ISSN: 1543-9518

The New Era of College Athletics Has Gone a Bridge Too Far

Author: Matthew J Williams1

1Department of Education, The University of Virginia’s College at Wise, Wise, VA, USA 

 

Matthew J. Williams D.S.M., M.B.A., M.S., is an Associate Professor of Sports Management at The University of Virginia’s College at Wise. His areas of research interest include NASCAR, COVID-19, college athletics, professional sports, and issues in sports management.

ABSTRACT 

The NCAA has always had a firm stance that to survive, it must keep its amateurism status. The NCAA had rules in place that required colleges and universities to recruit student-athletes to play for them.  It could only offer them compensation through free tuition, textbooks, room, and board; no direct money could be involved.  Over the past decades, the NCAA has grown in popularity and generated a tremendous amount of revenue. At the same time, society was noticing that the NCAA was taking advantage of the student-athlete through its amateurism rules.  The NCAA found itself constantly in court defending its actions regarding amateurism. After years of litigation, the NCAA settled out of court, resulting in the House Settlement, which created a new era in college athletics. These changes will allow student-athletes to receive financial compensation directly from colleges and universities. This new era will continue to bring a tremendous amount of financial burden to athletic departments’ budgets. This may lead to reductions in non-revenue sports, team roster sizes, and athletic staff.  

KEYWORDS: Revenue sports, non-revenue sports, House Settlement, NCAA, amateurism, revenue sharing, NIL

INTRODUCTION 

In the past, student-athletes were very satisfied with receiving an academic/athletic scholarship from a college or university that included free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. In return, student-athletes would participate in varsity athletics for the college or university.  Today’s philosophy has shifted, emphasizing that student-athletes should be directly compensated financially.  Over the past twenty years, college athletics has witnessed a massive growth in popularity that has resulted in bigger television contracts, sold-out stadiums, increased revenue from corporate sponsorships, and souvenir sales. Student-athletes started to take notice of the popularity of college athletics, financial success, and the abundance of revenue that they were producing for the NCAA, colleges, and universities. They felt they should receive more compensation than just free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. At the forefront of every collegiate student-athlete’s mind in recent years is the question: “should I be getting paid for this?” (Tremps, 2024).

Most college fans, alumni, television announcers, media, and state governments believed the NCAA, colleges, and universities were exploiting the student-athletes. They all believed that student-athletes should receive more financial compensation than just free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. After all, student-athletes were generating all the revenue.

The NCAA became a billion-dollar industry off these young men and women, and they received no monetary compensation in return. Some argued that students were getting a free education out of it, but over time, that seemed to become irrelevant to many college players (Cabibi, 2022).

Discussion

NCAA’s History with Amateurism

When the NCAA was formed in the early 20th century, its cornerstone belief was built around amateurism and did not revolve at all around pay-to-play. Colleges and universities that were NCAA members in any division of athletics were not allowed to financially pay student-athletes directly. During its formation in 1906, the NCAA highlighted amateurism, or unpaid participation, as a core aspect of its student-athletes (Hart, 2024).  NCAA athletes playing for free has always been a feature of the product (Lombardi, 2024).

The only type of financial support that the NCAA would allow colleges or universities to offer student-athletes was free tuition, textbooks, and room and board. The trend of not paying student-athletes financially was accepted by fans, alumni, and media. It was considered an honor and a privilege of amateurism. Many fans felt that the student-athletes were playing for the pride of the college or university and the love of the game. For many fans, amateurism was an endearing aspect, suggesting that young athletes are playing for pride, the love of the game, and the honor of their institution (Lombardi, 2024).

Over the past few decades, societal thoughts have shifted around feelings of amateurism in college athletics, and now think that student-athletes should be financially compensated. The NCAA has held a firm stance on the importance of keeping the amateurism status in college athletics. If they were to allow student-athletes to be financially paid directly, other than through free tuition, textbooks, room, and board, it would significantly hurt the student-athletes’ amateur status. The NCAA prohibited student-athletes from being paid in the past to protect their “amateurism” (McCool, 2023).

With the philosophy changing about financially paying student-athletes, the NCAA found itself in the crosshairs with the media, fans, athletes, and state governments demanding that the NCAA has to do more than just allow colleges and universities to offer student-athletes free tuition, textbooks, room, and board.  They were pressuring the NCAA to eliminate its ancient rules on amateurism and allow student-athletes to be financially compensated by colleges and universities.

However, the NCAA failed to act on eliminating amateurism and stuck to its core belief about the importance of amateurism. Unfortunately, failing to act on this issue resulted in numerous lawsuits against the NCAA. Numerous lawsuits have challenged the amateur aspect of NCAA competitions (Hart, 2024).

Pressure from the media, sports broadcasters, and fans to allow student-athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness kept growing rapidly. Unfortunately, the NCAA continued to ignore the pressure to change bylaws that would allow student-athletes to do this. The failure to change its stance on this issue resulted in new state legislation.

The California State Legislature was the first to propose a bill to allow student-athletes to accept endorsement money for the use of their name, image, or likeness and not be punished by California universities. The state legislature passed this bill, and in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the first bill to allow student-athletes to accept endorsement money. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill in September 2019 stating that, starting in 2023, universities in the state couldn’t punish athletes for accepting endorsement money while in college (Moore, 2022).

The passage of California’s legislation created pressure on other states to do the same.  Passing legislation to allow student-athletes to receive compensation for their endorsement deals concerning name, image, and likeness.

NCAA’s Litigation Battles

In 2014, the NCAA found itself in litigation with NCAA v. Alston. The lawsuit brought against the NCAA was that they were violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by not allowing student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alston. In July 2021, the Supreme Court’s ruling on NCAA v. Alston allowed college athletes to receive money based on their Name, Image, and Likeness (Munn, 2023).

The Alston ruling was a tremendous blow to the NCAA’s stance on amateurism, forcing them to adopt new bylaws that would allow student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. This was a complete turnaround from student-athletes being punished for receiving financial assistance.  Members of the NCAA’s Board of Directors decided Wednesday to hop on this NIL train instead of getting crushed while trying to stand in front of it (Moore, 2022).

Litigation cases against the NCAA did not slow down after the Alston ruling. Instead, the lawsuits became bigger with more at stake financially for the NCAA, colleges, and universities. In 2020, House v. NCAA. Grant House, a student athlete who was a swimmer from Arizona State, and Sedona Prince, who was a women’s basketball player, and two other suits that were filed by college athletes. All three lawsuits against the NCAA were combined into one. A 2020 lawsuit by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and women’s college basketball player Sedona Prince, along with two separate suits by other college athletes, which were combined into one case (Jones, 2025).

The House lawsuit was based on the NCAA’s alleged violation of antitrust laws. The bylaws set by the NCAA prohibited the opportunity for student athletes to benefit financially from their Name, Image, and Likeness.  Violated antitrust law by collectively agreeing to not provide benefits and compensation to student-athletes and denying student-athletes the opportunity to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness (Jones, 2025).

The loss of previous antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA led to the realization that the current NCAA bylaws, allowing student-athletes only to receive free tuition, textbooks, room, and board, could no longer exist. They recognized there was no chance of winning the case and decided to settle out of court. On June 6th, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilkens approved the House settlement. The settlement would now allow colleges and universities to directly pay student-athletes for their participation in college athletics. On June 6, 2025, the Northern District of California in House v. NCAA approved a landmark settlement deal allowing colleges and universities to pay their students directly for their participation in college athletics (Cernea & Pennesi, 2025). 

The House settlement also eliminated three additional antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA, which was accused of not allowing student-athletes to profit off their Name, Image, and Likeness. The House v. NCAA settlement ends three separate federal antitrust lawsuits, all of which had claimed the NCAA was illegally limiting the earning power of college athletes (Murphy, D., 2025). The House settlement agreement also included continuation of the NIL along with back pay, roster limits, and revenue-sharing, which started July 1, 2025.

Financial Fallout from House Settlement

The most significant part of the House Settlement was the revenue-sharing agreement that required all Power Five Conferences to participate in. The agreement was put into place to allow student-athletes to be paid directly from colleges or universities. All other Division I Universities were not required to participate in the agreement, but each college or university could choose to either opt in or opt out. Schools are now free to begin paying their athletes directly, marking the dawn of a new era in college sports (Murphy, D., 2025). 

The agreement now allows athletic departments to distribute directly to the sports programs of their choosing about a fourth of their annual revenue, roughly $20.5 million, this academic year. The annual percentage of revenue-sharing will increase each academic year after that. The athletic department’s revenue comes from ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, onsite advertising, concessions, auctions, donations, and, most importantly, media rights. Schools may distribute up to 22% of their revenue from ticket sales, sponsorship revenue, and media rights (Cernea, 2025). Schools will be allotted $20.5 million of revenue per school (Cernea, 2025).

Before the House settlement, colleges and universities’ athletic departments relied on a variety of revenue-generating streams, including ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, and, most importantly, media rights to finance their athletic programs. The implementation of revenue-sharing will create tremendous financial challenges for presidents and athletic directors to keep their athletic programs profitable.

Not all Division I athletic sports offered at colleges and universities are profitable at all. However, there are some sports that either break even or generate a profit: these include men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and football. Even more profitable programs are questioning how they will come up with the money. The Associated Press quoted Alabama Athletic Director Greg Byrne, who told Congress “Those are resources and revenues that don’t exist” (Jones, 2025).

Most colleges and universities’ athletic departments’ budgets at the Division I level across the country will either end in a deficit or break even every year; very few colleges or universities’ athletic departments make a profit. According to financial filings, Alabama reported a $28 million operating deficit during the last fiscal year (Peterson, 2025).  All but a handful of Division I athletic departments operate as revenue-neutral (Schnable, 2025). 

Each year, Division I conferences receive revenue distribution from the NCAA, which helps athletic departments fund all their sports. Because of the House settlement, along with the massive legal issues that the NCAA has gone through in the past few years. The NCAA was forced to distribute less money to all Division I conferences. It’s also expected to reduce the annual distributions all D-I conferences receive, as the NCAA covers damages (Christovich, 2025).

 To survive the new era of college athletics and be competitive in athletics, presidents and athletic directors will have to redistribute monetary resources from non-revenue sports to their three revenue-generating sports. We have one team that makes a healthy profit in football. We have one that turns a profit in men’s basketball.  We have 19 that don’t,” Byrne said (Peterson, 2025).

Texas Tech Red Raiders athletic director made a clear message to the public that the new revenue-sharing model would concentrate almost all revenue-generating sports, which are football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. Red Raiders will allocate $15.1 million to its football roster (74%), $3.6 million to men’s basketball (17.5%), $410,000 to women’s basketball (2%) (Dellenger, 2025). 

A big challenge facing presidents and athletic directors is justifying non-revenue sports and why they should keep them. An argument can be made that non-revenue sports simply do not generate enough revenue to pay their bills. Athletic departments are under tremendous pressure to make a profit or at least break even every year. It gets harder to pay for sports that lose money, which is everything that’s not football or basketball (Talty, 2025).

 Five years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit college athletics, it decreased many revenue streams that colleges and universities’ athletic departments relied on.  The pandemic forced presidents and athletic directors to find creative ways to trim their athletic budgets. They eliminated some non-revenue sports and laid off athletic support staff to balance their athletic budgets. To this day, some colleges and universities’ athletic departments still have not fully recovered financially from the pandemic.

 No one would have ever thought that college and university athletic departments would have to do the same thing again. Because of the House settlement, athletic directors and presidents will continue to look and see where cuts can be made to fund the new era of college athletics. Just as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic, they will be forced once again to eliminate some athletic support staff and some non-revenue sports.  “I didn’t think another year would be as tough as COVID [in 2020], but this year has done that,” Yurachek said (Murphy, T, 2025).

Restructuring of Athletics Programs

With the new era of college athletics now in place, athletic directors and presidents will be forced to devote more money to the three revenue-generated sports, which could inflict damage on non-revenue sports budgets. Some non-revenue sports, such as cross country, volleyball, tennis, wrestling, track and field, could either be eliminated or have their roster size reduced. Athletic budgets no longer have enough money to support all the non-revenue sports that generate zero revenue for the athletic departments.   As more NIL money is dedicated to football over all other sports on campus, many teams are at risk to be disbanded when there is no money to support their program (Stankovich, 2025).  The doomsday option is eliminating sports altogether, which some schools are already doing with sports like tennis that neither bring in revenue nor television exposure (Talty, 2025). 

A big concern about athletic departments cutting non-revenue sports is the fact that they produced many of our current or future Olympic athletes. If this does happen, many of our future Olympic athletes could be in jeopardy. Schools have outright used the House v. NCAA settlement as justification to cut Olympic sports programs (Christovich, 2025).  There are deep concerns about the potential impact on sports that feed the U.S. Olympic teams (Carey, 2025).

To help reduce financial increases, athletic departments are facing now and in the future. The NCAA has decided to move away from the standard rules of scholarship limits. Now they will impose roster sizes instead for all Division I competing sports. Unfortunately, by the NCAA implementing these new rules on roster sizes, it could effectively eliminate walk-ons. Roster limitations is expected to leave walk-ons, partial scholarship earners, nonrevenue sport athletes and high school recruits at risk (Carey, 2025).

One of the biggest revenue generators for athletic departments is NIL collectives. These collectives are organizations separate from colleges or universities’ athletic departments that generate revenue to help pay for the students’ athletic performance. Unfortunately, most collectives’ money is usually designated for the revenue-producing sports. Collectives generally pay for the athlete’s performance (Hart, 2024). NIL collectives generate revenue from fundraisers, local or national businesses, donations from boosters, alumni, and fans. Collectives are organizations that collect funds from businesses and boosters to facilitate NIL deals for athletes (Hart, 2024).

Financial Cost to Student Body and Fans

To generate more revenue for athletic departments, state legislators have gotten involved in paying student-athletes.  Legislation has been passed that will allow institutional funds from colleges or universities to be given to athletic departments to help pay student-athletes. In Missouri, a state law has existed for more than a year permitting the school’s collective to receive institutional funds for distribution to athletes (Dellenger, 2024).  Some colleges or universities either have or are in the process of raising student fees to help athletic departments pay their student-athletes. South Carolina announced a new annual $300 athletics auxiliary fee (Rumsey, 2025). 

With the implementation of revenue sharing and the NIL athletic departments are now being forced to find creative ways to generate new revenue streams. The University of Tennessee’s athletic department has found an additional revenue source in its ticket sales. They now charge each ticket purchased a 10% talent fee to generate more revenue to pay their student-athletes.  Tennessee fans for all sports will be charged a 10% “talent fee” on tickets to help pay athletes as part of the new revenue-sharing plan set to begin in 2025 (Low, 2024). During the Football bowl season, the NCAA has allowed bowl sponsorship patches to be placed on football jerseys. Now conferences and or individual schools are seeking approval from the NCAA to allow advertisement on their game day jerseys to generate additional revenue for the athletic departments. The NCAA’s expected and eventual approval of commercial jersey patches looms large (Dellenger, 2025).

CONCLUSIONS

Athletic department budgets had already been strained from the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a heavy financial toll on many college and university athletic budgets. The House Settlement created additional expenses for athletic departments’ budgets. Presidents and athletic directors know that to be competitive, they must allocate all the necessary resources that they have to their revenue-generating sports to survive financially.

The settlement has caused catastrophic destruction to college athletics. The settlement could seriously damage our U.S. Olympic stronghold; it will eliminate the walk-on dreams and take away the chance for many student-athletes’ opportunities to play college athletics. The settlement rewards only a minority of student-athletes, not the majority. It has created a new era of college athletics that is hurtful and not financially sustainable long term. Lastly, this settlement has created a new era of college athletics that has truly gone a bridge too far.

REFERENCES 

1. Cabibi, S. R. (2022, March 15). How money, greed, and the nil destroyed college football… or did it?. Medium. https://medium.com/@seancabibi/how-money-greed-and-the-nil-destroyed-college-football-or-did-it-5e1ea268df4d

2. Carey, M. (2025, May 8). “hands tied”: Athletes left in dark as NCAA settlement leaves murky future for nonrevenue sports. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-37ad7713f540c4597627116b1f219483

3. Cernea, E. H., & Pennesi, E. J. (2025, June 18). Long-awaited settlement agreement raises new challenges for Nil Licensing deals. Long-Awaited Settlement Agreement Raises New Challenges for NIL Licensing Deals –. https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2025/06/long-awaited-settlement-agreement-raises-new-challenges-for-nil-licensing-deals

4. Christovich, A. (2025, June 19). Olympic sports face cuts in wake of House v. NCAA settlement. Front Office Sports. https://frontofficesports.com/dozens-of-olympic-sports-have-been-cut-in-wake-of-house-v-ncaa-settlement/

5. Dellenger, R. (2024, May 28). The next evolution of Nil Collectives and the battles that await: “this is a big inflection point.” Yahoo! Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/the-next-evolution-of-nil-collectives-and-the-battles-that-await-this-is-a-big-inflection-point-120051261.html

6. Dellenger, R. (2025, January 7). With nil era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. how will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?. Yahoo! Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/with-nil-era-ending-college-sports-is-on-verge-of-seismic-change-how-will-schools-adapt-with-industry-in-upheaval-154722732.html

7. Hart, J. (2024, September 27). Is nil a good thing or a bad thing? sports industry expert weighs in. Temple Now . https://news.temple.edu/news/2024-06-10/nil-good-thing-or-bad-thing-sports-industry-expert-weighs

8. Jones, S. (2025, May 16). House v. NCAA settlement complicated–and still not yet settled. University Times. https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/house-v-ncaa-settlement

9. Lombardi, E. (2024, October 3). Right now, nil is bad for college football. Medium. https://spec.hamilton.edu/right-now-nil-is-bad-for-college-football-809c8af4b9ec

10. Low, C. (2024, September 17). Tennessee increases ticket prices by 10% to help pay athletes. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41302985/tennessee-ups-season-ticket-prices-10-help-pay-athletes

11. McCool, J. (2023, November 9). Why name, image and likeness policies could ruin college sports. FSView. https://www.fsunews.com/story/opinion/2023/11/09/why-name-image-and-likeness-policies-could-ruin-college-sports/71508112007/

12. Moore, T. (2022, November 9). NCAA had no choice, but nil rule will damage college football and basketball. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/terencemoore/2021/07/06/the-ncaa-hadnt-a-choice-but-nil-rule-will-damage-college-football-and-basketball/

13. Munn, T. (2023). What is name, image, and likeness? explained by NCC News. NCC News. https://nccnews.newhouse.syr.edu/college-athletes-can-now-get-paid-but-how-name-image-and-likeness-explained-by-ncc-news/

14. Murphy, D. (2025, June 6). Judge OK’s $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement

15. Murphy, T. (2025, June 27). Arkansas Athletic Department makes staff cuts in preparation for “major changes” with revenue sharing. Whole Hog Sports. https://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2025/jun/27/arkansas-athletics-department-makes-staff-cuts-in-preparation-for-major-changes-with-revenue-sharing/

16. Peterson, D. (2025, June 20). Alabama athletic director comments on future of non-revenue tide teams. Saturday Down South. https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/news/college-football/alabama-athletic-director-comments-on-future-of-non-revenue-tide-teams/

17. Rumsey, D. (2025, June 23). Colleges raising student fees to pay for athlete revenue-sharing. Front Office Sports. https://frontofficesports.com/colleges-are-raising-student-fees-to-pay-for-athlete-revenue-sharing/

18. Schnable, A., & Thompson, S. (2025, July 1). House Settlement FAQ: What will college sports look like after landmark legal case?. Post-Gazette. https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pitt/2025/07/01/house-settlement-faq-ncaa-nil/stories/202506300051

19. Stankovich, C. (2025, March 19). College athletics at a crossroads: Nil, transfer portals, and eliminating non-revenue sports. The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich . https://drstankovich.com/college-athletics-at-a-crossroads-nil-transfer-portals-and-eliminating-non-revenue-sports/

20. Talty, J. (2025, June 7). The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows. CBSSports.com. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/the-biggest-winners-and-losers-from-house-v-ncaa-settlement-amateurism-is-dead-and-the-class-divide-grows/

21. Tremps, N. (2024, October 14). The memorandum heard around the college athletics world: Why student-athletes in non-revenue-generating sports should not enjoy the status of “employee” under the NLRA. Wake Forest Law Review. https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2024/04/the-memorandum-heard-around-the-college-athletics-world-why-student-athletes-in-non-revenue-generating-sports-should-not-enjoy-the-status-of-employee-under-the-nlra/

2025-10-31T13:04:38-05:00July 7th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies|Comments Off on The New Era of College Athletics Has Gone a Bridge Too Far
Read More

Super Shoes:  A Quantitative Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Performance Gains

Authors: Ryan Savitz1, Divit Gupta2, Jared Ward3, Andrew Bjorkelo1

1Neumann University

2Conestoga High School

3Brigham Young University

 

Corresponding Author:

Ryan Savitz

[email protected]

 

ABSTRACT 

Purpose:

This paper analyzes the long-term effect of carbon plated running shoe technology (super shoes) on the performance of elite female and male marathoners.

Methods: 

 In order to do this, we collected data on the number of male sub-2:08 and female sub-2:26:50 marathons in years both prior to and after the introduction of such shoes.  Regression models were then constructed to assess the yearly trend in these data both pre and post super shoe introduction (this was done separately for each gender). 

Results:

We found a statistically significant increase in the slope following the introduction of super shoes, with the annual number of sub-2:08 performers increasing by approximately 11.8 more athletes per year for men and 22.2 for women.  Additionally, we compared the change in men’s slope to the change in women’s slope, finding that women’s times responded significantly more to the introduction of super shoes than did the men’s times.

Conclusions:

In summary, super shoes not only provide an immediate boost to race day performance, but also appear to have ongoing time improvement effects over time.

Applications in Sport:

This research will allow runners to make informed decisions regarding their use of shoe technology in competition.   These findings suggest that performances in elite marathoning are improving at a faster rate since the introduction of super shoes.  This implies that athletes, coaches, and governing bodies must account for the ongoing effects of shoe technology in training, competition, and qualification standards.

Keywords: Marathon, carbon plated shoes, performance benefits from shoes

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

The marathon race traces its origins back to the legend of Pheidippides.  We owe the standardization of the distance to the royal family at the 1908 London Olympics, who requested the race to pass the palace, and thus at 26 miles and 385 yards, and a tradition of long distance racing was born.

Following the running boom of the early 1970s, marathon running has become increasingly popular at both a recreational and elite level.  Currently, the most competitive marathons are part of the Abbott World Marathon Majors. 

One noteworthy thing about long-distance running is that it requires minimal equipment.  Perhaps the greatest innovation in equipment technology was the introduction of carbon plated shoes by Nike in 2016.  Initially, knowledge of their existence was rather limited, although the three male marathon medalists at the Rio De Janeiro Olympics all wore some prototype of these shoes (5).  These shoes, however, did not become widely available until 2017 and, therefore, we use 2017 as their year of introduction for the purposes of the analyses we conduct in this paper.  Over time, the use of these shoes has grown to encompass recreational runners as well, and they have become increasingly popular for use in training, due to their extensive cushioning. 

Previous work by Bjorkelo et al. (2024) has shown that the use of these shoes has an immediate effect on performance.  In particular, they found an immediate increase in the number of sub-2:08 marathons run per year by male marathoners.  The goal of this paper, however, is to determine what, if any, long-term benefits these shoes offer.  In other words, our goal is to see, if, in addition to the aforementioned immediate benefit, this shoe technology also affects the rate at which the number of sub-2:08 marathons per year is increasing.  We assess the same relationship for the number of women’s marathons run under 2:26:50 each year.  Mathematically, this study models elite marathon performance counts as a piecewise linear time series with a structural break corresponding to the introduction of new shoe technology.  To provide background for these analyses, we now turn to a review of the literature.

A great deal of research into the various factors affecting long distance running performance has been conducted over the years.  Running shoe technology has become an increasingly popular area of research following the introduction of super shoes.  Much of this research has involved the effect of these shoes on running economy (RE).  Morgan et al. (8) define RE as the volume of oxygen that must be consumed (per kg body weight) in order to support a particular running velocity.

While many factors affect RE, the one most relevant to this study is related to running mechanics.  Specifically, this factor involves the force with which an athlete’s foot can hit and depart from the ground (3).  Much of the research into the efficacy of super shoes in reducing marathon times has been lab research related to these ground forces.  For example, Herbert-Losier and Pamment (5) found that while the Nike Zoom Streak 6 (a traditional racing shoe) had an energy return of 65.5%, the Nike Vaporfly (a super shoe) returned 87% of the expended mechanical energy.  They found that this increase in energy return results in approximately a 4% increase in RE and a 2% increase in performance.  Similarly, Hunter et al. (7) found runners’ oxygen consumption to be between 1.9% and 2.8% lower in carbon plated shoes, as opposed to traditional racing shoes.

The aforementioned laboratory gains in RE can, naturally, vary quite a bit from one individual to another.  For instance,  Paradisis et al. (9) found that, among recreational runners, the reduction in oxygen consumption attributable to carbon plated racing shoes can be up to 3.8%.  It is also important to note that most of the studies on RE focused on male subjects or pooled male and female subjects (1).  As we will shortly see, one of the analyses performed in this study attempts to discern any differences in separately averaged male and female response to super shoes.

Although much of the research into carbon plated shoe technology has been conducted in the laboratory, some work has been done outside of the laboratory.  In particular, Bjorkelo et al. (2) found that the introduction of super shoes in 2017 was associated with a 91 second decrease in elite male marathoning times.  Additionally, Robbin et al. (11) found that, since the introduction of super shoes, elite male and female marathoning times have improved according to the 3 following criteria:  (1) the arithmetic mean of the medians of the 100 best performances per year was at least 0.3% faster than the reference value, (2) at least 50% of the years in the observation period were faster than the reference value, and (3) two years within the observation period were the fastest years analyzed.  Most notably, they found that arithmetic mean of the medians decreased by 1.45% for the females and by 0.73% for the males.  This corroborates the 1.174% decrease in elite male times found by Bjorkelo et al. (2). 

In this paper, we will take the previous research several steps further.  While the previous research looked at the one-time effect of super shoes on race times (e.g. a 1.45% decrease in marathon times for women and a 0.73% decrease for men) (11), we will address the question:  on a yearly basis, are race times improving more rapidly than they used to for elite male and female marathon runners?  Additionally, we will statistically quantify any differences that exist between this rate of improvement for men versus women.

METHODS 

In order to address the questions posed above, we collected data on the number of male individuals running under 2:08 for the marathon for each year from 1985 through 2024, and similarly, collected data on the number of female individuals running under 2:26:50 for each year from 2002 through 2024 (note that we examine the number of unique individuals under these time standards, not the total number of performances under these standards).  These data are publicly available, and were obtained from the World Athletics database (6). We then conducted several linear regression analyses. Due to the time-series nature of the data, we used Cochrane-Orcutt transformations on all continuous variables, in order to remediate the autocorrelation of the residuals (4).  This transformation transforms the regression variables such that the correlation of model errors over time is dramatically reduced.  After correcting for autocorrelation, no evidence of heteroskedasticity or non-normality of residuals was detected.  Additionally, in order to minimize the multicollinearity in the models, we centered the year about 2017.  Note that all hypotheses are tested at the 0.05 level of significance.

In each of the aforementioned regressions, the dependent variable is either the number of individuals who ran sub-2:08 marathon in a given calendar year (when dealing with men), or the number of individuals who ran sub-2:26:50 marathon times in a given calendar year (when dealing with women).  The times of 2:08 and 2:26:50 were chosen for the following reasons:  (1) they allowed us to find data dating back a few decades, (2) they would still be considered an elite marathon time today, and (3) the data for this particular set of times was readily available.  Further, the choice of 2:08 allows for a nice comparison to work previously done by Bjorkelo et al. (2), and as 2:08 is near the 2024 Olympic standard for men, the Olympic standard for women seemed a compatible complement. That said, we note that there is nothing intrinsically special about the times of 2:08 and 2:26:50.

While we acknowledge that the use of counts of performances below a fixed threshold differs from directly modeling finishing times, this approach offers two advantages. First, it provides a consistent and interpretable measure of performance depth over time, allowing us to assess how many athletes are achieving historically high standards in any given year. Second, threshold-based measures such as ours are less sensitive to extreme outliers (e.g., world records) and instead capture overall changes in competitive field quality.

In each regression, the year (e.g. 2010) is used as an independent variable.  As noted in the introduction, we consider 2017 to be the first year for which super shoes were widely available.

In practical terms, the approach outlined above allows us to compare how quickly elite-level performances were improving before and after the introduction of super shoes. Instead of focusing on individual race times, the model captures changes in the depth of elite performances over time.

RESULTS

We now address the first research question:  has the annual rate of increase of the number of men running under 2:08 changed since the introduction of super shoes?

Men

To clarify the above statement, we assume (and can see from the data) that the number of men running under 2:08 each year has been increasing over time, independent of shoe technology.  This may be attributable to such things as improved nutrition and better training methods.  Our goal is to see if that rate of increase changed in 2017, upon the introduction of super shoes.  In order to do this, we estimate the following equations:

Y = b11 + b21X, where Y = the number of men under 2:08, and X = year (for years 1985-2016)

Y = b12 + b22X, where Y = the number of men under 2:08, and X = year (for years 2017-2024). 

In the first equation above, b11 is the estimate y-intercept and b21is the estimated slope.  Similar notation is used throughout the remainder of this section for the remaining equations.  In practice, b21  is the pre-super shoe slope and b22 is the post-super shoe slope.  b21 tells us, on average, how many sub-2:08 performers were being added per year prior to the introduction of super shoes (presumably due to things like improved nutrition), while  b22 tells us, on average, how many sub-2:08 performers have been added per year after the super shoes were widely available.

The estimated equations are presented below (with standard errors in parentheses below the parameter estimates):

(equation 1a)  Y = -2022.04 + 2.595X

                                                              (0.516)

(equation 1b)  Y = -39725.17 + 14.395X

                                                                 (1.973)

Although it is not our primary topic of interest, we note that each of the slope parameter estimates above are statistically significant, and have p-values < 0.001. 

After estimating both equations (using ordinary least squares regression), we test the following hypothesis:

H0:  b21 = b22

H1:  b21 ≠ b22

Note that we use the approach above, as opposed to simply estimating one equation with an interaction term, because our attempts to do so were met with serious multicollinearity issues. 

In order to test the hypothesis above, we utilized a modified Sattherthwaite approach (13) to estimating the degrees of freedom for the corresponding t-test.  We utilize this approach because (1) some of our sample sizes are relatively small and (2) the variance of the parameter estimates we are comparing do not appear to be equal. 

From equations 1a and 1b, we find a test statistic value of T = 5.78.  Using the method of von Davier (13), we find an effective degrees of freedom of 8.23.  This results in a p-value = 0.00042.  Hence, we reject our null hypothesis of no difference between the slopes.  Indeed, it appears that the annual rate of change (slope) in the number of sub-2:08’s  during the super shoe era is significantly greater than the rate of change prior to the introduction of super shoes.

The difference between the slopes above is 11.8.  This means that, upon the introduction of super shoes, the rate of increase in the number of sub-2:08 runners each year increased by 11.8.  In other words, we are now adding nearly 12 more athletes per year to the sub-2:08 ranks than was the case prior to 2017.  In a practical sense, this suggests that elite performance is not just improving, but improving at an accelerating rate since the introduction of super shoes.

Women

Similarly, we now address our second research question:  has the annual rate of increase of the number of women running under 2:26:50 changed since the introduction of super shoes?

  In order to answer this question, we estimate the following equations:

Y = a11 + a21X, where Y = the number of women under 2:26:50, and X = year (for years 2002-2016)

Y = a12 + a22X, where Y = the number of women under 2:26:50, and X = year (for years 2017-2024)

The estimated equations are presented below (with standard errors in parentheses below the parameter estimates):

(equation 2a)  Y = -3780.75 + 3.58X

                                                              (1.127)

(equation 2b)  Y = -55464.92 + 25.79X

                                                                 (3.521)

As with the male marathoners, note that both of the slope parameter estimates above are statistically significant, and have p-values 0.008 and less than 0.001, respectively. 

We now test the following hypothesis for the women:

H0:  a21 = a22

H1:  a21 ≠ a22

From equations 2a and 2b, we calculate a test statistic value of T = 6.01.  Using the method of von Davier (13), we find an effective degrees of freedom of 5.87.  This results in a p-value = 0.0018.  Hence, we again reject our null hypothesis of no difference between the slopes.  It appears that, as with the male marathoners, the annual rate of change (slope) in the number of sub-2:26:50’s run by females during the super shoe era is significantly greater than the rate of change prior to the introduction of super shoes.

Finding the difference of the slopes above, we are now seeing a rate of increase in sub-2:26:50 runners that is 22.21 athletes per year more than it was previously.

Comparison of Men and Women

We have just seen that there is convincing statistical evidence to show that the rate of increase of both male and female fast (under 2:08 and 2:26:50, respectively) marathons has increased since the introduction of super shoes.  Our final research question involves determining whether or not these two changes in rate of fast times is different between the genders.  In order to do this, we estimate one regression equation for each gender.  Each of these equations involves the entirety of the years available for that gender.  The dependent variable is unchanged from before.  We now use the 3 following independent variables:  X1 = year, X2 is a 0-1 dummy variable which indicates whether or not super shoes were available that year, and the interaction term X1 X2.  We can then test to see if there is a difference in the changes of the two genders’ slopes by testing to see if the parameter estimates for the two interaction terms are equal or not.  Specifically, we test:

H0:  c4m = c4f

H1:  c4m ≠ c4f,

 Where the ci are the coefficients of the two equations’ parameter estimates, and m and f refer to the male and female equations, respectively.  The coefficients in the hypotheses above are taken from equations 3a and 3b below, which represent the two regression equations we estimated:

(equation 3a)  Y = 26.71 +1.008X1m + 25.94X2m + 2.73X1mX2m

                                                       (0.208)        (8.54)            (2.06)

(equation 3b)  Y = 108.85 +3.194X1f + 321.71X2f + 20.27X1fX2f

                                                         (0.90)        (48.64)            (3.36)

Recall that Y is the estimated number of athletes under 2:08 or 2:26:50 (elite), and each equation above contains an intercept, an intercept additive “shift” for the super shoe era (X2), a slope representing the estimated annual increase in number of elite marathons from 1985-2024 (X1),and an additive increase in slope for the estimated additional number of elite marathons each year after the introduction of super shoes (X1X2)).

From equations 3a and 3b, we used the same techniques as in the first two hypothesis tests, and calculate a test statistic value of T = 4.45 with an effective degrees of freedom of 5.67.  This results in a p-value = 0.0067.  Hence, we reject the null hypothesis and do, indeed, find evidence that the rate of change in the two genders’ slopes is different.  Namely, the women’s slope appears to have changed more than did the men’s slope.  We now discuss the aforementioned results in more detail.

DISCUSSION

The results from the previous section provide several interesting implications for the future of marathoning.  The preceding findings are not only statistically important, but also have applications for coaches and athletes who want to understand how rapidly the competitive standard in elite marathoning is evolving.  To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide statistical evidence that advanced shoe technology is associated not only with immediate performance improvements, but also with an increased rate of elite performance progression over time.

In order to put these new results in context, however, it is important to recall a prior result.  Bjorkelo et al. (2) previously found that the widespread introduction of super shoes in 2017 resulted in an immediate increase in the number of sub-2:08 marathons run per year.  Specifically, they found two things:  (1) the introduction of super shoes was associated with an immediate increase in the number of sub-2:08 marathons by just over 23 per year and (2) after accounting for this shoe effect, there was a trend over time of an additional 2.56 sub-2:08 times per year.  Their data set, however, only included times through 2021.  Combining these results, we can look at number of sub-2:08 times per year as a linear function of time that took a one time jump in 2017. 

Our results extend this past work in a significant way.  Namely, we found that, in addition to this one time jump the number of fast (where, for purposes of this paper, we define fast as under 2:08 for men and under 2:26:50 for women) marathons, the number of fast marathons being added per year has also increased.  In other words, the number of fast marathon times per year can no longer be viewed as a simple linear function.  Rather, the number of fast times per year is a piecewise function of time, with the changepoint occurring in 2017.  At that time, the slope of the function changed.

Regarding the specifics of this change in slope, we find that in 2017, for men, the number of additional  sub-2:08 times per year increased from 2.595 to 14.395.  Similarly, for women, the number of additional sub-2:26:50 times per year increased from 3.58 to 25.79.  There are a few possible reasons for this increase.  One likely reason involves the possibility that training in these highly cushioned shoes allows runners to train at higher volume and/or intensity.  This ability to run hard sessions with less residual fatigue may allow marathoners to improve their times faster than before.  While a thorough discussion of marathon training methods is beyond the scope of this paper, we do mention an example.  First, Ruiz et al. (12) found that carbon plated marathon racing shoes allowed athletes to run faster later in hard track workouts.   Similarly, it would be reasonable to expect that these shoes might allow athletes to recover more quickly following the completion of hard workouts.  If this is true, it would allow marathoners to run more hard workouts during any given time period. 

In addition to the recovery effect noted above, it is possible that there might be a psychological effect influencing the increasing rate of fast marathon times being seen each year.  Pfister (10) found that a super shoe placebo effect might exist.  Specifically, they found that, given 2 structurally identical shoes, runners perceived a reduction in running effort when they were told the shoes were super shoes. 

Related to this is the potential for super shoes to have initiated a “Bannister effect” in marathon running.  The Bannister effect refers to the flood of sub-4:00 miles run in the immediate aftermath of Roger Bannister breaking that long revered barrier in 1954 (14).  It is possible that the physical effects of super shoes resulted in people running faster than before, which, in turn, led to people believing they could run faster than before.  If a 2:08 marathon is no longer seen as especially fast for an elite male marathoner, this belief may result in more elite athletes going after this as a realistic goal, thus increasing the pool of people who may run under 2:08.  It would seem reasonable for all of the aforementioned super shoe effects to hold for both men and women and, indeed, we found statistically significant evidence that the rate of increase in fast marathons did increase for both men and women.

Other possible explanations include that the “slope” and “intercept” considerations are being confounded by the effects of some early adopters and some later adopters. This is less likely for Olympic caliber athletes as those considered here.

Further, it seems that super shoe producers are continuing to innovate. Nike’s original super shoes were named “4%s,” a nod to the purported energy savings.  As time goes by and technologies improve, this 4% number may grow. 

Our next result of interest involves comparing the super shoe effect in men and women.  As seen in our results section, the rate of increase in women’s fast (2:26:50) marathon times was statistically significantly greater than the rate of increase in men’s fast (2:08) times.  This implies that, for some reason, super shoes may have a greater effect on women’s times than on men’s.  Minimal work has been done comparing men’s and women’s responses to super shoes, so the reasons behind the difference we detected are speculative.  One possible reason could be due to potential differences in male and female physiology and/or biomechanics.  A second reason could be related to the possibility that there may simply be more room for improvement in women’s marathoning than in men’s marathoning (perhaps due to later access).

While this study focuses on elite-level performances, the findings may also have implications for non-elite runners. As improvements in shoe technology continue to influence performance at the highest levels, similar results have been found for recreational runners (9). This could affect pacing strategies, training approaches, and goal setting for individuals whose objectives are things like setting personal best times or qualifying for the Boston Marathon.

As can be seen, maintaining one’s competitive status may increasingly depend not only on talent and training, but also on access to and the use of advanced footwear technology.

This research also provides interesting avenues for future research.  First, it would be valuable for more research to be done comparing the effect of carbon plated shoes on males versus females. Research comparing effects in both training, racing, and recovery would be valuable.  Second, a repeat of the study contained herein in several years would be of interest.  In particular, such a study could shed light on whether or not the change in slope we observed is permanent.  Finally, extending the work done in this paper to track races would be most useful.  The technology present in super shoes was, even more recently, introduced to spikes used for track races.  It would be interesting to see how similar the effects of these spikes are to the effects we found in the marathon shoes.

There are some limitations to the research presented here.  First, and most importantly, our sample sizes are relatively small.  This is unavoidable, however, since super shoes have only been widely available for 8 years as of the writing of this paper.  Additionally, we note that the results we found speak to the evolution of marathon racing as a whole, and do not offer predictions as to the effect of shoe technology on any given runner.  Finally, it is certainly possible that factors such as changes in prize structures and advances in training may have contributed to the observed changes over time.  That said, our inclusion of a time variable in each regression should account for incremental changes in performance over time.  By comparing the change in the time variable’s slope upon the introduction of super shoes, we attempt to isolate this major change as best as reasonably possible.

CONCLUSION 

In summary, we have found that the use of carbon plated shoe technology is significantly related to the rate of increase in the number of fast marathoners per year.  In addition to the immediate performance effect of super shoes, the number of additional fast times being added each year has increased significantly for both men and women since the introduction of these shoes in 2017.  In order to remain competitive in this environment, athletes are going to have to take advantage of every possible opportunity offered by equipment technology.  This increase in competitiveness appears to be even greater in women’s marathoning than in men’s marathon racing.  More broadly, these findings highlight how new technologies can alter the trajectory of performance progression in endurance sports.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

The results of this study have important implications for athletes, coaches, and sport governing bodies.  First, the ongoing benefit of super shoe technology provides one important additional reason for competitive runners – both elite and non-elite – to consider the use of super shoes.  As Paradisis et al. (9) showed, the lab effect of super shoes is quite significant, even among recreational competitors.  While elite athletes generally have their shoes paid for by sponsors, recreational athletes must consider the costs and benefits of these shoes.  With most super shoes costing at least $250, it is important to be aware of all of their benefits prior to making a purchasing decision.  For competitive runners, this implies that, despite their cost, not using super shoes may place them at a growing disadvantage as performance standards continue to improve.

Second, as noted earlier, a portion of the ongoing benefit of super shoes appears to be due to their ability to allow runners to perform more frequent high intensity training sessions.  Having empirically verified that this benefit is significant, athletes of all levels may now consider working with their coaches to modify past training regimens, due to the enhanced ability to recover that these shoes provide.  Coaches may therefore consider revisiting traditional recovery assumptions when developing training micro and macrocycles.  For example, coaches may consider modest increases in weekly training volume or intensity, while carefully monitoring recovery, in order to leverage the enhanced recovery capacity offered by super shoe technology.

Finally, there are applications for race directors and governing bodies.  The people in charge of determining qualifying times for events such as the Olympics, Olympic Trials, and Boston Marathon often determine these standards years in advance with a rough idea of the field size they desire.  Since we have now shown, and quantified, that the rate of increase in the number of fast times has increased, it may be useful to consider this information when setting qualifying standards, in order to optimize the number of competitors in a marathon.  Failure to account for these trends may result in the use of qualifying standards that no longer reflect the intended level of selectivity.

REFERENCES 

  1.  Batista, K., Peel, S., Healey, L., & Paquette, M. (2025). The effects of forefoot curvature in “super-shoes” on the biomechanics and metabolic cost of female runners. Footwear Science, 17(sup1), S181-S182.
  2.  Bjorkelo, A., Savitz, R., Ward, J., & Waggoner, B. (2024). Super shoes: How super are they?  Journal of Sports Analytics, 10(1), 137-140.
  3.  Clark, K.P., Ryan, L.J., & Weyand, P.G. (2017).A general relationship links gait mechanics and running ground reaction forces. Journal of Experimental Biology, 220(2), 247-258.
  4.  Cochrane, D., and Orcutt, G.H., 1949. Application of least squares regression to relationships containing auto-correlated error terms. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44(245), 32-61. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1949.10483290
  5.  Herbert-Losier, K., & Pamment, M. (2022). Advancements in running shoe technology and their effects on running economy and performance– a current concepts overview. Sports Biomechanics, pp.1–16. doi:10.1080/14763141.2022. 2110512
  6.  World Athletics. (2024). Records. https://worldathletics.org/records
  7.  Hunter, I., McLeod, A., Valentine, D., Low, T., Ward, J., & Hager, R. (2019). Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(20), 2367-2373
  8.  Morgan, D.W., Martin, P.E. and Krahenbuhl, G.S. (1989). Factors affecting running economy. Sports Medicine, 7(5), 310–330. doi: 10.2165/00007256-198907050-00003
  9.  Paradisis, G. P., Zacharogiannis, E., Bissas, A., & Hanley, B. (2023). Recreational runners gain physiological and biomechanical benefits from super shoes at marathon paces. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 18(12), 1420-1426.
  10.  Pfister, A. (2024). The potential placebo effect of advanced footwear technology on running economy and comfort in female recreational runners (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Waikato).
  11.  Robbin, J., Mai, P., Helwig, J.,  and Willwacher, S.  (2023) Does an analysis of the world top 100 track and road running performances provide an indication for the effects of super shoes and spikes?, Footwear Science, 15:sup1, S16-S17, doi: 10.1080/19424280.2023.2199262
  12.  Ruiz-Alias, S. A., Pérez-Castilla, A., Soto-Hermoso, V. M., & García-Pinillos, F. (2023). The effect of using marathon shoes or track spikes on neuromuscular fatigue caused by a long-distance track training session. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(13), 976-982.
  13.  von Davier, M. (2024). A Modified Satterthwaite (1941, 1946) Effective degrees of freedom approximation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14606.
  14.  Wooten, J. O. (2022). Leaps in innovation and the Bannister effect in contests. Production and Operations Management, 31(6), 2646-2663.
2026-06-29T08:43:40-05:00June 26th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, General, Olympics, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Marketing|Comments Off on Super Shoes:  A Quantitative Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Performance Gains
Read More

BOOK REVIEW: Murphy, J. (2020). Inner Excellence. Train Your Mind For Extraordinary Performance And The Best Possible Life. Academy of Excellence – New York – Rome – Tokyo.

Author: Barrett Snyder

Corresponding Author:

Barrett Snyder

[email protected]

The author holds an M.S. Exercise Science degree from West Chester University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from Drexel University.

Inner Excellence, by Jim Murphy, was published in 2020 but entered the broader public conversation several years later. During a nationally televised Wild Card game in January 2025, A.J. Brown of the Philadelphia Eagles was spotted reading the book on the sideline, a moment that drew widespread attention. His postgame praise helped propel the book to the number one spot on Amazon by the following morning.While Brown’s visibility expanded its audience, Murphy’s work ultimately stands on its own as a clear, accessible exploration of the mental habits that separate elite performers and extend beyond sport.

At its core, Inner Excellence challenges the idea that achievement alone creates a meaningful life, instead placing value on growth that begins internally through self-awareness and personal development rather than external validation. Murphy encourages readers to move away from chasing approval or outcomes and toward building a steadier foundation rooted in purpose and perspective. Central to this shift is his caution against ego, which he describes as one of the greatest obstacles people face. In Murphy’s view, excessive self-focus distorts perspective, limits growth, and distracts from long-term development.

That same mindset shapes how Murphy frames the book itself. He invites readers to approach Inner Excellence not as a destination to reach, but as an ongoing process rather than a final achievement. In doing so, he challenges conventional definitions of success, suggesting that exceptional leaders measure it through effort, growth, and a sense of purpose extending beyond oneself. This reframing feels relevant in a culture fixated on contracts, awards, and social media validation. Importantly, Murphy delivers these ideas without an authoritative tone, writing instead as a guide alongside the reader and inviting reflection rather than dictating conclusions. Although many examples draw from athletics and the language of sport, the lessons extend well beyond athletes, translating naturally to everyday life and professional pursuits through references to figures such as Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and J.K. Rowling.

Murphy draws on his background as a former member of the Chicago Cubs to illustrate how closely his sense of identity and self-worth became tied to performance. That dynamic may feel familiar to many readers and raises a natural question about how often personal worth becomes linked to results alone. I recognize that tendency in myself, particularly in the ways confidence and self-perception can become tethered to external outcomes.

Inner Excellence is organized into eleven chapters that explore a broad range of ideas, including performance, emotional control, presence, overcoming mental blocks, maintaining poise under pressure, and leadership. Across these chapters, Murphy also weaves in topics such as the subconscious, visualization, self-awareness, the difference between dreams and goals, and the development of courage. Among them, Chapter 3, “The Greatest Opponents You’ll Ever Face,” stood out most to me. In it, Murphy identifies three internal adversaries that undermine performance and growth: the Critic, the Monkey Mind, and the Trickster. The Critic delivers negative judgments, the Monkey Mind fuels relentless mental noise, and the Trickster fixates on past failures to reinforce self-doubt. What gives the chapter its weight for me is how it reflects my own experience, where progress is often limited less by external obstacles than by the internal narratives I carry.

Murphy brings further clarity to this idea by framing life as a series of choices between two paths: the path of freedom and the path of comfort. One requires risk, growth, and a willingness to confront fear, while the other favors safety and familiarity, often at the cost of long-term development. I am frequently drawn toward the option that offers less resistance, only to recognize how easily comfort can delay growth. In this way, Inner Excellence moves beyond athletic performance and becomes a personal challenge, prompting an honest reckoning with how rarely meaningful progress occurs without deliberate discomfort.

Inner Excellence is not a book meant to be rushed, and for some readers, myself included, it can feel overwhelming if approached too quickly. There is a great deal of material, but readers should not feel pressured to absorb or apply everything at once. Instead, the book benefits from a slower, more intentional pace, with chapters best read in smaller sections and revisited as needed. Murphy’s approach relies on reflection, lived experience, illustrative examples, and quotations rather than formal research or statistical validation, which may not appeal to readers who prefer strictly data-driven frameworks. That said, the book is intended as a practical resource rather than an academic text. Each chapter concludes with clearly defined “Key Points,” along with follow-up questions and activities that encourage application. In this way, Inner Excellence functions less as a book to be read straight through and, for me, more as a personal toolkit, one that invites readers to return to specific chapters and apply the lessons most relevant to their lives. The writing is clear, making the ideas easy to understand and apply in everyday settings.

Murphy draws a parallel between physical and mental training, emphasizing that mental development deserves the same consideration we give physical preparation. Inner Excellence offers not a finish line, but a framework meant to be revisited, applied, and lived over time. It reads less as a prescription for immediate change and more as an invitation to return, reflect, and apply its ideas with patience and intention, making it a book I would strongly recommend and one that at times feels akin to a personal form of therapy.

2026-02-12T13:35:16-06:00June 24th, 2026|Book Reveiws, Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership, Sports Studies, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on BOOK REVIEW: Murphy, J. (2020). Inner Excellence. Train Your Mind For Extraordinary Performance And The Best Possible Life. Academy of Excellence – New York – Rome – Tokyo.
Read More

BOOK REVIEW: Moawad, T. (2022). Getting to Neutral: How to Conquer Negativity and Thrive in a Chaotic World. HarperOne.

Author: Barrett Snyder

Corresponding Author:

Barrett Snyder

[email protected]

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written while the author was a student. The author has since graduated. The author holds an M.S. Exercise Science degree from West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Trevor Moawad, author of It Takes What It Takes, passed away in September 2021. Yet his influence resonates through the posthumous release of his second book, Getting to Neutral: How to Conquer Negativity and Thrive in a Chaotic World, published in 2022. The book builds on the mindset philosophy of neutral thinking that made Moawad a trusted figure in elite performance circles. In Getting to Neutral, he outlines practical strategies for applying neutral thinking to real-time adversity—reaffirming his core belief that performance begins with a mindset grounded in reality, not emotion. The goal is to break free from the weight of past experiences and focus on what can be controlled in the present to shape the future. As Moawad often said, “The past may be real, but it’s not predictive.”

Moawad’s writing isn’t academic or journalistic—it’s conversational. While that may deter some, it makes his ideas more accessible. The book’s 11 chapters explore different aspects of neutral thinking, and for a clear, non-sports example, Chapter 2—“How to Downshift to Neutral”—delivers. Moawad illustrates the concept through two personal, relatable experiences: his cancer diagnosis and COVID-19. In both cases, the future was uncertain, and he had to stay grounded in the present. It’s easy to be consumed by fear and doubt, but Moawad urges us to focus on what we can control. This doesn’t mean forcing positivity—after all, how can anyone be truly “positive” while facing a terminal illness or global crisis? Instead, he emphasizes staying neutral—accepting what has happened, recognizing what is happening, and asking “What’s the next thing I need to do?”

In Chapter 5, “Behaving Your Way to Success,” Moawad references Navy Admiral William McRaven’s 2014 University of Texas commencement speech, which opens with the simple directive: “Make your bed.” Moawad uses this to introduce a core theme: success isn’t built on big, dramatic moments—it’s built on small, consistent habits. “First you form your habits, then they form you,” he writes, challenging readers to consider whether their behaviors align with their values. If you value health but never prioritize exercise, is that value truly guiding you? He argues that those who rise to the top aren’t always the most talented, but the most consistent. This chapter made me reflect on my own routines and how I often confuse intention with action. Moawad’s reminder, that identity is shaped not by belief, but by habit, challenges us to own not just what we want, but how we show up.

Chapter 6, “Indiana Trevor and the Scroll of Doom,” felt especially relevant in a time when constant negativity seems inescapable. It explores doomscrolling and highlights studies on nonstop news cycles and social media’s impact on mental health—topics I related to personally. I left social media after repeatedly comparing my life to others’ highlight reels. Moawad captures the emotional toll of comparison—something I had felt but never fully expressed. One line stuck with me: “They’re working hard to mask their own insecurities and, in the process, they’re helping create insecurity in you”—a reminder that even those who seem to have it all together often don’t. He closes the chapter with a simple, lasting message: “Set the phone down and get on with your life.” That line helped me reclaim clarity in a world of constant comparison.

In Chapter 7, Moawad shares a line that struck me: “Starve your distractions. Feed your focus.” As someone who struggles to quiet mental noise, that phrase became a personal compass—a reminder to make space for what matters. “Starve your distractions” pushed me to examine the habits and inputs draining my attention and challenged me to be intentional with my time and let go of what keeps me stagnant. “Feed your focus” reinforced that progress isn’t about bursts of inspiration, it’s about daily commitment.

As much as the book resonated with me, it isn’t without flaws. One notable drawback is its pacing. In a time when readers seek clear, actionable insights, Getting to Neutral can take too long to deliver. Moawad often opens with extended backstories that, while insightful, delay the core message—the buildup feels like a long inhale when a sharper breath is needed. The principles are strong, but the path to them can test the reader’s patience.

The book may further lose some readers due to frequent name-dropping, especially when references to elite athletes don’t resonate. That said, Getting to Neutral feels more grounded and introspective than Moawad’s first book, with less explicit language and a more measured tone. A quieter humility runs through the pages, likely shaped by the personal challenges he was facing.

The final chapter, “There Is No Finish Line,” feels like an unexpected conclusion centering on stories about Billy Donovan, coach of the Chicago Bulls. Though sincere, these reflections didn’t quite resonate—but just before the close, Moawad delivers the line that brings it all together:

“We’re all in charge of our wins and losses because we’re in charge of what we do next…So as you look into your future, don’t assign so much weight to things that haven’t happened yet.”

Moawad closes with a message of empowerment:

“None of what has happened in the past predicts the future. Every moment is its own adventure. So you own that next moment. And the next. And the next. And you keep going.”

Did he know it would be the last page he’d ever write? His final message feels intentional—meant to help the reader move forward with hope, clarity, and the confidence to do so without him. For me, it was a lasting reminder that the next moment is always unwritten—and that continuing on is both the challenge and the reward.

2025-10-29T09:49:24-05:00June 24th, 2026|Book Reveiws, Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership|Comments Off on BOOK REVIEW: Moawad, T. (2022). Getting to Neutral: How to Conquer Negativity and Thrive in a Chaotic World. HarperOne.
Read More

Examining Work Addiction, Burnout and Work-Family Conflict in Sport Organizations

Authors: Alexandrya H. Cairns1, Danielle Earnest2, Stephanie M. Singe3

1PhD, ATC, Assistant Professor, Department of Health and Movement Sciences, Southern Connecticut State University

2BS, Athletic Training Student, Department of Kinesiology University of Connecticut

3PhD, ATC, FNATA, Professor, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut

 

Corresponding Author:

[email protected]

ABSTRACT 


Purpose: The culture of National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Division I (DI) athletics can stimulate a culture that appears to “greedy” placing high demands on the time and energy of those working within the sport organization. These intense demands create the potential for experiences of work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict among sport professionals. We aimed to examine the overall experiences of work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict within the NCAA DI sport organization. Methods: We used an online cross-sectional survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) composed of demographics, measurement tools for work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. Each of the scales have strong internal consistency as reported by Cronbach’s alpha scores. The study was distributed to certified athletic trainers (AT), coaches, and sport performance coaches (SPC) working full-time in their position at an NCAA DI institution. Results: There was no significant difference in reported scores on the BWAS between athletic trainers and coaches (U = 3952.00, p = .160), and no significant difference was found between sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U = 5894.00, p = .879). A significant difference of burnout levels between athletic trainers and coaches was revealed (U = 3559.50, p = .017) andno significant difference discovered in the reported levels of burnout between athletic trainers and sport performance coaches (U = 5483.00, p = .313). There was no significant difference between athletic trainers and coaches for work-family conflict (U = 4483.00, p =.939), or sport performance sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U= 5576.50, p = .416). Conclusions: Our results indicate that work addiction and work-family conflict are experienced similarly across the sport organization. Athletic trainers were found to experience higher levels of burnout compared to coaches, but similar levels to sport performance coaches. Application in Sport: Implementing policies that address work and family strain coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches can face working in sport is important. Although overall burnout was low, athletic trainers were at greater risk; thus addressing the factors causing them to have greater levels of burnout than other 2 stakeholder groups is important.

Key Words: stress, role strain, workplace dynamics, organization conflict

INTRODUCTION 

Working within a collegiate sport organization places high demands on an individual, regardless of the role they play within that organization. The demands of the individual working in sport can include long working hours (+40 hours a week) that extend into nights and weekends (Laskowski & Ebben, 2016; Mazerolle et al., 2011; Scriber & Alderman, 2005; Singe et al., 2023b). Working hours are often accompanied by the need to be physically present, limiting flexibility and autonomy over work scheduling (Laskowski & Ebben, 2016; Mazerolle et al., 2011; Scriber & Alderman, 2005; Singe et al., 2023b). Organizational culture represents the underlying beliefs, values, and assumptions within an organization (Schein, 2010). The culture within sport organization has been described as one that is influenced by commercialization which has led to pressures to win at all costs due to the financial implications (Pope & Pope, 2014). Coaches, athletic trainers, and others working in sport organizations can feel the pressures associated with this culture, which can increase their stress, and influence their perceptions of work saliency, work-family conflict, and burnout.

Work addiction is a preoccupation with work (Andreassen, 2014; Robinson, 1999); and can be conceptualized as an individual who prioritizes their work over other responsibilities, which can lead to work-family conflict (Eason et al., 2022). Working in sport may have an influence on experiences of work addiction, particularly if the expectations around success and commitment hinge on prioritizing work. Coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches all contribute to the mission of the sport organization yet have very different and unique roles. Thus, the level of work addiction each of these individuals working in sport may demonstrate could vary, as well as the influence it may have on burnout and work-family. Research has examined experiences of burnout and work-family conflict among coaches and athletic trainers, independently, but not simultaneously (Graham & Smith, 2021; Singe et al., 2022). Organizational factors unique to sport are perhaps keys to understanding why burnout and work-family conflict occur, and better understanding if the role assumed in the sport organization can contribute.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Working Within the Sport Organization

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the governing body that administers intercollegiate athletics in the United States. The NCAA is subdivided into three different divisions to create a fair playing field where teams are competing with schools at a similar level. Many factors separate the three subdivisions including media attention, airtime, and of course resources centered around finances and scholarship (Overview, n.d.). The NCAA Division I (DI) schools typically house the largest student bodies and possess the greatest number of athletic scholarship opportunities largely attributed to their large athletic budgets. Working within the NCAA DI setting comes with increased pressures and stress (Singe et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2019) , particularly for coaches as they must produce through wins as well as retain students in their programs (Norris et al., 2017; Singe et al., 2022). The NCAA DI programs have large budgets which has the potential to play a significant role in the pressures and stress faced by those who are employed in the division.

At the NCAA Division II (DII) level student-athletes are offered scholarships to participate, but the number per sport is much less than the NCAA DI setting (Our Division II Story, n.d.).The expectations of those student-athletes participating at this level are somewhat less than the NCAA DI level, as time demands are slightly less (Our Division II Story, n.d.). The overall philosophy of the NCAA DII setting is one about balance, in which student-athletes are pushed to excel in their sport, but also in the classroom and campus community (Our Division II story, n.d.).

The NCAA Division III (DIII) level does not award scholarships generated from athletic participation (Our Three Divisions, n.d.), and has been described as a setting that encourages student first, and athlete second. Since there are no athletic scholarships offered, the budgets within these programs are much less than the other two divisions. The demands and expectations within the NCAA DIII setting are much less than and considered to be the most well-balanced collegiate experience (Our Division III Story, n.d.).

Working in the intercollegiate setting has been described as high-pressure, demanding, and one that can increase feelings of stress. Work addiction, burnout, and challenges with work-life balance have been found to occur for those working in intercollegiate sport, including coaches, athletic administrators, sports information specialists, and athletic trainers (Dixon & Bruening, 2005; Eason et al., 2022; Graham & Smith, 2022; Hatfield & Johnson, 2012). Causative factors linked to these challenges of working in sport include culture expectations within the workplace, time demands, inflexible work schedules, travel, and role incongruence. Sport is founded on the premise of teamwork and each member of the team has a critical role to support team success. Coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches are key members within the intercollegiate setting with unique roles supporting the student-athlete. Each has different roles, responsibilities, and expectations, and evidence that suggests those working in the intercollegiate setting are challenged to push beyond their work saliency leaving them vulnerable to work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. 

Work Addiction and Sport

Workaholism is conceptualized as something that occurs when a person becomes completely engulfed in their work, investing their time and energy in their work life (McMillan et al., 2003). Those who display characteristics of a workaholic are prone to experiences of increased stress, burnout, and work-family conflict (Clark et al., 2016; Eason et al., 2022). One’s career has been associated with higher experiences of workaholism, such as sport as the culture is one of sacrifice, expectations to put in long work hours, and choosing work over one’s personal life (Dixon & Bruening, 2005; Graham & Dixon, 2014). Workaholics have a high involvement in their work (i.e. working long hours), have a hard time disengaging from work, and feel compelled or driven to work (McMillan et al., 2003). Working harder than perhaps their job requires workaholics will then start neglecting their lives outside of their jobs (Schaufeli et al., 2008).

Coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches all must work long hours; in fact, athletic trainers have reported working 60+ hour work weeks, extending into nights and weekends (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Singe et al., 2023b; Snarr & Beasley, 2022). These long working hours reported by individuals working in sport have been attributed to burnout and work-family conflict (Eason et al., 2022), and recently have been suggested to be perhaps driven by work addiction ( Eason et al., 2022) or associated with it (Taylor et al., 2019). Work addiction can be explained as an individual factor that can be attributed to one’s experiences of work-family conflict or burnout, and job demands such as long hours can be an organizational construct that influences work-family conflict or burnout (Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020; Eason et al., 2022). What is unknown is the aspects such as the navigation of long working hours and personal attributes of a coach, athletic trainer, or sport performance coach necessary to be successful members working in intercollegiate athletics.

Work addiction has seven core components or symptoms: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse, and problems. These symptoms have been developed into a scale, the Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS) as outlined by Andreassen et al. (2014) salience (the activity dominates thinking and behavior), tolerance (increasing amounts of the activity are required to achieve initial effects), mood modification (the activity modifies/improves mood), relapse (tendency for reversion to earlier patterns of the activity after abstinence of control), withdrawal (occurrence of unpleasant feelings when the activity if discontinued or suddenly reduced), conflict (the activity comes into conflict with personal life, needs, and relationships), and problems (caused by being greatly engaged in the activity).

Experiences of Burnout in Athletics

Burnout is one of the many identified stressors of those working in athletics largely attributed to the long working hours, high workloads, and demands (Singe et al., 2023b). Burnout has been defined as the degree of physical and psychological fatigue experienced by a person that can be attributed to personal, work, or client-related stress (Cairns et al., 2023; Kristensen et al., 2005). Organizational factors have been identified in being the greatest influence over experiences of burnout (Barrett et al., 2016). Individual factors such as personality have also been observed to influence burnout as well. Burnout has been positively associated with role strain, neuroticism, and work-family conflict (Barrett et al., 2016; Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020). The demanding environment of athletics involves high emotional involvement, stress, responsibility, and time restraints (Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020; Mazerolle et al., 2008). Furthermore, the organization commonly inadequately compensates their employees while still expecting them to work long hours with inadequate numbers of staff, a lack of control over scheduling, and limited time off (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020). The combination of these factors places those working within the sport organization at an increased risk of experiencing burnout. Positive relationships have been observed between burnout, work-family conflict, and intention to leave, while negative relationships have been observed with job and life satisfaction for those experiencing burnout (Mazerolle et al., 2008).

Due to the predispositions those working in sport face, burnout has been widely studied in sport. Those working in sports have been shown to experience moderate levels of burnout (Cairns et al., 2023; Singe et al., 2023a; Snarr & Beasley, 2022). However, there have been slight fluctuations in reported levels of burnout since the pandemic with levels of burnout lessening (Cairns et al., 2023). Sport professionals also tend to report high levels of personal and work-related burnout (Singe et al., 2023a; Taylor et al., 2019). Levels of personal burnout have a positive relationship with working hours and a negative relationship with hours of sleep (Singe et al., 2023a). Men and women report similar levels of burnout, suggesting that gender is not a significant predictor of experiences of burnout (Cairns et al., 2023). Incorporating coping strategies such as social support, continuing education, and self-care in addition to organizational support have all been associated with decreased levels of burnout in sport (Singe et al., 2023a; Snarr & Beasley, 2022).

Work-family Conflict

Work-family conflict defined as a form of inter-role conflict. The conflict occurs when the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the job interfere with performing family-related responsibilities (Netemeyer et al., 1996). With the high demands concerning time and presence associated with working in sport, work-family conflict is a prominent area of interest within the sport organization. Work-family conflict has been framed as a complex construct that is explained by individual, organizational/structural, and socio-cultural factors (Dixon & Bruening, 2005). This integrated approach to the exploration of work-family conflict within sport is increasingly important as studies have shown the presence of work-family conflict across the sport organization regardless of factors such as job, age, sex, or family/marital status. (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Mazerolle et al., 2008) .

While work-family conflict is experienced regardless of demographic factors, there have been increased levels of work-family conflict associated with marital and parental statuses. Those who are married with children are more likely to experience greater levels of work-family conflict (Singe et al., 2022). Setting has also been seen to play a role in the experiences of work-family conflict with those working in collegiate athletics reporting higher levels than those in the secondary setting (Mazerolle et al., 2015). Experiences of work-family conflict among those working in the sport organization have also been seen to be above average (Mazerolle et al., 2015). Previous research has also suggested that working within the NCAA DI setting increases experiences of work-family conflict (Singe et al., 2022). This is supported by findings that those working in the NCAA DI setting report greater levels of work-family conflict compared to those working in the NCAA DIII setting which could likely be attributed to the increased demand of the DI setting (Singe et al., 2022). Beyond intense professional demands, long working hours, lack of control over work schedules, and unbalanced workloads were all also related to increased conflict at the DI level (Mazerolle et al., 2011). Within the sport organization, four types of conflict have been found attributing to work-family conflict: time, energy, attention, and emotional spillover (Graham & Smith, 2022). However, several organizational and personal strategies help establish work-family balance. As an organization, the implementation of staffing policies and the creation of a supportive work environment help in reducing experiences of work-family conflict (Mazerolle et al., 2011). Individual management strategies can be broken down into personal factors and individual strategies on the professional level. Individual strategies involve the incorporation of teamwork, boundary setting, prioritization, and integration of family with work (Mazerolle et al., 2011). Personal factors focus greatly on the separation and work and life as well as the establishment of a support network (Mazerolle et al., 2011).

Purpose

Despite the growing body of research dedicated to the examination of these constructs within the sport organization, there remains a need for a better understanding of the varied experiences held by different stakeholders within the organization. Additionally, the exploration of work-addiction within the sport organization is novel. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine overall experiences of burnout, work addiction, and work-family conflict within sport organizations. Additionally, this study seeks to compare these experiences among the various stakeholders within the sport organization. Given this information, we hypothesized the following:

H1a– Coaches will report greater levels of work addiction compared to athletic trainers.

H2b– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of work addiction compared to sport performance coaches.

H2a– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of burnout compared to coaches.

H2b– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of burnout compared to sport performance coaches.

H3a– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of work-family conflict compared to coaches.

H3b– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of work-family conflict compared to sport performance coaches.

H4a– Work addiction and work-family conflict will have a positive relationship.

H4b– Work addition and burnout will have a positive relationship. 

METHODS 

Study design

The study design is a web-based cross-sectional study (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Data was collected using a self-reported online questionnaire evaluating sleep, self-care, work-family conflict, work addiction, and burnout among NCAA Division I collegiate athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches. Approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board (IRB) prior to data collection, which occurred over a four-week period in the Fall of 2023.

Procedures

Prior to survey distribution, we completed a face validity process; 3 athletic trainers took the survey for the purposes of the process. No changes were made to the survey based on the face validity feedback. Two email reminders were sent at the 1-week and 3-week marks, reminding participants to complete the survey.

Participants

The target population for the current study were NCAA Division I (DI) athletic trainers, sport performance coaches, and coaches. A list of all NCAA DI institutions was created using the NCSA college recruiting website (n = 363). From the list of institutions offering NCAA DI athletics programs, the individual athletics websites were accessed to create a list of emails for those individuals identified as an athletic trainer, sport performance coach, or a head or assistant coach. We were able to identify 13,412 email addresses across the 3 stakeholder groups. Our power analysis indicated a requirement of 258 respondents, which resulted in 86 participants from each stakeholder (group). Strata randomization was utilized since we did not have a complete list of all possible participants, thus phases of distribution were utilized and represented in Figure 1.  

Figure 1. Recruitment and Data Screening

Sample

A total of 153 athletic trainers (51.5%), 59 coaches (19.9%), and 78 sports performance coaches (26.3%) completed this research study. Of the participants, 166 were female (55.9%), 121 male (40.7%), and 2 preferred not to answer (0.7%). The mean age of the participants in this study was 33 ± 9, with ages ranging from 22 – 70 years. Participants on average had 10 ± 9 years of experience, with an average of 5 ± 6 years working at their current institution. On average, participants worked 55 ± 16 hours per week. Complete demographic data is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant Demographics

DemographicScore
Gender, n (%)
    Male121 (40.7)
    Female166 (55.9)
    Prefer not to answer2 (0.7)
Highest level of education, n (%)
    Bachelor’s Degree48 (16.2)
    Master’s Degree237 (79.8)
    Doctorate5 (1.7)
Primary Role, n (%)
    Head Coach18 (6.1)
    Associate Coach9 (3.0)
    Assistant Coach34 (11.4)
    Head Athletic Trainer15 (5.1)
    Associate Athletic Trainer37 (12.5)
    Staff/Assistant Athletic Trainer99 (33.3)
    Director, Sport Performance (Conditioning)23 (7.7)
    Strength and Conditioning Coach51 (17.2)
Marital status, n (%)
    Single137 (46.1)
    Cohabitating28 (9.4)
    Married117 (39.4)
    Separated2 (0.7)
    Divorced3 (0.7)
    Widowed1 (0.3)
    Engaged3 (1.0)
Spouse employment status n (%)
    Employed, full-time210 (70.7)
    Employed, part-time18 (6.1)
    Does not work/stay at home25 (8.4)
Children, n (%)
    0202 (70.0)
    Currently Pregnant8 (2.7)
    121 (7.1)
    233 (11.1)
    3+27 (8.8)
Group Identity, n (%) 
    Single Female112 (37.7)
    Single Male33 (11.1)
    Married Female43 (14.5)
    Married Male80 (26.9)
    This does not apply to me20 (6.7)

Instrumentation

The online survey was hosted in Qualtrics and included 36-items not including the demographic questions. Participants completed 13 demographic questions, prior to the 3 scales (i.e. Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), Bergen Work Addiction Scale, and Work-Family Conflict), which were not altered as they are valid instruments.  

Burnout. Burnout was measured using the CBI as a tool that demonstrates reliability (α=.85-.87) and had been used previously to measure burnout among athletic trainers (α=.88) (Kristensen et al., 2005; Naugle et al., 2013). The scale included 3 subscales: personal (n=6-items), work-related (n=7-items), and client-based burnout (n=6-items). Participants use a 5-point Likert scale 0 (never/almost never/low degree), 25 (seldom/low degree), 50 (somewhat or sometimes), 75 (often/high degree), and 100 (always/high degree). The scale is summed for an overall burnout score, with a higher score indicating a higher level of burnout (0 is low, 100 is severe).

Work addiction. The Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS) was used to measure work addiction (α=.78) among our sample. The scale has 7-items, each representing an aspect, or symptom of work addiction (salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse, and problems – Table 6). The 7-items are assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, 1 (never) to 5 (always). The responses are summed (range 7 to 35), and a score of 4 (often) or 5 (always) on 4 of 7 items indicates a high risk for work addiction.

Work-family conflict. Work-family conflict scale was assessed using the scale previously validated by Netemeyer et al. (α=.90). The 10-item scale evaluates the bi-directional nature of the construct; 5-items for work-family conflict (WFC) and 5-items for family-work conflict (FWC). Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample questions include: “WFC®The demands of my job interfere with my home and family life,” and “FWC®The things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands of my job.”

Data analyses

The data collected via Qualtrics was transferred to Excel by Microsoft Corporation. Following the completion of data collection, it underwent a filtration process to remove incomplete responses, defined as those failing to complete the required scales or the survey itself as per the scale validation. Subsequently, the filtered data was imported into SPSS, version, etc., for statistical analysis. Demographic information such as age, gender, and marital status were obtained through specific questions, and these demographic variables were subjected to descriptive and frequency analyses. The outcomes are presented as mean and standard deviation or frequency. Validated scales were assessed using means due to the non-parametric nature of the data analysis at hand, and Cohens d is reported for effect size.

RESULTS

Participant Demographics

Participants were 51.5% athletic trainers (n = 153), 19.9% were coaches (n=59), and 26.3% were sports performance coaches (n = 78). The average age of the participants was 33 ± 9 and they had been working in their respective roles for an average of 11± 9. They self-reported working 55 ± 17 hours per week (at the time of data collection).

Stakeholders and Work-Addiction

The mean score on the BWAS across all three stakeholder groups was 20.71 ± 4.57. Table 2 represents the mean scores on the BWAS, reported by each stakeholder group. Athletic trainers reported a score of 20.84 ± 4.51, whereas coaches reported a mean score of 20.05 ± 4.85. There was no significant difference in reported scores on the BWAS between athletic trainers and coaches (U = 3952.00, p = .160, d= 0.11). Additionally, sport performance coaches reported a mean score of 20.96 ± 4.50, and no significant difference was found between sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U = 5894.00, p = .879, d= -0.010). Furthermore, across all three stakeholders, 80 were found to be workaholics while 210 (38%) were found not to be work addicted. Among athletic trainers, 45 of the 153 (29%) respondents were found to be workaholics. Of coaches, 12 of the 59 (20%) respondents were found to be workaholics. Among sport performance coaches, 23 of 78 (29%) respondents were found to be workaholics.

Stakeholders and Burnout

Across all three stakeholder groups, participants reported low levels (46.27 ± 16.04) on the CBI, additionally mean scores of 54.9 5 ± 17.24 on the personal-related subscale, 49.99 ± 18.87 on the work-related subscale, and 33.25 ± 18.67 on the client-related subscale. Table 2 represents the mean scores on the CBI and subscales, reported by each stakeholder group. Athletic trainers reported a mean score of 48.07 ± 16.42 on the CBI, while coaches reported a mean score of 41.99 ± 15.89 on the CBI. A significant difference of burnout levels between athletic trainers and coaches was revealed (U = 3559.50, p = .017, d= -0.16).Additionally, sport performance coaches reported a mean score of 45.97 ± 14.92. There was no significant difference discovered in the reported levels of burnout between athletic trainers and sport performance coaches (U = 5483.00, p = .313, d= -0.06).

Table 2: Comparison of Reported Scale Scores by Stakeholder

StakeholderCBI (Mean±SD)BWAS (Mean±SD)WFC (Mean±SD)
Athletic Trainers48.07±16.4220.84±4.5137.66±9.26
Coaches41.99±15.8920.05±4.8537.64±10.52
Sports Performance45.97±14.9220.96±4.5037.86±9.49

Stakeholders and Work-Family Conflict

The mean score across all stakeholders on the WFC scale was 37.71 ± 9.56. Athletic trainers reported a mean of 37.66 ± 9.26, whereas coaches reported a mean of 37.64 ± 10.52. There was no significant difference between athletic trainers and coaches (U = 4483.00, p =.939, d= -0.05).Furthermore, sport performance coaches reported a mean of 37.86 ± 9.49, and no significant difference was found between sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U= 5576.50, p = .416, d= -0.06).

Variable relationships

Correlation matrices revealed a moderate positive correlation (.507) between work addiction and work-family conflict. Work addiction and burnout also resulted in a moderate positive relationship (.573).

DISCUSSION

Inferences has been made that working in sport can lead to experiences of burnout and work-family conflict, as well as that to be a productive member of the team one must be addicted to their role. Our purpose was to explore the experiences of work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict among athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches. This aim was directed at better understanding around one’s role in the sport organization and experiences of these constructs. As predicted work addiction, regardless of stakeholder position, leads to increased levels of burnout and work-family conflict. Uniquely, athletic trainers and coaches experience higher levels of burnout than sport performance coaches.

Stakeholders and Work-Family Conflict

We did not find any significant differences among our samples and experiences of WFC. The total mean score on the WFC scale is comparative to other studies examining WFC among athletic trainers work in the sport industry (Mazerolle et al. 2011; Pitney et al. 2011; Singe et al. in press). Our sample was largely represented by those who do not have children (70%); which could explain why we did not find any differences among our sample regarding experiences of WFC. Time is often a large facilitator of WFC, despite our sample reporting 55 hours per week, many did not have children another facilitator of WFC (Mazerolle et al., 2008; Pitney et al., 2011; Singe et al., 2023a). Perhaps working long hours has less of an impact on the individual when additional family responsibilities are not present, and one can focus on work and personal interests.

Stakeholders and Burnout

Overall, this sample of individuals working in the sport organization are experiencing low levels of burnout. Low levels of burnout does not imply that our sample is not experiencing it; however quantifiably it is lower. The literature over the last 5 years has suggested that coaches and athletic trainers are experiencing higher levels of burnout (Goodger et al., 2007; Singe et al., 2024; Singe et al., 2023a). We found that athletic trainers reported higher levels of burnout compared to coaches, but similar levels of burnout to sport performance coaches. Moderate levels of burnout have recently been reported among athletic trainers  (Singe et al., 2023a); however, fluctuations in experiences have been observed over the past 3 years with levels varying between moderate and low (Cairns et al., 2023; Oglesby et al., 2020; Singe et al., 2023a). Sport performance coaches have yet to be identified within the literature regarding burnout; our sample reported similar levels of burnout as athletic trainers. Similar to athletic trainers, sport performance coaches have high demands placed upon them, and they are invested in the success of their athletes as well as log long hours in the workplace (Bentzen et al., 2016; Olusoga et al., 2019).

Stakeholders and Work-Addiction

Our overall sample is not classified as a workaholic; however, both athletic trainers and sport performance coaches demonstrate a larger sample (29%) of those who would be classified as such. Workaholics may work long hours but that is by choice and perhaps not as a necessity (Andersen et al., 2023). Although our sample reports working excessive hours (55), they do not self-identify as workaholics. Moreover, we did not find significant differences between stakeholders. These findings suggest that work addiction is likely an individualized factor, and not necessarily an outcome of working in sport organization. As detailed in the work-family conflict framework of Bruening and Dixon (2005, 2007), there are individual, organizational, and sociocultural outcomes of experiences of work-family conflict.  

Variable relationships

Positive relationships were found between work addiction and both burnout and work-family conflict. The correlations found between the experiences of these constructs are consistent with those observed in previous studies examining these constructs in athletic trainers (Eason et al., 2022). These results make it apparent that experiences of work addiction, work-family conflict, and burnout occur at the same time. Previously stated, work-addiction can be attributed to experiences of work-family conflict and burnout. In this case all stakeholders are experiencing all three constructs.

We predicted there to be positive relationships between work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. Work addiction is yet another construct that is experienced by those working in the sport organization. This study adds to the literature that there are no differences in work-family conflict and burnout across athletic trainers, coaches, and SPCs. Yet, there are notable differences when it comes to burnout. Coaches and SPCs are experiencing work-family conflict, and work-addiction similarly to athletic trainers. This speaks to the sport organization as a whole; all employees are encountering these constructs. We suggest the sport organization investigate and assess reasons employees are work-addicted and have work-family conflict, to improve job and life satisfaction.

ATs experienced higher levels of burnout compared to coaches, and SPCs. There are many reasons this may be, the number of athletes per employee, responsibilities, and medical roles. However, in this sample athletic trainers reported low levels of burnout, though higher than coaches and SPCs, not quite as high as levels in recent literature (Barrett et al., 2016).

Consideration for Future Research and Study Limitations

The findings of this study expand upon the growing body of literature examining the constructs of work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict within the sport organization, yet limitations on these findings remain. Our study received 297 usable responses, which is a lower response rate than anticipated. Due to these factors, we recognize that these findings may not represent the experiences of all of those working within the sport organization. Our database was established using publicly available information therefore a complete list of all athletic trainers, coaches, and sports performance coaches at the DI level was unable to be obtained. Therefore, the results of this study may not represent the experiences of the entirety of NCAA DI athletic trainers, coaches, and SPCs. Our study also only examined those working within the NCAA DI setting; thus, those working in the DII, DIII, NAIA, or other collegiate levels may not have similar experiences with these constructs. Furthermore, those working in secondary schools or other settings also may not identify with the findings of this study.

Further research should include the investigation of work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict at all levels of collegiate athletics as well as those in secondary schools and alternate settings. Currently, the literature has examined these constructs within the sport organization solely focused on the experiences of athletic trainers, creating a need for future research among coaches and sports performance coaches on these constructs. Additionally, the study of work addiction within the sport organization is a novel issue, so further research is necessary to gain a better understanding of work addiction within athletics.

CONCLUSION 

This study sought to further our knowledge of the experiences of athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches in the DI setting, regarding work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. Experiences were nearly universal across the sport organization except for athletic trainers experiencing greater levels of burnout compared to coaches. Positive relationships were also observed between levels of work addiction and both burnout and work-family conflict. The findings of this study suggest that these constructs are prominent issues across the sport organization. Given the prevalence across the sport organization, increased implication of both personal and organizational strategies may be necessary as a means of mitigating the impact of these issues (Cairns et al., 2023; Singe et al., 2022). This study serves as a preliminary exploration into the variance of experiences of work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict across the sport organization stakeholders.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

Athletic trainers reported significantly different levels of burnout compared to coaches and sport performance coaches; thus we believe that understanding the specific role stressors for the athletic trainer can help address potential programs to prevent burnout. For example, wellness programs or a workload redistribution may be warranted for athletic trainers.  We did not find any differences among work-family conflict among any of the grups, which suggests more broad based policies that are family-friendly may help athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches (family-leave, time-off policies). Work addiction was a risk factor for both burnout and work-family conflict among our stakeholders, thus individuals and supervisors should be aware of the signs of burnout, but also encourage stress and boundary management,  as well as healthy work habits to prevent issues around burnout and conflicts between work and home. 

REFERENCES 

  1. Andersen, F. B., Djugum, M. E. T., Sjåstad, V. S., & Pallesen, S. (2023). The prevalence of workaholism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1252373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1252373
  2. Andreassen, C. S. (2014). Workaholism: An overview and current status of the research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.2.2013.017
  3. Barrett, J., Eason, C. M., Lazar, R., & Mazerolle, S. M. (2016). Personality Traits and Burnout Among Athletic Trainers Employed in the Collegiate Setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 51(6), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-51.7.08
  4. Bentzen, M., Lemyre, P.-N., & Kenttä, G. (2016). Development of exhaustion for high-performance coaches in association with workload and motivation: A person-centered approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.06.004
  5. Bruening, J. E., & Dixon, M. A. (2007). Work–Family Conflict in Coaching II: Managing Role Conflict. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.21.4.471
  6. Cairns, A. H., Singe, S. M., & Eason, C. M. (2023). Perceived Stress as an Indicator of Work–Family Conflict and Burnout Among Secondary School Athletic Trainers. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 28(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2021-0112
  7. Cayton, S. J., & Valovich McLeod, T. C. (2020). Characteristics of Burnout Among Collegiate and Secondary School Athletic Trainers: A Systematic Review. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care, 12(5), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.3928/19425864-20190529-01
  8. Clark, M. A., Michel, J. S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S. Y., & Baltes, B. B. (2016). All Work and No Play? A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Correlates and Outcomes of Workaholism. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1836–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522301
  9. Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2005). Perspectives on Work-Family Conflict in Sport: An Integrated Approach. Sport Management Review, 8(3), 227–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(05)70040-1
  10. Eason, C. M., Gilgallon, T. J., & Singe, S. M. (2022). Work-Addiction Risk in Athletic Trainers and Its Relationship to Work-Family Conflict and Burnout. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.4085/JAT0348-20
  11. Goodger, K., Gorely, T., Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. (2007). Burnout in Sport: A Systematic Review. The Sport Psychologist, 21(2), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.21.2.127
  12. Graham, J. A., & Dixon, M. A. (2014). Coaching Fathers in Conflict: A Review of the Tensions Surrounding the Work-Family Interface. Journal of Sport Management, 28(4), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0241
  13. Graham, J. A., & Smith, A. B. (2021). Work and Life in the Sport Industry: A Review of Work-Life Interface Experiences Among Athletic Employees. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0633.20
  14. Graham, J. A., & Smith, A. B. (2022). Work and Life in the Sport Industry: A Review of Work-Life Interface Experiences Among Athletic Employees. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0633.20
  15. Hatfield, L. M., & Johnson, J. T. (2012, April 9). Work-Family Conflict and Related Theories in NCAA Division II Sports Information Professionals. The Sport Journal. https://thesportjournal.org/article/work-family-conflict-and-related-theories-in-ncaa-division-ii-sports-information-professionals/
  16. Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720
  17. Laskowski, K. D., & Ebben, W. P. (2016). Profile of Women Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Coaches. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(12), 3481–3493. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001471
  18. Mazerolle, S. M., Bruening, J. E., & Casa, D. J. (2008). Work-Family Conflict, Part I: Antecedents of Work-Family Conflict in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-A Certified Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.5.505
  19. Mazerolle, S. M., Bruening, J. E., Casa, D. J., & Burton, L. J. (2008). Work-Family Conflict, Part II: Job and Life Satisfaction in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-A Certified Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(5), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.5.513
  20. Mazerolle, S. M., Eason, C. M., Pitney, W. A., & Mueller, M. N. (2015). Sex and Employment-Setting Differences in Work-Family Conflict in Athletic Training. Journal of Athletic Training, 50(9), 958–963. https://doi.org/10.4085/1052-6050-50.2.14
  21. Mazerolle, S. M., Pitney, W. A., Casa, D. J., & Pagnotta, K. D. (2011). Assessing Strategies to Manage Work and Life Balance of Athletic Trainers Working in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(2), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.194
  22. McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Workaholism: A Review of Theory, Research, and Future Directions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2003 (1st ed., pp. 167–189). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013346.ch5
  23. Naugle, K. E., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Dodd, V. J., Tillman, M. D., & Borsa, P. A. (2013). Perceptions of Wellness and Burnout Among Certified Athletic Trainers: Sex Differences. Journal of Athletic Training, 48(3), 424–430. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.2.07
  24. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
  25. Norris, L. A., Didymus, F. F., & Kaiseler, M. (2017). Stressors, coping, and well-being among sports coaches: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.08.005
  26. Oglesby, L. W., Gallucci, A. R., & Wynveen, C. J. (2020). Athletic Trainer Burnout: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Athletic Training, 55(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43-19
  27. Olusoga, P., Bentzen, M., & Kentta, G. (2019). Coach Burnout: A Scoping Review. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2017-0094
  28. Our Division II Story. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/our-division-ii-story.aspx
  29. Our Division III Story. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/our-division-iii-story.aspx
  30. Our Three Divisions. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/1/7/about-resources-media-center-ncaa-101-our-three-divisions.aspx
  31. Overview. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/overview.aspx
  32. Pitney, W. A., Mazerolle, S. M., & Pagnotta, K. D. (2011). Work–Family Conflict Among Athletic Trainers in the Secondary School Setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.185
  33. Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2014). Understanding College Application Decisions: Why College Sports Success Matters. Journal of Sports Economics, 15(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002512445569
  34. Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a Tentative Measure of Workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.199
  35. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well‐being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x
  36. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th Edition (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  37. Scriber, K. C., & Alderman, M. H. (2005). The Challenge of Balancing Our Professional and Personal Lives. Athletic Therapy Today, 10(6), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1123/att.10.6.14
  38. Singe, S., Cairns, A., & Eason, C. (2024). Examining Burnout Among Collegiate Athletic Trainers: The Relationship with Age, Gender, and Years of Experience. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 22(3). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/vol22/iss3/8
  39. Singe, S. M., Cairns, A., Eason, C. M., & Marion, P. E. (2022). Work-Family Conflict and Guilt among Athletic Trainers: Influences of Family Role Performance, Years of Experience and National Collegiate Athletic Association Level. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.
  40. Singe, S. M., Mydosh, C. G., Cairns, A., & Eason, C. M. (2023a). Working Hours, Sleep, and Burnout Among Athletic Trainers Employed in College Athletics: A Cross-Sectional Study. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2023.2430
  41. Singe, S. M., Rodriguez, M., Cairns, A., Eason, C. M., & Rynkiewicz, K. (2023b). Work-Family Conflict and Family Role Performance Among Collegiate Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 58(4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.4085/227.22
  42. Snarr, R. L., & Beasley, V. L. (2022). Personal, Work-, and Client-Related Burnout Within Strength and Conditioning Coaches and Personal Trainers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(2), e31–e40. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003956
  43. Taylor, E. A., Huml, M. R., & Dixon, M. A. (2019). Workaholism in Sport: A Mediated Model of Work–Family Conflict and Burnout. Journal of Sport Management, 33(4), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0248

2025-12-09T16:14:43-06:00June 17th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, General, Leadership, Sports Health & Fitness, Sports Management, Sports Studies, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Examining Work Addiction, Burnout and Work-Family Conflict in Sport Organizations
Read More

The Sport Journal uses Accessibility Checker to monitor our website's accessibility.

Go to Top