective headgear has grown most significantly, however, among youth players (age 12 and younger), even though players at this level are least likely to engage in play that would lead to concussions (U.S. Soccer Federation Statement on Head Injuries, 2005). The U.S. Soccer Federation has said marketing of protective headgear is primarily to children, even though the incidence of concussion in players under 12 is low.

A next step in research would be to determine clearly whether protective headgear prevents head injuries in soccer players. An innovative Canadian study examined the issue with 268 adolescents playing club soccer and generated the first results from the field instead of the lab. Just after the 2006 soccer season, the 12- to 17-year-old participants from Oakville Soccer Club, Canada’s biggest, were studied. Although only 52 of them had worn headgear during the season, the study showed a significant decrease in risk of concussion for those players. The unprotected majority of the players in the study was 2.65 times more likely to have been injured: 52.8% of participants who did not use headgear reported being injured, compared to 26.9% of participants who did. According to Delaney, “This study may help convince parents and players that soft protective soccer headgear can be an effective part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the number of head injuries and concussions in soccer” (To Avoid Soccer Head Injuries, 2007).

Manufacturers of soccer headgear have designed the gear to decrease the forces associated with heading and assume that doing so reduces the risk of head trauma. To date, however, only one study has been conducted to evaluate the gear’s efficacy. The most substantial finding of that study was that application of the headgear was linked to a decrease in the peak force of impact from a soccer ball traveling at 56.4 kph (35 mph). This force was approximately 112.5% lower (nearly 400 N), as compared to the unprotected force platform (Broglio, Ju, Broglio, & Sell, 2003). No differences were seen among the different brands of headgear; the decrease measured in the peak force suggests that a soccer player using any of the tested brands of headgear would be subjected to lower forces. Naunheim et al. (cited in Broglio et al., 2003) reported a similar decrease, when soccer headgear was used, in peak acceleration from a high-pressure soccer ball traveling at 34 mph (54.72 kph).

The founder of a company based in San Diego, California, said he had sold 100,000 pieces of headgear. The gear resembles an enlarged headband and covers the forehead, temples, and occipital bone in back of the head. Made of shock-absorbing foam between an outer layer of Lycra and an inner layer of sweat-absorbing polypropylene, the device weighs less than 2 oz. The company does not claim the gear prevents concussions, but rather that it can reduce by up to 50% the peak impact forces occurring in typical collisions when a player’s head strikes the ground or goal post or another’s head or elbow (Longman, 2004).

Delaney has argued that such headgear could also protect those players who are designated as headers, particularly at the elite level (at that level, such a player may head the ball up to 10 times per game). Delaney has been involved in drafting the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine’s position paper on the prevention of head injuries in soccer (Robillard, 2004). But Ottawa-based orthopedic surgeon Rudy Gittens, who chairs the Canadian Soccer Association’s sports medicine committee and is furthermore a member of FIFA’s sports-medical committee, said to date no scientific evidence “conclusively” shows that purposefully heading the ball leads to concussions. Gittens, head of the medical commission of one of the six FIFA continental governing bodies, the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football or CONCACAF, said he is unaware of any scientific studies supporting use of soccer protective headgear to prevent concussions (Robillard, 2004).

A clinical professor of sports medicine at UCLA, Gary Green, has pointed out that, while there is “no evidence” headgear helps, there are theoretical grounds for questioning whether headgear use might actually hurt some players. For example, the headgear could produce a false sense of security in players, leading them to rely on a device instead of proper medical evaluation after suffering a possible concussion. Or headgear use could contribute to feelings of being invincible that promote recklessly aggressive play, a phenomenon known as the Superman effect. Green, who serves on the U.S. Soccer Federation’s medical advisory committee, said headgear use should be better studied before players “take a chance” by using it (Longman, 2004).

There is much to learn about headgear. A recent study sponsored by FIFA’s sports medicine committee concluded that headgear has a negligible effect in head-to-ball impacts but does provide “measurable benefit” in subconcussive head-to-head impacts. One still-unanswered question—and the most important—is the extent to which soccer protective headgear diminishes risk of concussion, if indeed it does. The U.S. Soccer Federation’s own sports medicine committee continues to monitor the available literature and encourage further research into, for example, whether decreasing impact force translates into decreasing concussions or whether using headgear gives players a false sense of security or causes them to play unusually aggressively (U.S. Soccer Federation Statement on Use of Padded Headgear, 2005). In the mean time, for those who do use protective headgear, it is important to remind players, coaches, and parents that headgear is not a substitute for proper medical evaluation and treatment of possible concussions. Consultation with a doctor is always a best first step when any sort of head injury occurs (U.S. Soccer Federation Statement on Use of Padded Headgear, 2005).

Around the world, players of all ages and skill levels play soccer. Available data on the efficacy of soccer protective headgear may suggest, in light of the relatively ordinary ball speed employed in the research, that use of headgear decreases the force of an impacting soccer ball and thus offers typical players protection. But before any recommendation or mandate is issued for all players to use soccer protective headgear on the field, further investigation of these products should directly address their clinical utility (Broglio et al., 2003).

References

Broglio, S. P., Ju, Y., Broglio, M. D., & Sell, T. C. (2003). The efficacy of soccer headgear. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3), 220–224.

Delaney, J. S. (2008). Canadian study examined more than 260 adolescents playing club soccer. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 42, 110–115.

Dick, R., Putukian, M., Agel, J., Evans, T. A., & Marshall, S. W. (2007). Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women’s soccer injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988–1989 through 2002–2003. Journal of Athletic Training, 42(2), 278–285.

Francois, M. (2006). DJ Orthopedics to offer soccer headgear in response to new ASTM [American Society for Testing and Materials] Sports Safety Equipment Standard. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://investors.djortho.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=221887

Kirkendall, D. T., & Garrett, E., Jr. (2001). Heading in soccer: Integral skill or grounds for cognitive dysfunction? Journal of Athletic Training, 36(3), 328–333.

Longman, J. (2004, November 27). Soccer headgear: Does it do any good? The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/sports/soccer/27soccer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Robillard, S. (2004). Safety in soccer: Protective headgear gets kicked around by advocates and critics. Living Safety, 48(2). Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/soccer-ls.html

To avoid soccer head injuries, soft protective headgear is only effective solution, study shows. (2007, July 14). Science Daily. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712134638.htm

U.S. Soccer Federation statement on head injuries in soccer and padded headgear. (2005). Retrieved March 11, 2008, from the U.S. Soccer Federation website: http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_145974.html

Author Note

Michael Gray, Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Educational Foundations, Northern Kentucky University; Jennifer Bain, Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Educational Foundations, Northern Kentucky University; Lindsay Willis, Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Educational Foundations, Northern Kentucky University.

Michael Gray is now at the University of Trinidad & Tobago.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Gray, Programme Professor, University of Trinidad & Tobago, Academy of Sports and Leisure. E-mail: Michael.gray@utt.edu.tt.

2013-11-25T20:10:16-06:00January 7th, 2009|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Protective Headgear for Soccer Players: An Overview
Read More
Go to Top