Contemporary Sports Issues – Page 2

An Analysis of Carbon Emissions from College Football Recruiting Visits

Authors: Jeffrey J. Fountain¹, Thomas Wuerzer², & Peter S. Finley¹

¹Department of Management, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

²Department of Public Administration and Real Estate Development, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jeffrey J. Fountain, Ph.D.

3301 College Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314

[email protected]

954-262-8129

Jeffrey Fountain, Ph.D., and Peter Finley, Ph.D., are Professors of Sport Management at the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University. Their research interests focus on issues in college athletics.

Thomas Wuerzer, Ph.D., is Professor in the Department of Public Administration & Real Estate Development at Nova Southeastern University. His research focus is on Geographic Information Systems.

ABSTRACT

Recruiting college football players to come play for a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Power-5 school is highly competitive, with each school inviting recruits nationwide on official campus visits. By estimating the carbon emissions generated, this study examined the environmental impact of official recruiting visits (n = 7,045) to Power-5 schools from 2013 to 2020. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to geocode recruits’ hometowns and calculate travel distances, a Recruit Visit Carbon Footprint (RVCF) was calculated to approximate the CO_2eq emissions for each visit. The analysis focused on the 23 Power-5 schools with over 250 reported official visits. The findings revealed substantial variability in RVCF among schools, with 15 of the 23 schools increasing their carbon footprint in the latter years of the study. Still, the higher-spending athletic departments tended to have lower RVCFs. The findings provide valuable insights into the environmental impact of recruiting activities and highlight the importance of addressing this overlooked aspect of college sports’ carbon emissions.

KEYWORDS: Carbon Footprint, Power-5, Recruiting, Official Visit, College Football

INTRODUCTION

As societal awareness of the environmental impact of both mega sporting events and routine contests (regular season games) has increased, many sports organizations, teams, and sponsors have come to understand the need to assess the carbon footprint they create (10). As noted by Dolf et al. (13), several researchers have stressed that sports events are worth investigating to leverage broader change because of the high-profile nature of such events, because they are capable of creating real and meaningful action (11, 19). Several athletic departments have promoted their initiatives throughout the last decade and publicized their efforts to reduce and offset their environmental impact by tracking and reducing carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (CO_2eq). The typical path toward claiming to be carbon neutral for college athletic departments is to assess the environmental impact of the day-to-day operations, home game operations, and off-campus travel for official tournaments and games. However, it is important to recognize that the carbon footprint begins long before sporting events are played; for college sports, this goes back to the initial recruitment phase of the athletes, which typically requires them to travel as part of the recruiting process.

In 2020, the Power-5 conferences included the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Pacific 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC). Over the years, the number of Power-5 schools increasing their investment in recruiting athletes has grown, with 38 of the 52 public Power-5 schools reporting a significant growth in overall athletic department recruiting expenditures (37). One extreme example was the University of Georgia’s athletic department, which increased its overall recruiting budget from $308,000 in 2005 to $4.5 million by 2022 (23).

Recruiting

Each recruit is permitted one official visit per school, extendable only if there is a change in the coaching staff, with each visit lasting no more than 48 hours or one weekend (29). Visits are classified by the funding source; when the host school covers expenses such as transportation, lodging, meals, and entertainment for the recruit and their parents or guardians, it is deemed an official visit (29). Historically, recruits were limited to five official visits; however, this cap was removed in 2023, allowing unlimited visits while maintaining the “only one visit per school” rule (30).

College football recruiting visits often feature expensive, extravagant events designed to attract recruits (12, 24, 36). The financial commitment to a recruiting weekend at Clemson University in the fall of 2019, during which the Tigers brought eleven prospects to campus (they would eventually sign ten of them), ended with a total bill of $85,000 (32). While the NCAA prohibits media from attending recruiting events or interacting with prospects while on campus, the expenditures from that weekend provided insight into the itinerary, which included travel by professional car service to and from local airports, flights to Greenville-Spartanburg, and transportation to the campus, about 40 miles away. In addition, two charter buses were used to transport prospects and their families to the finest restaurants in the area, including a steakhouse about 45 minutes from campus (32). Another example was the University of Texas spending over $280,000 during a single weekend in June 2022 to host nine recruits, including highly touted quarterback Arch Manning (20).

Carbon Footprinting

The concept and measurement of an “ecological footprint” was introduced by Wackernagel and Rees (34) and originally quantified the land and sea area necessary to support human populations. Subsequent adaptations of this concept have focused on the “carbon footprint,” which estimates the land required to sequester CO₂ emissions attributable to human activities. This notion has evolved into broader assessments such as the “life cycle impact,” which evaluates the environmental impact of products and services throughout their life cycles (31).

Research by Čuček et al. (9) and Pandey et al. (31) expanded the scope of assessment to include calculating sustainability metrics and measuring energy, water, and ecological impacts. These studies defined a carbon footprint as “the quantity of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), expressed in terms of CO₂ equivalents, emitted by an individual, organization, process, product, or event within a specified boundary” (31) and as “a quantitative measurement describing the appropriation of natural resources by humans,” (9). This study adopted these definitions to evaluate the carbon footprint of prospective college football players while making their official recruiting visits to college campuses.

Attempts to measure carbon footprint related to sports have historically focused on major events and the travel of sports teams. Examples include the findings that approximately 560 tons of CO_2eq was created during the 2004 Football Association (FA) Cup Final in the United Kingdom (one soccer game) (4), 1,260 tons of CO_2eq for the 2004 Wales Rally (an Autosport’s event over four days) (5), and 144,120 tons of CO_2eq for the stages of the Tour de France held in the United Kingdom in 2007 (the Prologue and Stage One) (6). Most studies focused solely on the carbon footprint of spectators, though a limited number of studies examined participants, such as teams and staff members.

The environmental impact of all college activities, including collegiate sports has garnered significant attention (28). However, there appears to be no available research that has explicitly focused on the environmental impact (carbon footprint) produced throughout the college football recruiting season. Therefore, the researchers sought to explore and determine the approximate carbon emissions produced during official college football recruiting visits from Power-5 schools. This study utilized the reported official recruiting visits between 2013 and 2020. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to conduct spatial analysis of multimodal travel, including car and plane trips, the researchers were able to calculate the approximate travel distances and corresponding carbon footprint of each recruit.

The Recruit Visit Carbon Footprint (RVCF) was created as a proxy measure utilizing prior carbon footprinting research of sport tourism. This approach enabled a systematic exploration of three primary research questions.

RQ1: Which Power-5 schools generated the largest RVCF between 2013 and 2020?

RQ2: Did RVCF totals increase or decrease over time?

RQ3: Was there a correlation between each school’s financial, recruiting, and performance variables and their RVCF?

METHODS

Data Collection

Data on official recruiting visits, published by 247sports.com, was collected for the years 2013 to 2020. Previous research has utilized data from 247sports.com, recognizing it as a well-established source of college football recruiting information (21, 27, 35). The dataset included dates of official school visits and recruits’ hometowns. Prior research also utilized GIS to geocode locations such as athletes’ hometowns or high school locations for analysis (1, 26, 38). GIS geocoding takes a specific location, such as addresses or towns, and references it as a mapped location. Therefore, this study geocoded each football recruit’s hometown, the location of each college visited, and the closest major airport to calculate the approximate travel distances for spatial analysis.

The study utilized ESRI ArcPRO 3.5 (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA) software with the Business Analyst extension to geocode the dataset. To focus on the highest-producing RVCF programs and to make the data set more manageable, a minimum threshold of 250 visits was established. Of the 64 Power-5 schools, 23 (35.9%) met the 250-visitor threshold, totalling 7,045 reported official visits. The travel routes for each visit were then calculated using GIS to determine the most efficient mode of travel. Driving directly to the school was the most efficient mode for 1,636 visits. Typically, these distances were around 200 miles or less to the campus. For recruits living over 200 miles from the visiting campus, if their distance from their home to an airport necessitated a long drive followed by a flight, driving was deemed more efficient due to the extensive travel time involved in flying to the campus. For the remaining 5,409 visits, air travel was deemed the most efficient mode. For these visits, three travel distances were calculated: 1) the drive from the recruits’ hometown to the nearest major airport, 2) the flight miles from that airport to the nearest major airport to the campus they visited, and 3) the drive from that airport to the campus. These distances were doubled to account for the return trip and integrated into a travel matrix to approximate CO_2eq emissions from transportation.

Additionally, financial data for athletic departments (i.e., Football Revenue, Football Recruiting was sourced from the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics database (25), team performance was sourced from ESPN.com (16). The descriptions and summary statistics for these variables are provided in Table 1. Utilizing these variables allowed for additional analysis to explore potential correlations between an athletic department’s RVCF and financial data, performance data, and recruiting data.

Table 1 Descriptive Analysis of Variables: Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable	Description	Mean	SD
FB_TotalRev	Total Revenue from Football	$66,518,526	$25,205,244
Mens_TotalRev	Total Revenue from all Men’s Sports (including Football)	$84,428,967	$25,300,581
FB_MensRev%	Football’s Revenue as a Percentage of all Men’s Sports Revenues	77.40%	11.17%
Dept_TotalRev	Total Revenue from the entire Athletic Department	$125,143,966	$31,108,327
FB_DeptRev%	Football’s Revenue as a Percentage of the entire Athletic Department Revenues	52.50%	13.10%
Mens_RecruitExp	Total Recruiting Expenses from all Men’s Sports (including Football)	$1,391,362	$704,861
Dept_RecruitExp	Total Recruiting Expenses from the entire Athletic Department	$1,878,962	$855,080
FB_OpsExp	Total Operation Expenses for Football	$5,683,499	$2,558,649
Mens_OpsExp	Total Operation Expenses for all Men’s Sports (including Football)	$8,800,193	$4,035,500
Dept_OpsExp	Total Operating Expenses for the entire Athletic Department	$12,787,529	$5,068,156
FB_TotalExp	Total Expenses for the entire Football Program	$33,846,192	$11,218,516
Mens_TotalExp	Total Expenses for all Men’s Sports Programs (including Football)	$53,035,310	$13,927,935
FB_MensExp%	Football Expenses as a Percentage of all Men’s Sports Expenses	63.18%	7.58%
Dept_TotalExp	Total Expenses for the entire Athletic Department	$116,141,712	$27,071,219
FB_DeptExp%	Football Expenses as a Percentage of the entire Athletic Department Expenses	63.18%	7.58%
Win_Percentage	Football teams Win Percentage	62.43%	19.97%

Recruit Visit Carbon Footprint

Calculating CO_2eq emissions from travel can vary depending on the methods and formulas used. In this study, the researchers approximated the RVCF utilizing established methods from prior sport tourism carbon footprint research. The framework by Franchetti and Apul (18) required three boundaries. 1) Temporal Boundary, which refers to the period used for analysis, which, in this study, included Power-5 official recruiting visits from 2013 to 2020. 2) Organizational Boundary, which defines the measured entity, ensuring that only emissions produced from the designated entity are included. Here, it refers to the travel for a single recruit’s official visit to a Power-5 school. 3) Operational Boundary, which is based on the scope of emissions, including direct emissions, indirect emissions, and indirect products. The operational boundary was set at direct emissions only for this study.

In order to operationalize the boundaries, calculations were used to approximate each recruit’s carbon footprint as they travelled from their hometown to their selected school for an official recruiting visit. Cooper’s (2020) approximation of the University of Tennessee’s football gameday tourism carbon footprint was used as a framework for this study. The method for approximating the carbon footprint of sport tourism was applied to the dataset to calculate the approximated total amount of CO_2eqemissions produced by each recruiting visit. The total carbon footprint of each visit was calculated by considering direct emissions from transportation (car and flight miles), food consumption per day, waste per day, and hotel stays (8, 14). The EPA formula for the average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle (3.91 × 10^-4 metric tons CO_2eq per mile) was applied and converted into kilograms (15). For air travel emissions, the formula (air miles × 0.24 × 1.891) combined the Blue Sky Model formula and the Carbon Fund’s radiative forcing factor (1.891) to provide a total CO_2eq per person per pound figure, which was then converted to kilograms (2, 3). Hotel accommodation emissions were calculated using Filimonau’s (17) factor of 11.65 kg CO_2eq per night, multiplied by two to account for the typical two-night stay during a recruiting visit. For food and waste emissions, factors from Cooper’s (7) study were used: 7.4 kg CO_2eq per person per day for food and 1.1 kg CO_2eq per day for waste, multiplied by two for the typical 48-hour visit. Utilizing these formulas allowed the researchers to approximate the RVCF for each reported recruiting visit.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Over the eight years, the top 23 highly-visited schools collectively emitted 2.3 million kg of CO_2eq, averaging 328 kg CO_2eq per recruiting visit. For context, the global average annual CO_2eq emission per person is approximately 4.7 tons (4,263 kg), according to the IEA (22). Thus, the CO_2eq for a single 48-hour recruiting visit represents about 7.7% of the average person’s global annual CO_2eq footprint.

Table 2 provides a breakdown of RVCF variables along with the means and totals for all 23 schools to address RQ1, “Which Power-5 schools generated the largest RVCF between 2013 and 2020?” Washington State (n = 276) reported the highest total RVCF at 171,489.84 kg CO_2eq, and the highest mean RVCF at 621.34 kg CO_2eq. In contrast, the University of South Carolina (n = 263) had the smallest carbon footprint, with a total RVCF of 55,621.71 kg CO2eq and an average RVCF per visit of 211.49 kg CO2eq. All official visits to Washington State and South Carolina are depicted using GIS maps in Figure 1, which shows Washington State attracted several recruits from the Midwest, Florida, and Texas. At the same time, South Carolina only invited a few recruits who required a long-distance flight to visit Columbia, South Carolina.

Table 2 RVCF by school for all reported official visits from 2013 to 2020
School	n	% Drove (No Flight)	Car (No Flight)	Car (To/From Airport)	Flight	Hotel	Food	Waste	M	SD	Total
Washington State	276	2.17%	564.48	21,782.22	137,796.79	6,405.95	4,084.79	855.60	621.34	362.98	171,489.84
Oregon	281	3.20%	667.81	7,322.00	150,332.79	6,522.00	4,158.79	871.10	604.54	323.99	169,874.50
Nebraska	373	5.90%	1,437.03	9,203.29	131,283.86	8,657.32	5,520.39	1,156.30	421.60	171.96	157,258.20
Alabama	378	17.99%	6,138.01	21,504.74	81,842.82	8,773.37	5,594.39	1,171.80	330.34	219.30	125,025.12
Minnesota	328	15.55%	1,543.63	9,279.44	94,019.65	7,612.87	4,854.39	1,016.80	360.75	190.85	118,326.78
Louisville	343	7.87%	1,814.23	9,356.07	92,166.14	7,961.02	5,076.39	1,063.30	342.38	189.87	117,437.16
Oklahoma	315	21.27%	7,627.73	9,318.53	85,483.06	7,311.14	4,661.99	976.50	364.79	187.59	115,378.96
Tennessee	356	14.89%	5,866.34	11,129.21	72,691.17	8,262.75	5,268.79	1,103.60	293.04	213.71	104,321.87
Texas A&M	327	46.18%	15,370.28	18,162.76	56,491.35	7,589.66	4,839.59	1,013.70	314.50	223.19	103,467.35
Washington	251	22.31%	2,329.33	5,626.14	81,958.42	5,825.71	3,714.80	778.10	399.33	250.68	100,232.49
Ohio State	301	26.58%	7,676.34	5,596.14	69,715.53	6,986.20	4,454.79	933.10	316.82	223.49	95,362.10
Arkansas	325	15.38%	4,563.07	13,222.06	64,152.59	7,543.24	4,809.99	1,007.50	293.23	166.97	95,298.46
Indiana	273	15.38%	3,307.90	13,293.64	62,085.00	6,336.32	4,040.39	846.30	329.34	169.13	89,909.57
Florida	333	28.53%	8,658.69	6,782.76	56,932.06	7,728.92	4,928.39	1,032.30	258.45	179.76	86,063.13
Miami	301	39.53%	3,920.90	4,735.86	63,566.68	6,986.20	4,454.79	933.10	280.01	263.30	84,597.54
Florida State	317	14.20%	3,929.02	6,600.11	59,945.34	7,357.56	4,691.59	982.70	262.44	182.30	83,506.32
Auburn	313	35.14%	9,914.55	14,971.12	42,452.12	7,264.72	4,632.39	970.30	256.25	161.71	80,205.21
Georgia	270	33.70%	6,709.32	15,279.31	41,800.05	6,266.69	3,995.99	837.00	276.78	196.70	74,888.37
Penn State	254	29.53%	9,210.73	16,663.59	38,471.37	5,895.34	3,759.20	787.40	289.49	192.65	74,787.61
Mississippi State	293	56.31%	17,224.20	17,413.13	26,745.76	6,800.52	4,336.39	908.30	250.61	176.90	73,428.32
Kentucky	274	19.71%	4,331.99	7,066.42	49,895.23	6,359.53	4,055.19	849.40	264.81	146.57	72,557.76
LSU	300	38.00%	7,465.21	5,491.13	41,783.31	6,962.99	4,439.99	930.00	222.53	146.73	67,072.63
South Carolina	263	32.70%	7,526.48	5,361.76	31,921.56	6,104.23	3,892.40	815.30	211.49	128.80	55,621.71
Total	7,045	23.57%	137,797.27	255,161.41	1,633,532.66	163,514.32	104,265.87	21,839.48	328.91	203.01	2,316,111.00
Note: Car, Flight, Hotel, Food, Waste, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Total are in kg CO_2eq

To explore the second research question, “Did RVCF totals increase or decrease over time?” the dataset needed to be segmented. During this time period college football programs did not get an entirely new roster of players each year; consequently, examining each year’s change would yield varying results based on how many recruits the school needed that year. Rosters typically turn over every 4 to 5 years. Therefore, with eight years of data available, the dataset was subdivided into two four-year periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2020) to better examine changes over a longer period of time.

Table 3 shows the schools with the largest changes in their mean RVCFs. Fifteen schools experienced an increase in mean RVCF between the two time periods. Ohio State had the largest increase in mean difference (MD = 74.77 kg CO_2eq), with its mean RVCF rising from 280.80 kg CO_2eq in 2013-2016 to 355.57 kg CO_2eq in 2017-2020. Oregon saw the largest overall increase in total RVCF, increasing 29,617.65 kg CO_2eq during the latter period. Figure 2 utilizes GIS maps to depict all recruiting visits to Ohio State for each period, highlighting an expanded recruiting range that targeted more players from Texas and the Western United States. Conversely, eight schools showed a reduction in mean RVCF between the two time periods, with the University of Miami experiencing the largest decrease in mean difference (MD = -61.96 kg CO_2eq). Although Washington State’s mean reduction was not as considerable as the bottom three schools, it had the largest total reduction in RVCF, decreasing by 19,562.28 kg CO_2eq between the two periods.

Table 3 Largest Mean Difference in RVCF between the two time periods
	2013-2016					2017-2020
Schools		n	Total	M	n		Total	M	Difference	MD
Ohio State		156	43,804.86	280.80	145		51,557.24	355.57	7,752.39	74.77
Penn State		102	25,847.68	253.41	152		47,683.11	313.70	21,835.44	60.30
Oregon		122	70,128.43	574.82	159		99,746.07	627.33	29,617.65	52.51

Florida St.		165	46,656.85	282.77	152		36,535.52	240.37	-10,121.32	-42.40
Arkansas		153	49,311.35	322.30	172		45,987.11	267.37	-3,324.24	-54.93
Miami		151	46,944.88	310.89	150		37,339.37	248.93	-9,605.51	-61.96
Note: Totals and Means are in kg CO_2eq

Wuerzer et al. (38) identified county-level geographical hotspots in the United States overproducing elite college football talent, necessitating migration to other states to find available roster spots on Power-5 football teams. Consequently, Power-5 schools in regions with minimal elite talent and far from these hotspots must expand their recruiting efforts, increasing their RVCF. Schools that rely heavily on air travel for recruiting will naturally have a larger carbon footprint, as air travel is the primary contributor to total RVCF. This is evident from the top three schools with the highest total RVCF also have the lowest percentages of recruits visiting within driving distance to their campuses (Washington State (2.17%), Oregon (3.20%), and Nebraska (5.90%)). Despite this, schools still make strategic choices in their recruiting practices. For example, as shown in Figure 1, Washington State invited several recruits from Florida, a state with prominent county-level recruiting hotspots, instead of focusing on nearby regions or closer recruiting hotspots in California and Texas.

A Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was conducted to address research question three: “Were there any correlations between schools’ financial, recruiting, and performance variables and their RVCF?” The analysis identified two significant correlations, both negative: Total RVCF and Athletic Department Total Annual Revenue [r(176) = -.202, p = .007] and Athletic Department Total Annual Expenses [r(176) = -.198, p = .008]. These findings suggest that athletic departments with higher revenues and expenses tend to have lower RVCFs. This could be attributed to the fact that Power-5 programs with substantial financial resources often have well-established and highly regarded football programs, enabling them to attract top recruits from within a closer geographical range. Consequently, these programs would be less dependent on long-distance recruiting, which typically requires greater air travel, the primary contributor to a school’s RVCF, thereby lowering their overall RVCF.

Overall, these findings highlight the multifaceted nature of college football recruiting, shaped by a complex interplay of positional needs, recruits’ availability, and recruits’ geographical location. The competitive nature of Power-5 college football recruiting requires substantial time and effort to build top-tier recruiting classes, prompting many schools to expand their recruiting reach over time, which subsequently increases their RVCF. The findings show that 15 of the 23 schools increased their RVCF over the two periods. Given the fierce competition for elite talent, it is unlikely that any football program would willingly reduce its recruiting-related carbon emissions if it jeopardizes on-field performance. This creates a significant challenge for universities wanting to adopt more sustainable operations.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a substantial initial assessment of the carbon footprint associated with college football recruiting. By utilizing GIS for recruits’ hometowns, college locations, and nearest major airports to calculate travel distances, the researchers provided an approximation of each school’s RVCF Recruiting Visit Carbon Footprint (RVCF). The findings reveal substantial variability in RVCF among schools, highlighting the different levels of environmental impact of recruiting. The study also found that higher-spending athletic departments tended to have lower RVCFs, suggesting that successful programs may not need to extend their recruiting reach as widely.

However, several limitations must be acknowledged. The data for this study came from a third-party recruiting website, thus allowing for only an approximate carbon footprint for each official visit. Also, various models and formulas can be used to estimate CO_2eq emissions from travel, but each carries assumptions and biases. Moreover, policy changes during the study period, such as the NCAA’s 2016 rule change allowing schools to cover travel costs for up to two parents or guardians accompanying a recruit, could result in a higher actual carbon footprint than the reported RVCF from this study (33). More detailed research is essential for a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the carbon emissions associated with college football recruiting. Unfortunately, without a governing body mandating standardized reporting of recruiting carbon emissions using consistent formulas, it will remain difficult to fully assess and compare the carbon emissions of different athletic departments.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

For universities aiming to reduce their athletic department’s carbon footprint, including all recruiting activities in their calculations is crucial. A comprehensive approach would enable the development of effective strategies that promote sustainability without sacrificing athletic success. Athletic departments can better incorporate sustainability into their planning and decision-making processes by understanding the true carbon footprint generated by each sport, school, and conference.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a college-level seed grant focused on sustainability issues from the Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship’s Societal Impact Seed Grant program.

REFERENCES

1. Andris, C., Measuring geographic pull power: A case study of US college athletic teams. The Professional Geographer, 2018. 70(3): p. 476-490.

2. BlueSkyModel.org. 1 Air Mile. 2024; Available from: https://blueskymodel.org/air-mile.

3. CarbonFund.org. Calculation Methods. 2024; Available from: https://carbonfund.org/calculation-methods/.

4. Collins, A., et al., Assessing the environmental consequences of major sporting events: The 2003/04 FA Cup Final. Urban studies, 2007. 44(3): p. 457-476.

5. Collins, A., C. Jones, and M. Munday, Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options? Tourism management, 2009. 30(6): p. 828-837.

6. Collins, A., M. Munday, and A. Roberts, Environmental consequences of tourism consumption at major events: An analysis of the UK stages of the 2007 Tour de France. Journal of Travel Research, 2012. 51(5): p. 577-590.

7. Cooper, J.A., Making orange green? A critical carbon footprinting of Tennessee football gameday tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 2020. 24(1): p. 31-51.

8. Cooper, J.A. and D.H. Alderman, Cancelling March Madness exposes opportunities for a more sustainable sports tourism economy. Tourism Geographies, 2020. 22(3): p. 525-535.

9. Čuček, L., J.J. Klemeš, and Z. Kravanja, A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012. 34: p. 9-20.

10. Daddi, T., et al., Environmental management of sport events: a focus on European professional football. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 2022. 12(2): p. 208-232.

11. Death, C., ‘Greening’the 2010 FIFA World Cup: Environmental sustainability and the mega-event in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2011. 13(2): p. 99-117.

12. Dimengo, N., Crazy Sports Recruiting Stories. Bleacher Report, 2014.

13. Dolf, M. and P. Teehan, Reducing the carbon footprint of spectator and team travel at the University of British Columbia’s varsity sports events. Sport Management Review, 2015. 18(2): p. 244-255.

14. El Hanandeh, A., Quantifying the carbon footprint of religious tourism: the case of Hajj. Journal of cleaner Production, 2013. 52: p. 53-60.

15. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator – Calculations and References. US EPA 2024; Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references.

16. ESPN.com. College Football Stats. 2024; Available from: https://www.espn.com/college-football/stats/_/view/team.

17. Filimonau, V., et al., Reviewing the carbon footprint analysis of hotels: Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as a holistic method for carbon impact appraisal of tourist accommodation. Journal of cleaner production, 2011. 19(17-18): p. 1917-1930.

18. Franchetti, M.J. and D. Apul, Carbon footprint analysis: concepts, methods, implementation, and case studies. 2012: CRC press.

19. Getz, D., Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events: Institutionalization of a new paradigm. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2009. 1(1): p. 61-78.

20. Glasspiegel, R., Texas spent $280,000 on Arch Manning recruitment weekend. New York Post, 2022.

21. Huml, M.R., et al., If we build it, will they come? The effect of new athletic facilities on recruiting rankings for power five football and men’s basketball programs. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2019. 29(1): p. 1-18.

22. IEA. The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% – Analysis – IEA. 2024 2024/08/31/; Available from: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitters-produce-over-1000-times-more-co2-than-the-bottom-1.

23. Jeyarajah, S., College football recruiting expenses by conference: SEC stands out as Georgia spends big for success in 2022, in CBSSports. 2023: CBSSports.com.

24. Jude, A., Ice carvings and lavish dinners: A look at the cost of football recruiting at Washington. Spokesman, 2020.

25. Knight-Newhouse. Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database 2024; Available from: https://knightnewhousedata.org/.

26. Macaulay, C., J. Cooper, and S. Dougherty, High school football and the athletic-market economy: Recruiting, producing, and manufacturing talent. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2019. 36(3): p. 203-212.

27. Mankin, J.A., J. Rivas, and J.J. Jewell, The effectiveness of college football recruiting ratings in predicting team success: A longitudinal study. Mankin, J., Rivas, J. & Jewell, J.(2021) The Effectiveness of College Football Recruiting Rankings in Predicting Team Success: A Longitudinal Study. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 2021. 14: p. 4-22.

28. Natural Resources Defense Council, Collegiate game changers: How campus sport is going green. 2013, Natural Resources Defense Council.

29. NCAA. Recruiting – Eligibility Center. 2024; Available from: https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/10/8/recruiting.aspx.

30. NCSA. Official Visits | How Does an Official Visit Work? 2024; Available from: https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/recruiting-rules/official-visits.

31. Pandey, D., M. Agrawal, and J.S. Pandey, Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2011. 178(1): p. 135-160.

32. Raynor, G., Behind the scenes of Clemson’s biggest recruiting weekend. New York Times, 2020.

33. VanHaaren, T., NCAA allows schools to pay for two guardians to accompany recruits on official visits, in ESPN. 2016.

34. Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees, Ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1996.

35. Watkins, J. and K. Slater, Talent level and major distribution in “Power Five” conference football programs. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2021. 15(2): p. 150-170.

36. Wiltfong, S., New LSU 2024 QB commit Colin Hurley takes you inside an epic weekend. 247Sports, 2022.

37. Wittry, A., An Analysis Of College Football Recruiting Costs, in Athletic Director U. 2022: https://athleticdirectoru.com.

38. Wuerzer, T., J.J. Fountain, and P.S. Finley, An Analysis of the Geographic Origins and Migration Patterns of Elite College Football Players. Geographical Review, 2023. 114(2): p. 157-179.

Troy Palmer2025-10-13T15:18:13-05:00May 27th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Research, Sports Studies, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

BOOK REVIEW: Moawad, T (2020). It takes what it takes: How to think neutrally and gain control of your life. 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

Before his name appeared on a bestselling book, Trevor Moawad was already shaping champions behind the scenes. Dubbed “The World’s Best Brain Trainer” by Sports Illustrated in 2017, he spent years redefining mental conditioning at the highest levels of sport. From IMG Academy to a nine-season run with Nick Saban at Alabama, his résumé spanned elite college programs, pro teams like the Memphis Grizzlies and Miami Dolphins, and military units such as the U.S. Navy SEALs.

Moawad gained wider recognition through his work with NFL quarterback Russell Wilson, whom he met in 2012. He soon became a core member of Wilson’s performance team, and their relationship evolved into a close friendship and business partnership. In 2018, they co-founded Limitless Minds, a company focused on building sustainable mindset habits.

Despite years of working with world-class athletes, Moawad didn’t publish his first book until 2020: It Takes What It Takes: How to Think Neutrally and Gain Control of Your Life—a work I consider essential reading for anyone interested in mental performance, both in sports and in life. The book is divided into twelve chapters, covering topics such as planning, visualization, self-awareness, handling pressure, and leadership. While every chapter offers valuable insight, this review highlights the three that best capture Moawad’s message and resonated most with me: Chapter 1, “It Takes Neutral Thinking”; Chapter 3, “It Takes Hard Choices”; and Chapter 4, “It Takes a Verbal Governor.”

Chapter 1 introduces the cornerstone of Moawad’s philosophy: neutral thinking. Rather than leaning into overly positive or negative mindsets, it centers on the present and what can be controlled in the moment. Neutral thinking accepts that the past is irrevocable—it can’t be changed with mantras or platitudes. Moawad warns of a common bias in performance: “We elevate the past. We give it too much importance. We serve the past when we should be giving it berth.” That line stayed with me. Like many, I often overanalyze past decisions and dwell on mistakes. Moawad’s perspective challenged me to let go of that habit. Neutral thinking encourages us to move forward without being anchored by what came before. The past may be real, but it’s not predictive. In a culture often drawn to blind optimism, Moawad’s approach felt both grounding and liberating.

In Chapter 3, Moawad poses a powerful question: is choice an illusion? Often, he argues, it is. Success isn’t about what you feel like doing—it’s about what must be done. “A lot of times we feel as if we have choices to make about where we want to go and what it takes to get there. The reality is that what it takes to succeed is not really a choice,” he writes. He illustrates this idea with everyday decisions: sleep or binge Breaking Bad? Jack and Coke or water? Time with your kids or video games? These moments reveal how easily we confuse comfort with choice—and how small, daily decisions shape long-term outcomes. To illustrate this further, Moawad offers one of the book’s most memorable lines: “When I started working with the Alabama football team, I would hold a bag of Doritos in one hand and an apple in the other. ‘Do you really need a nutritionist to tell you which of these things is better for you?’” What first sounds like a joke lands as one of the book’s most honest truths: we usually know the better option—we just don’t always choose it.

Chapter 4 offers the most immediately actionable advice: “What if we could get people to just stop saying stupid sh— out loud?” The brain absorbs negativity more easily than positivity, and voicing our struggles makes them more harmful than merely thinking them. As someone prone to verbalizing self-doubt, I found Moawad’s message powerful—what we say out loud can reinforce the very negativity we’re trying to overcome. Moawad draws on research to show how negative self-talk can undermine performance, citing the infamous error by Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner in the 1986 World Series. Nineteen days earlier, Buckner had said aloud, “The dreams are that you’re gonna have a great series and win. The nightmares are that you’re gonna let the winning run score on a ground ball through your legs.” Whether or not it affected the outcome, Moawad argues the fear was already present—and that’s the point: stop saying stupid sh— out loud.

As someone who values academic literature, I’ll note the book includes little scholarly research beyond a few selected studies. Rooted mainly in Moawad’s anecdotal experience, it isn’t meant as an academic work—and while it may lack empirical depth, that feels secondary to its purpose. In terms of content and accessibility, the book’s heavy use of sports examples may be a barrier for some. Readers less interested in athletics might find the frequent game and athlete references less relatable. While Moawad includes a few business and everyday examples, the book is firmly rooted in sports. Still, its core lessons extend well beyond the field, which is why I ultimately recommend it to all audiences.

Moawad concludes the book by returning to his core principle of neutral thinking, offering a memorable metaphor: “The idea of living neutral is putting a comma at the end of the event…and knowing that the next words will determine how the sentence continues.” That image reshaped how I view setbacks—a reminder that the story isn’t over unless I decide it is. Moawad’s message is clear: we hold the pen, and with it, the power to shape what comes next.

Troy Palmer2025-10-10T11:45:06-05:00May 13th, 2026|Book Reveiws, Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership|Comments Off

Accreditation, Curriculum, and Competition: An Explanatory Case Study of Sport Sales Education in Undergraduate Sport Management Programs

Authors: Joshua S. Greer¹, Nicholas Zoroya², and Tim Wilson³

¹Cumberland University

²Wayne State University

³Middle Tennessee State University

Corresponding Author:

Joshua S. Greer

[email protected]

Joshua S. Greer. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2890-1673

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

ABSTRACT

This explanatory mixed-methods case study explored the relationship between accreditation, curriculum design, and student performance in sport sales education within undergraduate sport management programs. Using archival data from the 2024–2025 National Collegiate Sports Sales Championship (NCSSC), the study compared outcomes among 25 institutions, including COSMA- and non-accredited programs. Quantitative analysis found no significant relationship between accreditation status and Top-10 finishes in either the Ticket Sales or Corporate Partnerships divisions (p > .05). Qualitative findings indicated that student performance was more closely associated with experiential learning depth, faculty expertise, and the integration of customer relationship management and analytics tools. Grounded in Experiential Learning Theory, Competency-Based Education, Human Capital Theory, and Communities of Practice, the study concludes that accreditation provides useful structure but does not independently predict competitive success. Program-level factors such as applied pedagogy, simulation-based learning, and industry partnerships appear to be stronger indicators of professional readiness and employability in sport sales.

KEYWORDS: Experiential Learning Theory, Competency-Based Education, Human Capital Theory, Communities of Practice

INTRODUCTION

The goal of supporting positive outcomes for younger people (i.e., generativity; Erikson, 1950) is one that is both widely and cross-culturally relevant, yet despite this, the understanding for how to best support young people and the strategies employed to do so are still in flux. Only recently have developmental psychology and social research begun to place an emphasis on fostering positive outcomes for youth, as opposed to the prevention of negative outcomes and problematic behaviors (Larson, 2000). Within the areas of social and developmental research, this emphasis has led to the creation of diverse approaches to and philosophies of developmental youth programming (Lerner et al., 2011), which often provide opportunities for life skill development (i.e., explicit positive youth development). That said, the translation of such knowledge to spaces where youth development is view as a secondary priority, such as sport, tends to be challenging (Jones et al., 2011). The primary aim of the present pilot study was to test a grounded theory of implicit positive youth development through sport by examining the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences in a small, single-organization sample. In doing so, the present study offers a novel examination of the collective social climate (i.e., PYD climate) and its relationship to athlete developmental outcomes. We hypothesized the following:

Athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) will be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of the coach-athlete relationship, peer cohesion, and parental involvement across a sport season.

At two time points (e.g., beginning of the season, end of the season), athletes’ ratings of their relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement were collected. Subsequently, athletes’ perceptions of skill development across four areas (e.g., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting, initiative) were regressed on changes to the relationship variables. Both the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement were shown to significantly predict social skill development, not only offering partial support for a theory of implicit PYD through sport and underscoring the critical developmental role of relationship building in sport but also pointing to the need for stakeholders to prioritize a high-quality social climate in the sport context to better support youth development.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historically, adolescence and adolescent development has been regarded as a period during which youth are at risk and laden with problematic behaviors (Benson et al., 2006), therefore implying that the role of adults was to manage and prevent the problems that arise from adolescent development, also known as a deficit-focused approach to youth development (Clonan et al., 2004; Lerner, 2005). However, preventing such problems through a focus on treatment or intervention often failed to yield positive results (Catalano et al., 2008). Appearing concurrently with positive psychology’s focus on human strengths and flourishing, positive youth development theory offered that youth are “resources to be developed,” presenting a path toward positive youth outcomes through youth enrichment and the promotion of adolescent strengths (Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005). Positive youth development is a broad term, but generally refers to “processes, approaches, and instances” (Lerner et al., 2011) which seek to optimally prepare young people for adulthood, with the targeted outcomes being well-being and the fulfillment of their potential (Catalano et al., 2008). Contexts which aim to support positive youth development vary widely, to include agricultural programming (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005), volunteer and service programming (McBride et al., 2011), tutoring (Worker et al., 2019), aquatics (Storm et al., 2017), adventure-based programming (Sibthorp & Morgan, 2011), and sport (Bruner et al., 2021).

Youth sports are generally touted as tools for healthy and positive development, yet research aimed at validating this claim or understanding the processes by which it occurs is ambiguous (Holt et al., 2017). PYD theory was developed outside of the sport context (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005) and researchers have struggled to apply PYD models and measures to sporting contexts (Jones et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that PYD researchers have failed to acknowledge keyfeatures of the sport environment (Holt et al., 2017). In a systematic review of qualitative data, Holt and colleagues (2017) proposed that PYD through sport occurs via two distinct pathways. In the first, programs offer explicit education to youth sport participants aimed at life skill development. In the second pathway, PYD occurs implicitly via positive relationships with coaches, peers, and parents (i.e., the creation of a ‘PYD climate’). Holt and colleagues concluded that further research is needed to not only investigate the validity of this framework but also understand additional nuances for when and how PYD may occur through explicit and implicit factors. The need for further research was bolstered by a systematic review of sport-based PYD programming, conducted by Whitley and colleagues (2019), who concluded the benefit of explicit PYD programming in sport is not clear enough to support the implementation of a standardized intervention. Therefore, while the field’s understanding of how to best implement explicit PYD programming through sport is still evolving, there also exists a need to test the proposed model of implicit PYD through positive relationships within sport. While the specific role positive relationships play in supporting PYD within sport is unclear, it is generally accepted that these relationships are all valuable, if not necessary, for positive athlete outcomes (Burns et al., 2019).

Coach-Athlete Relationship

Arguably the primary relationship in the sporting context (Jowett, 2017), the dyadic relationship between coach and athlete has been shown to be instrumental to numerous athlete outcomes. In a systematic review of the coach-athlete relationship literature, Nikolina and Đorić (2023) reported that a positive coach-athlete relationship was not only predictive of increased motivation, satisfaction, and performance, but also protective from athlete stress, burnout, and negative affect. Davis and Jowett (2014) have reported that the quality of the coach-athlete relationship is directly related to athlete positive and negative affect. Furthermore, in a systematic review of the literature, McShan and Moore (2023) found that a positive coach-athlete relationship, as reported by coaches, was associated with coach’s beliefs of fostering an environment supportive of athlete life skill development. In Holt and colleague’s (2017) grounded theory of implicit PYD, the authors posit that strong, positive relationships between athletes and coaches can create a developmentally supportive social environment.

Peer Cohesion

Paralleling the coach-athlete relationship research, research on the role of peer relationships in the sport environment have shown these relationships to be highly influential on athlete experiences and outcomes (Smith & Ullrich-French, 2020). Peer support has been shown to be related to elite sport participation, athlete motivation, and reduced withdrawal from sport (Sheridan et al., 2014). Additionally, researchers have shown that peer cohesion is not only associated with performance (Carron et al., 2002; Filho et al., 2014), but also athlete need satisfaction and learning (Erikstad et al., 2018). Furthermore, Smith and Ulrich-French (2020) have posited that peer relationships in the sport context are likely to be influential to individual athlete development, to include character, moral, social, and life skill development. In proposing strong peer relationships as influential of an implicit PYD climate, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted how strong peer relationships in the sport context often result in feelings of belongingness and support, which may provide developmental benefit.

Parental Involvement

While not always directly involved in the training environment, researchers have shown that parents are highly influential to youth athletes’ experiences and outcomes in sport. Youth who perceive their parents as satisfied with their performance and who experience low parental pressure are more likely to report sport enjoyment and positive affect (Dorsch et al., 2021). Additionally, parental involvement has also been associated with youth sport enjoyment, perceptions of competence, and self-esteem (Dorsch et al., 2021). Parental involvement in sport has also been found to be associated with youth athlete need satisfaction (Felber Charbonneau & Camiré, 2020). Furthermore, parental involvement in sport has also been connected to athletes’ development, to include socialization and value adoption (Danioni et al., 2017). In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted the reinforcing role that parental involvement plays to creating a PYD climate; while coaches may be responsible for delivering lessons and values to athletes in the sport context, the authors noted that it is important that parents support, not contradict, these messages.

Study Aims

In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) posited that these three relationships (i.e., coaches, peers, parents) collectively create a social climate supportive of implicit positive youth development. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to examine the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences and youth athletes’ perceptions of developmental skills gained, thereby piloting a test of Holt and colleagues’ (2017) grounded theory model. Should these relationships be predictive of positive youth development, it could be expected that athletes who experience positive changes to these relationships (e.g., increased peer cohesion, increased parental involvement) across a sport season should also receive increased benefit from their participation compared to athletes whose relationships did not improve. As such, we hypothesized that athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) would be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of their peer relationships, coach-athlete relationships, and parental involvement across a sport season.

METHODS

Participants

Participants included 67 youth athletes from a competitive soccer club in the northwest region of the United States. In total, 41 athletes (M_age= 11.85) completed data collection at both time points. Participants represented 13 teams from four separate age categories. Additionally, 65.9% of the athletes identified as white and 61.0% of the athletes identified as boys.

Measures

Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)

To measure athlete perceptions of their relationship with their coach, the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) was utilized. The 11-item scale measured the nature of the athlete’s relationship with their coach (a = 0.97). Using a seven-point Likert scale, athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I trust my coach.”

Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ)

Athletes’ perceptions of their relationship with teammates were measured utilizing the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ; Eys et al., 2009). The scale, which has been shown to be both valid and reliable, measured group cohesion and peer relationship quality. The YSEQ contains 16 statements, such as, “I am happy with my team’s level of desire to win” (a = 0.93). Athletes rated their agreement with these statements utilizing a seven-point Likert scale.

Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ)

The Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ; Lee & MacLean, 1997) is a valid and reliable 19-item scale (a = 0.87), which captures athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement across three subscales: directive behavior, praise and understanding, and active involvement. Utilizing a five-point Likert scale, athletes rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “Do your parents push you to practice harder?”

Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S)

Employed only at the second time point, the short form Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S; MacDonald et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2015) is 16-item scale that measured the perceptions of athletes’ experiences participating in sport across the previous season, and was utilized in the present study to operationalize PYD. The scale measures whether athletes perceived any benefit to their participation across four subscales: personal and social skills (a = 0.78), cognitive skills (a = 0.78), goal setting (a = 0.81), and initiative (a = 0.71). Athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I learned to push myself” on a five-point Likert scale.

Procedure

Ahead of the start of the summer season, the first author attended the club’s tryouts and parent meetings to share information about the study and recruit participants. During this time, parental consent was obtained through the completion of a written consent form and household demographic survey. The first survey was completed electronically one month into the summer season. Subsequently, 14 weeks later, the research team returned to conduct the second survey during the final week of the fall season. At both time points, the surveys collected demographic information, athlete perceptions of relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement. At the second time point, the survey collected measurements of athletes’ perceptions of their experiences playing sport across the previous season, particularly focused on skills gained.

The dataset contained 0.3% missingness, and results of an MCAR test were not significant (X²(1386) = 0.00, p = 1.00), suggesting data was missing at random. For cases with missingness, scales were prorated based on completed items. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each scale and notable demographic differences are reported in Table 1. For each of the relationship variables (i.e., CART-Q, PISQ, YSEQ), a difference score was calculated (M_T2– M_T1) to measure changes in these relationships across the season. While the utilization of difference scores has been criticized for its negative, summative impact on reliability (Edwards, 1994), researchers have noted that difference scores can be an appropriate choice in research, particularly for nonrandomized, theory-driven analyses (Castro-Schilo & Grimm, 2018). Assumptions testing revealed issues regarding multicollinearity as there was a high correlation between coach-athlete relationship and the peer cohesion change scores (r = 0.801), which resulted in unstable beta coefficients. This instability indicated that the presence of the peer cohesion variable in the model was distorting the estimation of other predictors, undermining the reliability and interpretability of the model. As such, the peer cohesion variable was removed from primary analyses. Following this, we regressed the four subscales of the YES-S (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting skills, initiative) on changes in relationship quality across the season, while controlling for age, race, and gender.

Table 1

Sample Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics

			CART-Q		YSEQ		PISQ		YES-S Social Skills	YES-S Cog. Skills	YES-S Goal Setting	YES-S Initiative
Variable	n	%	T1 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)	T1 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)	T1 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)	T2 – M(SD)
Age
10	3	7.3	5.61(1.24)*	5.97(1.47)*	4.25(2.01)*	5.08(1.98)*	2.39(0.18)	2.91(0.45)	3.58(0.52)	3.67(0.58)	4.25(0.58)	4.58(0.52)
11	9	22.0	5.46(1.73)	6.36(0.39)	4.74(1.52)	5.53(0.83)	3.02(0.60)	3.13(0.52)	4.00(0.60)	3.69(1.05)	4.00(0.85)	4.50(0.45)
12	20	48.8	6.10(0.40)	5.96(0.85)	5.10(0.75)	5.30(0.91)*	2.92(0.60)	3.25(0.74)*	4.17(0.75)	3.53(1.16)	3.93(0.90)	4.25(0.59)
13	9	22.0	5.71(1.04)*	5.15(1.26)*^†	4.69(1.40)	4.89(1.18)	3.16(0.69)	3.30(0.58)	4.03(0.57)	3.56(0.69)	4.25(0.57)	4.43(0.66)
Gender
Boy	25	61.0	6.03(0.61)	6.17(0.69)^†	4.91(1.03)*	5.26(0.89)*	2.92(0.62)*	3.24(0.66)*	4.12(0.66)	3.72(0.85)	4.11(0.71)	4.43(0.41)
Girl	16	39.0	5.56(1.43)	5.41(0.99)^†	4.81(1.42)	5.22(1.25)	3.01(0.62)	3.17(0.62)	3.96(0.89)	3.35(1.19)	3.90(0.94)	4.27(0.76)
Race
White	27	65.9	5.77(1.13)	5.97(0.83)	4.75(1.21)*	5.24(1.03)*	2.95(0.61)	3.14(0.57)	4.07(0.69)	3.52(1.04)	3.99(0.85)	4.43(0.54)
Black	1	2.4
Asian	4	9.8	5.50(1.38)	5.41(1.85)	4.77(1.85)*	5.30(1.64)*	2.74(0.90)	3.29(0.90)	4.00(0.35)	3.94(0.43)	3.94(0.43)	3.94(0.66)
Hispanic	4	9.8	6.27(0.45)	5.86(1.12)	5.50(0.89)	5.55(0.74)	2.99(0.57)	3.41(0.83)	4.50(0.41)	4.25(0.54)	4.69(0.47)	4.63(0.32)
Other	5	12.2	6.13(0.31)	5.65(1.20)	5.05(0.83)	4.99(1.04)	2.99(0.45)	3.31(0.52)	3.80(0.89)	3.15(1.29)	3.80(0.94)	4.15(0.74)
Total	41	100.0	5.84(1.02)	5.87(0.99)	4.87(1.18)*	5.24(1.03)*	2.96(0.62)*	3.21(0.64)*	4.06(0.67)	3.58(1.00)	4.03(0.80)	4.37(0.57)

Notes. n = 41; CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement; YSEQ = Ratings of Peer Cohesion; YES-S = Perceptions of Developmental Experiences, *Difference is significant between time points; ^†Difference is significant between groups.

RESULTS

The model examining personal and social skills was significant and explained 45.4% of variance in the outcome (R² = 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001).

Regression Results for Perceptions of Social Skills Gained by Athletes

				95% CI
Variable	b	b	SE	LL	UL	p
Intercept		0.774	1.268	-1.802	3.350	0.546
Gender	-0.129	-0.175	0.184	-0.550	0.199	0.348
Age	0.369	0.291	0.110	0.067	0.515	0.012
Race	-0.024	-0.008	0.042	-0.094	0.078	0.858
DCART-Q	0.482	0.250	0.074	0.099	0.400	0.002
DPISQ	0.326	0.382	0.160	0.580	0.707	0.022

Notes. n = 41; R²= 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.

**When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (R² = 0.317, F(4,35) = 4.063, p = 0.008).

Within this model, both changes to the coach-athlete relationships (b= 0.482, p = 0.002) and changes to parental involvement (b= 0.326, p = 0.022) across the season were significant predictors of personal and social skills. Additionally, the covariate age was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (b = 0.369, p = 0.012). The model examining cognitive skills explained 25.1% of the variance, however was only marginally significant (R² = 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069). Within this model the change in coach-athlete relationship was a statistically significant predictor (b= 0.403, p = 0.022), whereas changes to parental involvement was not (b= 0.158, p = 0.330).

Table 3

Regression Results for Perceptions of Cognitive Skills Gained by Athletes

				95% CI
Variable	b	b	SE	LL	UL	p
Intercept		2.048	2.221	-2.465	6.561	0.363
Gender	-0.155	-0.315	0.323	-0.972	0.342	0.337
Age	0.143	0.169	0.193	-0.224	0.561	0.389
Race	-0.066	-0.032	0.074	-0.182	0.119	0.670
DCART-Q	0.403	0.312	0.130	0.048	0.576	0.022
DPISQ	0.158	0.277	0.280	-0.292	0.845	0.330

Notes. n = 41; R²= 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

The models predicting goal setting skills (R² = 0.183, F(5,34) = 1.528, p = 0.207) and initiative (R² = 0.185, F(5,34) = 1.542, p = 0.203) were not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

The present study provides partial support to Holt and colleague’s (2017) proposition that there is an implicit pathway of PYD in sport that takes place through positive relationships. In particular, changes to the coach-athlete relationship significantly predicted youth athletes’ perceptions of social skills and cognitive skills gained; and changes to perceptions of parental involvement also predicted social skills gained. Additionally, when analyzed separately due to issues of multicollinearity, changes to peer cohesion also significantly predicted social skill perceptions. As such, data in the current study reinforce the importance of relationships within the sport environment, and extend previous research by highlighting their value to the specific area of PYD through sport.

While research has shown the coach-athlete relationship to be associated with motivation (Adie & Jowett, 2010), collective-efficacy (Hampson & Jowett, 2014), and team cohesion (Turman, 2003), its role in the social and cognitive development of athletes is less understood. That said, research has shown that coaches seem to intuitively understand the developmental value of a positive coach-athlete relationship as coaches have reported a positive relationship with their athletes led to social and emotional development and resilience (White & Bennie, 2015). Furthermore, Davis and colleagues (2019) proposed a bidirectional relationship between communication skills and the coach-athlete relationship, where communication skills not only helped to improve the relationship, but also improved as a product of a high-quality coach-athlete relationship. When examining the more expansive literature on the impact of a high-quality relationships, researchers have documents that teacher-student relationships can promote cognitive development (Davis, 2003) and social adjustment (Dong et al., 2021) through positive and trusting learning environments. Data in the current study suggest coaches hold a responsibility to ensure the development and sustainment of positive relationships in the sport environment to support similarly positive developmental outcomes for youth athletes. This is particularly important as social skills have been shown to be associated with academic performance (Sung & Chang, 2010), increased mental health (Greenberg et al., 2003), wellbeing (Sancassiani et al., 2015), and self-esteem (Riggio et al., 1990).

The present study also highlights the important yet specific role that parents play in positive youth development through sport. Parental styles have been shown to be associated with social skill development; youth with democratic and permissive parents have been shown to score higher on social skills measures than those with neglectful or authoritative parents (Salavera et al., 2022). As such, it could be hypothesized that parents with more developmentally supportive parenting styles are more likely to be involved in their child’s sport and supportive of their child’s social skills. That said, data in the current study suggests the need to delineate the roles of parents and coaches, as these relationships may provide different benefits for youth. For example, Knight and colleagues (2011) reported that athletes consistently prefer parents to fill a supportive and encouraging role, as opposed to a coaching role. This is supported by data in the current study in that while change to parental involvement predicted athletes’ perceptions of social skill development, it did not predict their cognitive skill perceptions.

Finally, it is important to note that girls rated their relationship with their coach significantly lower than their peers who identified as boys; and older athletes were also significantly less likely to rate their coach-relationships higher than younger athletes. As such, should there exist any developmental benefit to high-quality, coaching relationships, the present findings would suggest that girls and older youth athletes are less likely to receive those benefits. Given that a positive coach-athlete relationship can be protective from poor mental health outcomes for girl athletes specifically (Massey et al., 2024), it is important that positive coach-athlete relationships are prioritized for female athletes, particularly adolescent female athletes. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that as athletes get older, the sporting environment shifts from a focus on fun to a focus on competition. Be that as it may, research has shown that the true shift lies within how athletes are treated; Kipp and Bolter (2020) found that while both older and younger athletes equally perceived their sporting environments to be focused on effort and learning, older athletes were more likely to report being punished or disciplined for mistakes. It is possible that such climates explain the decreasing trend of the coach-athlete relationship observed in the present study. Speaking strictly to the proposed developmental role of the coach-athlete relationship within sport, the present findings would offer that sports become less beneficial and developmentally supportive over time.

Despite the present study’s value to the literature base on PYD through sport, its small, homogenous sample limits its generalizability. In addition to being predominantly white, the sample derived from a singular, pay-to-play soccer organization within an affluent community. Additionally, the present sample predominantly identified as boys, which may parallel youth sport participation trends, but limits the generalizability of the findings to non-boy athlete populations. The age rage of the sample was also limited, clustered into the soccer organizations U11 and U13 age groupings, and as such, the findings may be in part reflective of the natural development occurring in this age range.

Furthermore, most athletes in the present study were satisfied with their relationship with their coach and peers, and the mean parental involvement score was slightly above the midpoint of the scale. Depending on sport or community context, it is possible that more athletes would report more dissatisfaction with these relationships or less parental involvement, thereby affecting the nature of the findings. With respect to age and gender differences, it is possible that these differences could be explained by confounding variables, such as coach gender, competition level, or position, which could not be differentiated in the present study due to the small sample size. Lastly, while multicollinearity necessitated the removal of the peer cohesion variable from the analyses, it should be acknowledged that doing so also limits the completeness of the model by excluding a theoretically important dimension of the sport environment, and one which should continue to be examined in this line of research. As such, future studies should not only continue to examine the nuanced roles of parents and coaches in sport-based PYD, but also peer relationships, and doing so in larger and more diverse samples.

CONCLUSION

The social context of the sport environment, which includes coaches, parents, and peers, plays a significant role in shaping athletes’ perceived development through sport. In the present study, athletes’ perceived social skill development was significantly predicted by positive changes to the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement. The quality of the coach-athlete relationship also emerged as a meaningful predictor of athletes’ perceived cognitive development, highlighting the broader developmental impact of adult figures in the sport context. Furthermore, while peer cohesion was omitted in analyses due to multicollinearity, its interconnectedness with the coach-athlete relationship should be acknowledged, and researchers should continue to utilize it as a variable of interest as theory would dictate. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of considering the full network of sport-based relationships when seeking to support athletes’ development through sport participation.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

In addition to providing support for Holt and colleagues’ (2017) theory of implicit PYD through sport, the present study highlights the interconnected nature of youth sport’s social context. We offer the following recommendations to stakeholders seeking to utilize these findings to develop their youth sport organization’s PYD climate:

Provide coaches with education and training that supports their development of communication and relationship-building skills (see Barnett et al., 1992; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003).
Provide education and clear expectations for parents’ involvement in the organization, as well as opportunities for involvement (see Knight et al., 2011).

Prioritize relationship building and psychological safety at the outset of the season, to include team-building activities and the development of team norms, rituals, and goals (see Carron et al., 1997; Senécal et al., 2008).

REFERENCES

1. Adie, J. W., & Jowett, S. (2010). Meta‐perceptions of the coach–athlete relationship, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation among sport participants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2750-2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00679.x

2. Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.6.2.111

3. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma Jr., A. (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence 3(1), 1-13.

4. Bruner, M. W., McLaren, C. D., Sutcliffe, J. T., Gardner, L. A., Lubans, D. R., Smith, J. J., & Vella, S. A. (2021). The effect of sport-based interventions on positive youth development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(1), 368-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1875496

5. Burns, L., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Cohen, M. (2019). Supportive interpersonal relationships: a key component to high-performance sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(22), 1386-1389. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100312

6. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168

7. Carron, A. V., Spink, K. S., & Prapavessis, H. (1997). Team building and cohesiveness in the sport and exercise setting: Use of indirect interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415384

8. Castro-Schilo, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Using residualized change versus difference scores for longitudinal research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 32-58.

9. Catalano, R. F., Toumbourou, J. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2008). Positive youth development in the United States: History, efficacy, and links to moral and character education. In L. Nucci & T. Krettenauer (Eds.) Handbook of moral and character education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203114896

10. Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461

10. Clonan, S. M., Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2004). Positive psychology goes to school: Are we there yet? Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10142

11. Danioni, F., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2017). Transmitting sport values: The importance of parental involvement in children’s sport activity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i1.1265

12. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

13. Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2014). Coach–athlete attachment and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: Implications for athlete’s well-being. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.898183

14. Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Tafvelin, S. (2019). Communication strategies: The fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02156

15. Dong, Y., Wang, H., Luan, F., Li, Z., & Cheng, L. (2021). How children feel matters: Teacher–student relationship as an indirect role between interpersonal trust and social adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 581235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581235

16. Dorsch, T. E., Wright, E., Eckardt, V. C., Elliott, S., Thrower, S. N., & Knight, C. J. (2021). A history of parent involvement in organized youth sport: A scoping review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(4), 536. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000266

17. Edwards, J. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20(3), 683-689.

18. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Co.

19. Erikstad, M. K., Martin, L. J., Haugen, T., & Høigaard, R. (2018). Group cohesion, needs satisfaction, and self-regulated learning: A one-year prospective study of elite youth soccer players’ perceptions of their club team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.013

20. Eys, M., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(3), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.3.390

21. Felber Charbonneau, E., & Camiré, M. (2020). Parental involvement in sport and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs: Perspectives from parent–child dyads. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(5), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1570533

22. Filho, E., Dobersek, U., Gershgoren, L., Becker, B., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). The cohesion–performance relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Sciences for Health, 10(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-014-0188-7

23. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466

24. Hampson, R., & Jowett, S. (2014). Effects of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on collective efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(2), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01527.x

25. Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704

26. Jones, M. I., Dunn, J. G., Holt, N. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Exploring the ‘5Cs’ of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34(3). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-17095-003

27. Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006

28. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00011-0

29. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART‐Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x

30. Kipp, L. E., & Bolter, N. D. (2020). Motivational climate, psychological needs, and personal and social responsibility in youth soccer: Comparisons by age group and competitive level. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101756

31. Knight, C. J., Neely, K. C., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Parental behaviors in team sports: How do female athletes want parents to behave? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.525589

32. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170

33. Lee, M., & MacLean, S. (1997). Sources of parental pressure among age group swimmers. European Journal of Physical Education, 2(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898970020204

34. Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.

35. Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development A view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211

36. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., 37.

37. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Schmid, K. L., & Napolitano, C. M. (2011). Positive youth development: Processes, orograms, and problematics. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.174

38. MacDonald, D. J., Côté, J., Eys, M., & Deakin, J. (2012). Psychometric properties of the youth experience survey with young athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.001

39. Massey, W. V., Veliz, P. T., Zarrett, N., & Farello, A. (2024). Thriving through sport: The transformative impact on girls’ mental health. Women’s Sport Foundation.

40. McBride, A. M., Johnson, E., Olate, R., & O’Hara, K. (2011). Youth volunteer service as positive youth development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.009

41. Nikolina, K., & Đorić, V. (2023). Relations of coach-athlete relationship quality and athlete psychosocial functioning: A systematic review. SportLogia, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.7251/SGIA2319002K

42. Riggio, R. E., Throckmorton, B., & Depaola, S. (1990). Social skills and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(8), 799-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90188-W

43. Salavera, C., Usán, P., & Quilez-Robres, A. (2022). Exploring the effect of parental styles on social skills: The mediating role of affects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063295

44. Sancassiani, F., Pintus, E., Holte, A., Paulus, P., Moro, M. F., Cossu, G., Angermeyer, M. C., Carta, M. G., & Lindert, J. (2015). Enhancing the emotional and social skills of the youth to promote their wellbeing and positive development: A systematic review of universal school-based randomized controlled trials [Special issue]. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901511010021

45. Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.186

46. Sheridan, D., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A systematic review of social support in youth sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 198-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.931999

47. Sibthorp, J., & Morgan, C. (2011). Adventure‐based programming: Exemplary youth development practice. New Directions for Youth Development, (130), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.400

48. Smith, A. L., & Ullrich-French, S. (2020). Peers and the sport experience. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.) Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 410–428). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119568124.ch19

49. Storm, M. K., Williams, K. N., Shetter, E. M., Kaminsky, J., Lowery, C. M., Caldas, S. V., & Winch, P. J. (2017). Sink or swim: Promoting youth development through aquatics programs in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 35(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I1-7295

50. Sullivan, P. J., LaForge-MacKenzie, K., & Marini, M. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S). Open Journal of Statistics, 5(05), 421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.55044

51. Sung, Y. Y., & Chang, M. (2010). Which social skills predict academic performance of elementary school students. Journal on Educational Psychology, 3(3), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.3.3.1078

52. Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 26(1), 86-104. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-01497-007

53. White, R. L., & Bennie, A. (2015). Resilience in youth sport: A qualitative investigation of gymnastics coach and athlete perceptions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 10(2-3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.379

54. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Boutet, M., & Borbee, A. (2019). Sport-based youth development interventions in the United States: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z

55. Worker, S. M., Iaccopucci, A. M., Bird, M., & Horowitz, M. (2019). Promoting positive youth development through teenagers-as-teachers programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(1), 30-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418764089

Appendix A
Supplemental Materials

Table 4

Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age
2. CART-Q	-0.34*
3. PISQ	0.15	0.23
4. YSEQ	-0.14	0.66**	0.31*
5. Social Skills	0.14	0.62**	0.35*	0.47**
6. Cognitive Skills	-0.05	0.40*	0.16	0.16	0.66**
7. Goal Setting	0.03	0.43**	0.13	0.42**	0.57**	0.70**
8. Initiative	-0.10	0.53**	0.18	0.47**	0.51**	0.40*	0.70**

Notes. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement, YSEQ = Peer Relationships

Table 5

Regression Results for Perceptions of Goal Setting Skills Gained by Athletes

			95% CI for B
Variable	b	SE	LL	UL	b	p
Intercept	2.053	1.862	-1.731	5.836		0.278
Gender	-0.228	0.271	-0.779	0.322	-0.140	0.405
Age	0.186	0.162	-0.143	0.515	0.196	0.259
Race	0.011	0.062	-0.115	0.137	0.028	0.863
DCART-Q	0.230	0.109	0.008	0.451	0.369	0.042
DPISQ	0.175	0.235	-0.302	0.651	0.124	0.462

Notes. R²= 0.183, p = 0.207; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

Table 6

Regression Results for Perceptions of Initiative Gained by Athletes

			95% CI for B
Variable	b	SE	LL	UL	b	p
Intercept	4.000	1.315	1.328	6.671	-0.120	3.043
Gender	-0.138	0.191	-0.527	0.250	0.062	-0.723
Age	0.042	0.114	-0.191	0.274	0.035	0.365
Race	0.010	0.044	-0.079	0.099	0.389	0.221
DCART-Q	0.171	0.077	0.015	0.327	0.087	2.224
DPISQ	0.086	0.166	-0.251	0.423	-0.120	0.520

Notes. R²= 0.185, p = 0.203; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

Troy Palmer2026-04-09T15:25:29-05:00April 9th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership, Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Understanding the Decline of Lacrosse Officials in the Midwest: A Study on Retention Challenges and Stakeholder Influence

Authors: Nicholas Zoroya¹, Joshua Greer², Carla Blakey³

Corresponding Author:

Nicholas Zoroya

20932 Hasenclever Dr., South Lyon, MI 48178

(248)420-9200, [email protected]

¹ Madonna University

² Cumberland University

³ University of Alabama

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

This study examines the ongoing decline of lacrosse officials in the Midwest by exploring how stakeholder behavior, organizational support, and personal motivations affect officials’ decisions to continue or leave the profession. The goal is to identify key factors contributing to attrition and provide practical recommendations for improving retention.

Methods:

A mixed-methods survey design was used to collect data from 55 lacrosse officials who had officiated in the Midwest within the past five years. Participants responded to a series of closed-ended questions assessing demographics, officiating experience, and interactions with coaches, fans, and players. Open-ended responses were also collected to contextualize and support quantitative results. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and illustrative quotes were used to reinforce common trends.

Results:

Most participants were White males over the age of 40, with more than a decade of officiating experience. While abuse from players was reported less frequently, officials indicated that verbal abuse from coaches and fans occurred often and significantly impacted their officiating experience. Additionally, officials expressed mixed feelings about the support they receive from associations and assignors. Despite these challenges, most participants reported a strong personal connection to the game and cited their passion for lacrosse and desire to give back as primary reasons for continuing. A subset of respondents, however, acknowledged that negative experiences have made them consider leaving the profession.

Conclusions:

Findings highlight the important role personal passion plays in keeping officials engaged despite a lack of institutional support and ongoing negative stakeholder interactions. Without meaningful changes to reduce abuse and increase organizational support, the officiating pipeline will remain vulnerable. The study also raises concerns about the lack of demographic diversity in lacrosse officiating, warranting further exploration.

Applications in Sport:

The results have practical implications for lacrosse governing bodies, assignors, and administrators. Improving sideline behavior, increasing compensation, offering mentorship, and expanding recruitment efforts to underrepresented groups could significantly improve retention and build a more sustainable and inclusive officiating workforce.

Key Words: officiating, lacrosse, referee retention, stakeholder behavior, sport management

INTRODUCTION

The shortage of sports officials, particularly in youth and high school sports, is a pressing issue that threatens organized athletics’ operational integrity and sustainability. The National Federation of High School Associations (NFHS) found that around 50,000 individuals have stopped serving as high school officials since the onset of the pandemic in 2020 (Niehoff, 2022). This decline can be attributed to several interrelated factors, including occupational stress, abuse from spectators, insufficient support systems, and inadequate training opportunities for officials.

Literature Review

The shortage of sports officials is increasingly attributed to the rising incidence of verbal and physical abuse directed at referees by players and spectators. Research indicates that abusive behavior, particularly at the grassroots level, significantly contributes to high turnover rates, with negative experiences reducing officials’ willingness to continue in the profession (Dawson et al., 2021; Rayner et al., 2016). Dawson et al. (2021) highlight the alarming decline in the number of qualified officials, stressing that this culture of abuse not only affects officials but also threatens the integrity of competitive sports. Additionally, issues such as harassment and discrimination, especially against female officials, further intensify attrition, creating a hostile environment that undermines the overall health of sports communities (Marshall et al., 2022; Webb et al., 2020).

In addition, the lack of adequate support, resources, and effective training opportunities exacerbates attrition, as many organizations fail to provide the necessary infrastructure to sustain officials’ careers (Webb et al., 2020; Tingle et al., 2014). Insufficient professional development and an aging workforce further compound the issue, necessitating innovative strategies to attract and retain younger officials (Ryan et al., 2014; Barnhill et al., 2018; Pierce et al., 2021). This literature emphasizes the multifaceted challenges in officiating and highlights the critical need for systemic changes to address the issues of abuse, support, and recruitment.

The Decline of Lacrosse Officials

The decline of lacrosse officials in the Midwest has raised concerns regarding the sustainability of officiating in growing sports leagues. In recent years, the shortage of qualified officials has emerged as a critical issue. Lacrosse, a sport that has enjoyed significant regional growth in the Midwest, now faces challenges similar to those observed in other sports arenas (Ridinger et al., 2017). The decline in the number of lacrosse officials not only impedes game integrity but also affects the overall development of the sport. Existing literature has shown that multifaceted factors, including motivational changes, psychosocial stressors, and insufficient support structures, play essential roles in the retention and attrition of referees (Livingston & Forbes, 2016; Ridinger, 2015).

Negative Stakeholder Behavior

The decline in the number of lacrosse officials in the Midwest can be tied to negative stakeholder behavior, particularly from parents, coaches, and fans. This trend is troubling, as officials play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and safety of the game. The psychological impact of abuse from various stakeholders on referees cannot be overstated. Studies indicate that officials often experience significant stress and mental health challenges due to verbal abuse and aggression directed at them during games, which can lead to a decline in their overall job satisfaction and motivation (Breslin et al., 2022; Giel & Breuer, 2021).

It is important to note that the abuse received by officials, from players, coaches, and spectators, is frequently normalized within many sports environments. Research in sports such as rugby and football demonstrates that officials often report feeling overwhelmed by hostility from these groups (Webb et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2018). This hostility not only affects the officiating experience but can also deter potential new referees from entering the field. Furthermore, the retention rates of officials are directly influenced by the social interactions they have with these stakeholder groups, and the lack of positive reinforcement or sportsmanship has been shown to exacerbate dropout intentions (Giel & Breuer, 2021).

The influence of these stressors is particularly notable in the context of youth sports, where the pressure from parents and coaches can create a toxic atmosphere for officials trying to enforce rules and manage games. Coaches, in their roles, often have a substantial impact on how players perceive referees, which in turn affects the emotional atmosphere during matches (Webb, 2020). If coaches model negative behaviors, such as disrespect towards referees, it can lead to a cycle of abuse where players mimic these actions, further isolating officials and intensifying their negative experiences (Webb et al., 2018).

Interventions aimed at increasing awareness and promoting mental health support among referees are essential in addressing this decline. Recommendations have been made for mental health training for stakeholders to improve the overall environment surrounding officiating and reduce instances of abuse (Breslin et al., 2022). Additionally, stakeholder education on the consequences of negative behaviors towards officials can help reshape perspectives and foster a more respectful sporting culture. Such measures would not only help in maintaining a robust pool of lacrosse officials but also promote a healthier, more inclusive environment for all participants in the sport.

Abuse
Abuse, both verbal and physical, is a significant contributor to officiating attrition, with numerous studies highlighting its impact on officials’ mental health and intentions to quit. Brick et al. (2022) found that nearly all Gaelic Games officials surveyed (94.29%) had encountered verbal abuse, and almost one in four (23.06%) had experienced physical abuse during their careers. Verbal abuse was shown to be frequent and directly linked to mental health issues and quitting intentions, with distress acting as a mediating factor. Similarly, Webb et al. (2018) documented the prevalence of both verbal and physical abuse in rugby league, finding that emotional abuse (i.e., intimidation, swearing, and threats) and physical aggression (i.e., pushing and hitting) significantly reduced job satisfaction. These hostile environments, particularly when abuse is persistent and unaddressed, contribute to officials leaving their roles.

The impact of abuse on officiating extends across various sports and levels. For instance, Ridinger et al. (2017) revealed that 42% of 2,485 high school referees identified abuse as the most significant challenge in their roles, and 10% cited abuse as a factor in their intention to quit. This aligns with findings from Kavanagh et al. (2021), who reported that abuse in youth soccer led to emotional exhaustion and burnout among officials. Tingle et al. (2014) also noted that the normalization of verbal abuse within sports culture exacerbates the negative effects on officials, especially for newcomers lacking support systems. Collectively, these studies underscore the need for sports organizations to implement proactive abuse prevention measures and institutional support to mitigate attrition and improve the officiating experience.

Unsupportive Interactions
Unsupportive social dynamics play a critical role in officials’ decisions to leave their positions. Warner et al. (2013) examined the effects of problematic peer interactions and inadequate mentoring in sports such as lacrosse, revealing how these relational shortcomings contribute to officiating attrition. When officials lack meaningful support from mentors or peers and feel disconnected from a broader officiating community, their engagement and satisfaction decline. The Referee Retention Scale (Ridinger et al., 2017) identifies several social factors that contribute to retention, including several factors that address a sense of community and mentoring support. These elements reflect the importance of fostering interpersonal relationships that reinforce a positive officiating experience (Table 1).

Table 1
Key Factors Contributing to Referee Retention

Factor Name	Description
Administrator Consideration	Level of perceived fairness and consideration from assigners and administrators
Mentoring	Support and encouragement from a mentor or a friend to become involved with officiating
Sense of Community	Perceived sense of belonging to a supportive community of officials
Lack of Stress	Infrequent encounters with stressful situations related to officiating

Note. Adapted from Ridinger, L. L., Kim, K. R., Warner, S., & Tingle, J. K. (2017). Development of the Referee Retention Scale. Journal of Sport Management, 31(5), 514–527.

In addition to interpersonal issues, organizational shortcomings also undermine retention efforts. Warner et al. (2013) highlighted how insufficient policy frameworks and administrative neglect exacerbate attrition, particularly when officiating structures fail to proactively address the evolving needs of officials. The Referee Retention Scale provides a methodological foundation for identifying these structural deficiencies. Notably, factors such as “Administrator Consideration” and “Lack of Stress” underscore the role of fair management practices and manageable work environments in referee satisfaction. Furthermore, Livingston and Forbes (2016) and Ridinger (2015) emphasize the necessity of aligning recruitment and retention strategies with officials’ motivations and expectations. Collectively, these findings stress that without intentional and sustained institutional support, officiating organizations risk ongoing loss of personnel due to preventable burnout and disengagement.

Referee Retention

Research on referee retention has provided useful insights into the systemic and individual challenges impacting officiating roles. Ridinger et al. (2017) developed the Referee Retention Scale to assess factors such as job satisfaction, perceived organizational support, and the prevalence of abuse, all of which are directly linked to declining retention rates. Their work underscores that referee attrition is often precipitated by issues that extend beyond the administrative domain and delve into psychosocial and environmental stressors. Similarly, Livingston and Forbes (2016) investigated the evolving motivations of amateur sport officials and confirmed that changes in personal goals and external support diminish retention levels over time. Their study, although centered on Canadian officials, provides a framework that is applicable to the Midwest context, where similar socio-organizational dynamics are at play.

Ridinger (2015) compared the experiences of baseball umpires and lacrosse officials, revealing common constraints such as economic shortages and inadequate mentorship. This comparative analysis highlights that lacrosse officials, in particular, face challenges that are exacerbated by limited training opportunities and the absence of community-based support systems. In other research pertinent to community sports, Baxter et al. (2021) examined the experiences of female volunteer officials, outlining barriers and motivators that resonate with broader issues affecting retention. Although focused on gender-related dimensions of officiating, their findings reinforce the notion that organizational policies and social support are crucial to sustaining a committed officiating workforce.

The literature clearly indicates that the decline of lacrosse officials in the Midwest is a complex phenomenon influenced by issues of retention, support deficiency, and exposure to abuse. By synthesizing insights from multiple studies, this review stresses the importance of a comprehensive strategy that includes recruitment, retention, and preventive measures to improve the working environment for lacrosse officials. Future research and policy changes informed by these findings will be crucial in reversing the downward trend and ensuring the long-term sustainability of lacrosse officiating.

Conclusion

Despite a growing body of literature on officiating attrition, few studies have examined the distinct cultural and geographic dynamics affecting lacrosse officials in emerging regions like the Midwest. The reviewed research highlights a multifaceted crisis, with lacrosse serving as a representative case of the broader challenges afflicting youth and high school sports. Across regional and national contexts, verbal abuse and safety concerns have emerged as key contributors to attrition. In the Midwest, the shortage of lacrosse officials is impeding sport development and compromising game quality.

National survey findings from NASO and NFHS reinforce the severity of the crisis, revealing that a majority of new officials depart within three years due to burnout, safety concerns, and undervaluation. While recent initiatives, such as the NFHS National Officials Consortium Summit and the #BecomeAnOfficial campaign, represent positive steps forward, the literature suggests that these efforts must be part of a broader, coordinated strategy. Interventions focused on stakeholder education, mental health support, structured mentorship, and the public acknowledgment of officials’ contributions are necessary to reverse current trends. Sustaining officiating in lacrosse will require systemic change, cultural realignment, and a renewed commitment to valuing those who enforce the rules and protect the integrity of the game.

METHODS

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the underlying causes of the declining number of lacrosse officials in the Midwest. Specifically, it seeks to determine how stakeholder interactions, support structures, and personal motivations influence officials’ decisions to remain active in the field. The study is designed to inform retention strategies and stakeholder education efforts.

Methodology

Participants

Participants in this study were 55 lacrosse officials who officiated games across the Midwest region of the United States. Eligibility criteria required participants to have officiated lacrosse at any level (youth, high school, college, or club) within the past five years in a Midwest state. Participants were predominantly male and white, and ranged in age from 25 to 72 years old, with officiating experience spanning from less than 1 year to over 30 years. Participation was voluntary, and no compensation was provided.

Procedures

Data was collected via an anonymous online survey distributed through Qualtrics. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations sent to lacrosse officiating associations, assignors, and personal networks within the officiating community, as well as through social media posts targeting officials in the Midwest. The survey remained open for three weeks, with one reminder sent midway through the collection period. Prior to data collection, the study received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from Madonna University. Participants provided informed consent at the beginning of the survey.

The survey consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. Closed-ended items collected demographic information (age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of officiating experience) and information on perceived challenges in officiating (e.g., pay, scheduling, respect from stakeholders). Open-ended questions invited participants to elaborate on their experiences, including reasons for continuing or discontinuing officiating and suggestions for improving the officiating experience.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means) to summarize participant demographics and the prevalence of key issues identified by officials. Open-ended responses were reviewed to identify illustrative quotes that reinforced or provided examples of the quantitative findings. Qualitative responses were not formally coded or thematically analyzed but were used to add narrative context to the statistical results.

RESULTS

A total of 55 lacrosse officials from the Midwest region completed the survey. Participants ranged in age from 23 to 67 years (M = 45.8, SD = 11.2), with the majority identifying as male (85%) and White/Caucasian (94%). Officials reported working across multiple states, most commonly Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. On average, participants had 14.3 years of officiating experience, with nearly all officiating at the youth and high school levels (92%). Additionally, 64% reported officiating collegiate lacrosse, and 9% officiated at the professional level.

Officials were asked about their experiences with negative interactions from various stakeholders. Verbal abuse from coaches was reported as occurring “sometimes” by 58% of respondents and “often” by 16%. Similar patterns emerged regarding fans and parents, with 49% reporting “sometimes” and 22% reporting “often” experiencing verbal abuse. Abuse from players was less frequent, with 51% of officials reporting “rarely” and 38% reporting “sometimes.” Despite these negative interactions, officials rarely reported fearing for their personal safety, with 74% indicating “never” and 18% “rarely” feeling unsafe while officiating.

Perceptions of support from officiating associations were mixed. While 42% of respondents felt “often” supported by their associations, 33% reported “sometimes” feeling supported, and 25% “rarely.” When asked how often they considered quitting due to negative experiences, 56% reported “never” considering leaving officiating, 24% “rarely,” 11% “sometimes,” and 9% “often.”

Qualitative responses provided further insight into officials’ motivations and concerns. Officials frequently cited a love for the game, a desire to give back to the sport, camaraderie with fellow officials, and ensuring opportunities for young athletes as primary reasons for continuing to officiate. One participant explained, “I won’t stop until my body no longer allows me to officiate,” while another noted, “If associations or assignors supported officials more, I’d feel better about continuing.” Conversely, low pay, spectator abuse, insufficient support from associations, and the physical demands of officiating as they age were commonly cited factors contributing to potential attrition.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide a nuanced look into the factors influencing lacrosse officials’ retention in the Midwest. Despite frequent reports of verbal abuse from coaches, players, and fans, many respondents reported continuing to officiate due to intrinsic motivations such as a love of the sport and a desire to give back. This aligns with prior research emphasizing passion and sport commitment as key drivers of officiating persistence. Finding joy in officiating can lead to better psychological outcomes, fostering an environment where officials are more likely to continue their engagement with the sport (Carson et al., 2020).

However, respondents also highlighted significant deterrents to retention, including low compensation, lack of recognition, poor treatment from stakeholders, and limited support from assigning organizations. These challenges are consistent with broader officiating literature identifying unsupportive environments and abuse as predictors of attrition. Research supports the notion that the challenges of managing player dynamics and external pressures, such as crowd noise, significantly impact officials’ performance and mental states (Carter et al., 2024). Therefore, the emotional and psychological investment in sport, empowered by both passion and commitment, is essential in nurturing a sustained career in officiating.

Interestingly, while many officials expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the officiating experience, few indicated plans to immediately stop officiating, suggesting a complex interplay between commitment, tolerance for negative experiences, and practical constraints.

The demographic homogeneity of the sample raises additional concerns. The overwhelming representation of older White men suggests potential gaps in recruitment or retention efforts targeting women and racial minorities. Given lacrosse’s growing popularity and emphasis on inclusion, this lack of diversity warrants further investigation and intervention.

Collectively, these findings reinforce the need for officiating associations and lacrosse governing bodies to implement more robust training, mentorship, and support systems. Addressing verbal abuse, improving communication, and recognizing officials’ contributions may improve retention. Ultimately, sustaining a high-quality officiating workforce requires addressing both systemic challenges and individual experiences.

Future Research

While this study offers valuable insight into the experiences of lacrosse officials in the Midwest, it also highlights several opportunities for future research. First, the demographic composition of respondents (predominantly White, male, and middle-aged or older) suggests a need to explore barriers to entry and advancement for underrepresented groups in officiating. Investigating the experiences of women, racial minorities, and younger officials could help identify structural or cultural factors limiting diversity in the officiating pipeline.

Additionally, future research could expand beyond the Midwest to assess whether similar trends exist nationally or vary by region. Comparative studies across different competitive levels (youth, high school, collegiate, professional) may also reveal distinct challenges and support mechanisms. Finally, longitudinal research could track officials over time to better understand career trajectories, burnout risk, and retention strategies. Together, these avenues of inquiry can build a more comprehensive understanding of officiating challenges and inform evidence-based recruitment and retention initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

This study sheds light on the complex realities facing lacrosse officials across the Midwest, revealing a profession challenged by inadequate pay, lack of respect from key stakeholders, inconsistent scheduling practices, and minimal institutional support. Despite these hurdles, officials overwhelmingly cited their love of the game, passion for supporting athletes, and commitment to the sport as primary motivators for continuing their work. This finding underscores a critical dynamic: lacrosse officiating, particularly in under-resourced regions, is being sustained largely by the intrinsic dedication and personal investment of its officials rather than by systemic support or professional incentives.

Without this fierce passion for the sport, it is likely that attrition would be even higher. Many participants described tolerating negative treatment, logistical difficulties, and low compensation solely because of their deep-rooted connection to lacrosse. While this dedication is admirable, it raises serious concerns about sustainability and burnout. The profession cannot rely indefinitely on goodwill and personal sacrifice without addressing the structural and cultural issues contributing to official dissatisfaction and turnover.

These findings highlight the urgent need for action to support and retain lacrosse officials and ensure the sport’s long-term sustainability. Ultimately, this study emphasizes that lacrosse officiating in the Midwest stands at a crossroads.

APPLICATION IN SPORT

The findings of this study have clear implications for lacrosse governing bodies, officiating associations, assignors, coaches, and athletic administrators seeking to address the shortage of officials. First, targeted efforts to reduce verbal abuse and improve sideline behavior are critical for creating a more supportive environment that encourages retention. Educational workshops for coaches, parents, and athletes focused on respecting officials may help shift cultural norms and reduce negative interactions.

Second, the study highlights the need for stronger mentoring and peer support systems within officiating communities. Developing formal mentorship programs that connect new officials with experienced referees could foster a greater sense of belonging and resilience, improving retention among newer and younger officials. Assigning bodies should prioritize community-building activities, recognition initiatives, and accessible professional development opportunities to sustain engagement.

Additionally, improving compensation and scheduling practices may directly influence retention by addressing key logistical frustrations reported by officials. Providing consistent game assignments, clear communication, and timely pay can increase satisfaction and encourage officials to remain active longer.

Finally, the demographic homogeneity observed in this study signals an urgent need to broaden recruitment efforts to underrepresented groups, including women and racial minorities. Intentional outreach, training scholarships, and inclusive recruitment messaging may help diversify the officiating pipeline and ensure the sport’s continued growth. Implementing these strategies can help sport leaders, administrators, and policy makers foster a more sustainable, inclusive, and supportive officiating environment in lacrosse and beyond.

REFERENCES

Avalos, B. L. (2020). “Friday night is their Super Bowl”: A relational investigation regarding occupational stress among American high school football officials. Communication & Sport, 8(4–5), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520968932
Barnhill, C. R., Martinez, J. M., Andrew, D. P. S., & Todd, W. (2018). Sport commitment, occupational commitment and intent to quit among high school sports officials. Journal of Amateur Sport, 4(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.17161/jas.v4i1.6459
Baxter, C., Smith, J., & Thompson, R. (2021). Female volunteer community sport officials: A scoping review and research agenda. European Sport Management Quarterly, 21(3), 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1877322
Breslin, G., Shannon, S., Cummings, M. P., & Leavey, G. (2022). An updated systematic review of interventions to increase awareness of mental health and well-being in athletes, coaches, officials, and parents. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01932-5
Brick, N. E., Breslin, G., Shevlin, M., & Shannon, S. (2022). The impact of verbal and physical abuse on distress, mental health, and intentions to quit in sports officials. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 60, 102162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102162
Carson, F., Dynon, N., Santoro, J., & Kremer, P. (2020). Examining negative emotional symptoms and psychological wellbeing of Australian sport officials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218265.
Carter, T. B., Gorczynski, P., Coady, C. J., Cunningham, I., Mascarenhas, D., Grant, M., Sullivan, P., Webb, T., Livingston, L. A., & Hancock, D. J. (2024). Implementing a scoping review to explore sport officials’ mental health. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, 1436149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1436149
Dawson, P., Webb, T., & Downward, P. (2021). Abuse is not a zero-sum game! The case for zero tolerance of match official physical and verbal abuse. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(2), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1881619
Giel, T., & Breuer, C. (2021). The general and facet-specific job satisfaction of voluntary referees based on the model of effort-reward imbalance. European Sport Management Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1964090
Kavanagh, E., Brown, L., & Jones, I. (2021). ‘You’re not a real man’: The experiences of male sports officials in emotionally challenging environments. Sport Management Review, 24(2), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.03.004
Livingston, M., & Forbes, S. (2016). Factors contributing to the retention of Canadian amateur sport officials: Motivations, perceived organizational support, and resilience. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(2), 406-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116644061
Marshall, S., McNeil, N., Seal, E., & Nicholson, M. (2022). The “boys’ club,” sexual harassment, and discriminatory resourcing: An exploration of the barriers faced by women sport officials in Australian basketball. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(6), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902221137802
Niehoff, K. (2022, February 16). With loss of 50,000 officials, NFHS organizes consortium to find solutions. National Federation of State High School Associations. https://www.nfhs.org/articles/with-loss-of-50-000-officials-nfhs-organizes-consortium-to-find-solutions/
Pierce, D. A., Sherman, G., Mechelin, K. J., & Kryder, B. (2021). Innovate sports officiating with design thinking. Case Studies in Sport Management, 10(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2020-0029
Rayner, M., Webb, T., & Webb, H. (2016). The occurrence of referee abuse in rugby union: Evidence and measures through an online survey. International Journal of Sport Management Recreation & Tourism, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5199/ijsmart-1791-874x-21d
Ridinger, L. (2015). Contributors and constraints to involvement with youth sports officiating. Journal of Amateur Sport, 1(2), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.17161/jas.v1i2.4946
Ridinger, L., Warner, S., Tingle, J. K., & Kim, K. (2017). Development of the Referee Retention Scale. Journal of Sport Management, 31(6), 635-647. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0065
Ryan, T. D., Sosa, J., & Thornton, M. A. (2014). Influences of training on individual outcomes for high school sports officials. SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014532475
Tingle, J. K., Warner, S., & Sartore-Baldwin, M. (2014). The experience of former women officials and the impact on the sporting community. Sex Roles, 71(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0366-8
Warner, S., Tingle, J. K., & Kellett, P. (2013). Officiating attrition: The experiences of former referees via a sport development lens. Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 316-328. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.27.4.316
Webb, T., Dicks, M., & Thelwell, R. (2018). An explorative investigation of referee abuse in English rugby league. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 10(2), 54-71. https://doi.org/10.18666/jasm-2017-v10-i2-8834
Webb, T., & Rayner, M., & Thelwell, R. (2019). An examination of match officials’ perceptions of support and abuse in rugby union and cricket in England. Managing Sport and Leisure. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2019.1605841
Webb, T., Rayner, M., & Thelwell, R. (2018). An explorative investigation of referee abuse in English rugby league. Journal of Applied Sport Management. https://doi.org/10.18666/jasm-2017-v10-i2-8834
Webb, T. (2020). The future of officiating: Analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on referees in world football. Soccer and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2020.1768634
Webb, T. (2020). Sports match official research: An evolving narrative, positioning future research. Managing Sport and Leisure, 25(1–2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1762304
Webb, T., Dicks, M., Thelwell, R., van der Kamp, J., & Rix‐Lièvre, G. (2020). An analysis of soccer referee experiences in France and the Netherlands: Abuse, conflict, and level of support. Sport Management Review, 23(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.003

Troy Palmer2025-07-21T14:29:22-05:00December 9th, 2025|Contemporary Sports Issues, General, Research, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies|Comments Off

The Impact of Head Coach and Student Athlete Decision Making in the Transfer Portal Era of College Sports

Authors:

Howard Bartee, Jr., Ed.D.¹

Author affiliations:

¹School of Public and Allied Health, Division of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Howard Bartee, Jr., Ed.D.

Prairie View A & M University

700 University Drive

Prairie View, TX 77446

[email protected]

770-314-4415

Howard Bartee, Jr., Ed.D. is an Assistant Professor of Health and Kinesiology-Sport Management at Prairie View A & M University in Prairie View, TX. His research interests include sports management and communication, sports analytics, and organizational behavior within the context of health and kinesiology. With nearly twenty-five years in higher education, Dr. Bartee has served in administrative capacities and previously taught sports management and sports administration courses at Houston Christian University in Houston, TX and Belhaven University in Jackson, MS. Dr. Bartee has further spearheaded initiatives related to sports career services, student advisement, and program and curriculum development.

ABSTRACT

In collegiate sports, the reputation of the head coach is important in urban and suburban America as the transfer portal era of college sports continues to evolve. Many young athletes are going through the decision-making process as they prepare to compete on the collegiate level. Athletes have overcome their circumstances to open doors to the field of college sports, but with the impact of coaching changes, coaching reputations, and the growth of the transfer portal in recent years, college sports has entered an era of mobility on the coach and player levels, during the post-Covid pandemic society in our global sports world.

Key Words: High School Sports, College Sports, HBCU Sports, Coaching, Transfer Portal

INTRODUCTION

College sports has evolved tremendously from the days of four-year scholarship opportunity commitments to now the transfer portal era of today’s sports paradigm. The transfer portal era refers to the ability of players to sign with one school this year and then transfer to another school the next year if another opportunity arises. Many forces are now influencing the expansion of college sports and which, in effect, draw attention to the reasons why the impact of who the head coach is and the student athlete decision making process, are now having an impact on where today’s student athlete is deciding to go on signing day.

From a practical viewpoint, while the college or university name plays a role in the decision-making process, when considering the student athlete decision, when considering the movement in player recruitment evolving over the past five years, the reputation of the coach along with the transfer portal and name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities are now playing a larger role in where students are attending across America. When considering the hiring of coaches like Deion “Coach Prime” Sanders at Jackson State University in 2021 and then his movement to the University of Colorado in 2023 and the growth of transfer portal in recent years, coaching changes and coaching reputations have evolved to a level where a ‘free agent” market, like professional sports includes, is now part of the everyday operations of college sports.

Thus, using sociohistorical and current perspectives and demographical information, the following questions guide this exploration:

What is the impact of the head coach in the pre-Covid transfer portal era (prior to 2020) and post-Covid transfer portal era (2020 to the present) on the NCAA Division I (FBS), NCAA Division I (FCS), NCAA Division II, and NCAA Division III levels of college sports?
What is the impact of the student athlete decision making process in the pre-Covid transfer portal era (prior to 2020) and post-Covid transfer portal era (2020 to the present) on the NCAA Division I (FBS), NCAA Division I (FCS), NCAA Division II, and NCAA Division III levels of college sports?

These questions provide the context for understanding how the impact of the head coach has evolved from the pre-Covid transfer era in 2020 to the present post-Covid era on the NCAA Division I (FBS), NCAA Division I (FCS), NCAA Division II, and NCAA Division III levels. These questions show how on each of these levels and even to the recruitment of graduating high school student athletes is much different in 2025 as compared to years past. Using the implications of contextual matters, these questions offer a wider understanding of the contextual impact of the head coach along with their reputation and the universities ability to compete in the transfer portal era of college sports with the appropriate academic and athletic resources, today and tomorrow in the changing landscape.

A View of the Impact of the Head Coach in the Transfer Portal Era of College Sports

Context matters when viewing the impact of the head coach and the student athlete decision making in the transfer portal era of college football, particularly given how the post-Covid transfer portal era is significantly different than the pre-Covid transfer portal era has evolved for student athletes selecting their colleges and universities. The competition that has become apparent is that many athletes are now choosing not only where they attend based upon the reputation of coach, as past studies show, but also now where they can build upon their name, image and likeness (NIL) as well as where they can have the abilities to play the sport they love. With the convergence of these concepts, entrance into the college ranks has been a detailed process from middle school to high school as many parents and student athletes embrace the process of going from youth sports to collegiate sports through the traditional way of the college choice process as outlined in past studies, like (1), (4), (5), and (7).

According to (2), the primary college choice model is the (3) model, which focuses on the “predisposition phase, the search process and the choice stage” (pp. 207-221). In this model, (3) explain the logical steps that a student would encounter in the decision-making process, including the following: (1) the predisposition phase focuses on whether or not the student would like to continue formal education; (2) the search process focuses on the consideration and selection of characteristics of higher education and (3) the choice stage focuses on developing choice criteria and selecting an institution to attend.

When looking at the (3) of college choice in more detail along with (2) study on the college choice process of male and female collegiate student athletes going to the next level, it has three primary components including: (a) creating a simpler yet more conceptual model as compared to previous models; (b) isolating and containing the college choice process within a manageable three-stage framework (predisposition, search, and choice) as described above; and (c) emphasizing stages that focuse more on the student rather than the institution. As a result, we see how student athletes are navigating to colleges and universities, that include those hired during the Coach Prime Era from 2020 to the present, those with previous college coaching experience or those coached with former NFL players.

As Table 4 shows, from the sampling of coaching hires, it was found that out of 25 coaching hires, 10 or 40% had NFL Playing Experience, had college coaching experience 13 or 52%, and had NFL Coaching Experience, 2 or 8%, excluding Coach Prime, thus the Coach Prime Effect on college coaching hires is part of the impact of today’s post Covid transfer portal era along with higher coaching salaries heading into the 2025 season, according to (10) in Table 5.

A View of the Impact of the Student Athlete Decision Making Process in the Transfer Portal Era of College Sports

In 2025, context matters, too, with regards to the head coach and student athlete decision making in the transfer portal era of college sports, specifically in football. During the past five years, following Covid in 2020, the transfer portal has become a major component of the college football paradigm. With the ability of players to become immediately eligible to play in most cases when they transfer, player movement has evolved to resemble the free agency model of professional football. Through a sampling of schools throughout the country, there has been an uptick in players entering the transfer portal from 2020 to 2024 that have impacted to the collegiate sports industry. Table 6 summarizes how this period has reshaped the sports paradigm.

As Table 6 shows from NBC Sports and On3.com, “there has been an increase from years 2020 to 2021 and then from 2022 to 2023. The 65% increase in 2020-2021, along with the 19% increase from 2022-2023, shows that the impact of the transfer portal is growing throughout the field of college football and in the student athlete decision making process” (9), (10), (11), (12), (13) and (14). The largest increase has been from the 2020 to the 2025 years as there has been a 418% increase in the number of transfer portal entrants as shown in Table 6 above from 786 entrants in 2020 to 4060 entrants currently in June 2025.

Table 7 shows the impact of when a high-profile coach leaves one college and moves to another college that student athlete’s decision making resulted in approximately 60 student athletes entering the transfer portal. This occurred when Deion “Coach Prime” Sanders took a head coach job at the University of Colorado and completed his work as head coach at Jackson State University. Coach Prime’s exit resulted in him achieving a Power 5 position in the Big 12 Conference. The resulting impact has also seen the hiring of other former athletes, like former Tennessee State University head coach Eddie George, recently moving to Bowling Green State University after having a measure of success with an Ohio Valley Conference Championship and postseason playoff appearance at Tennessee State University.

Though many well-known sports figures are arriving at colleges and universities, like Michael Vick at Norfolk State University (football), Desean Jackson at Delaware State University (football), Reggie Barlow at Tennessee State University(football), and Bill Belichick at the University of North Carolina (football), the student athlete decision making process of offers, commitments and signings continue to be a valuable part of the recruiting process as the world of college athletics in 2025 evolves into a stronger business model of NIL collectives, new administrative roles like Athletic Department General Managers, and a more active transfer portal era during the post-Covid era, thus requiring a broader contextual perspective.

Additionally, Coach Prime and the Colorado Buffaloes recently continued in their turnaround from a one win season in 2022, prior to his arrival, as they qualified for the Alamo Bowl with a nine win season in Year Two of the Coach Prime Era along with having a Heisman Trophy Winner, while Coach T.C. Taylor, the coach that replaced Coach Prime at Jackson State, just recently led them to a SWAC Championship and Celebration Bowl HBCU National Championship twelve-win, two loss season, though both schools were recently impacted by the transfer portal between 2022 and 2024, according to (6). Also, the Ohio State University football team won the first-ever 12 team playoff National Championship over the University of Notre Dame, with a fourteen-win, two loss season.

Shared Implications of Coaching, Student Athlete Decision Making and the Transfer Portal Era of an Evolving College Sports Model in 2025 and Beyond

In closing, since the first collegiate football game in November of 1869 between Rutgers University and the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) until the most recent national championship between the Ohio State University and the University of Notre Dame in January 2025, the college sports model has been consistently focused on maintaining the balance between student and athlete. For many years, this balance was focused on a model of players going to school for an education through scholarship achievement and athletic competition. Though this still remains the primary focus, the transfer portal is now playing a stronger role on the student athlete decision making process as athletes have the flexibility to opt-out of their scholarships and transfer to other schools on a year to year basis, if they so choose. Moving forward, with a major $2.8 billion settlement coming in July of 2025, a shift in the model on all levels will see more fluidity as the impact of the head coach and who that person is, along with how valued a student athlete feels will become factors that influence where players play and whether or not they choose to enter the transfer portal and then go elsewhere. For example, according to (8), “more than 4,600 Division I athletes have entered their names in the NCAA transfer portal in the month of April 2025, in part because schools have been preparing for the expected roster limits in the $2.8 billion settlement”. Moreover, as new student athletes enter the college sports arena from high school, having knowledge of the NIL process, will factor into the how student athletes make college choices and it will also have an impact on how colleges and universities structure their athletic departments and, in many instances, run them like professional organizations as the transfer portal era continues.

REFERENCES

Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and role engulfment. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bartee, Jr. H. (2011). The next level: Six erspectives on the college choice process of student athletes. United States: CreateSpace. ISBN-13: 978-1456377762
Hossler, D. & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying college choice: A three-phase model and the implication for policy makers. College and University, 62, 207-21.
Hossler, D., Schmitt, J. and Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.
Letawsky, N. (2003). Factors influencing the college selection process of student athletes: are their factors similar to non-athletes. College Student Journal, 37(4), 604-610.
Keith, J. T. (2023). Jackson state football transfer tracker: Who’s leaving via portal. Retrieved on April 10, 2025 from https://www.clarionledger.com/story/sports/college/jackson-state/2023/12/04/jackson-state-football-transfer-portal-tracker-tc-taylor/71799007007/
Mathes, S. & Gurney, G. (1985). Factors in student athletes’ choices of colleges. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, (4), 327-333.
Murphy, D. (2025, April 23). Judge delays house settlement approval over roster limits. Retrieved on April 24, 2025 from https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/44823761/judge-delays-house-settlement-approval-roster-limits.
NBC Sports Staff (2024, February 12). College football transfer portal tracker. Retrieved on April 22, 2025 from https://www.nbcsports.com/college-football/news/college- football transfer-portal-tracker.
On3. (2025). 2025 College football transfer portal. On3.com. Retrieved on June 23, 2025 from https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/wire/football/
On3. (2024). 2024 College football transfer portal. On3.com. Retrieved on June 23, 2025 from https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/wire/football/2024/
On3. (2023). 2023 College football transfer portal. On3.com. Retrieved on June 23, 2025 from https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/wire/football/2023/
On3. (2022). 2022 College football transfer portal. On3.com. Retrieved on June 23, 2025 from https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/wire/football/2022/
On3. (2021). 2021 College football transfer portal. On3.com. Retrieved on June 23, 2025 from https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/wire/football/2021/
Talty, J. (2025, March 28). College football’s highest-paid coaches in 2025: Colorado’s Deion Sanders enters top 10 with amended contract. Retrieved on April 24, 2025 from https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-footballs-highest-paid-coaches-in-2025-colorados-deion-sanders-enters-top-10-with-amended-contract/

Troy Palmer2025-06-24T08:57:53-05:00July 11th, 2025|Contemporary Sports Issues, General, Research, Sports Studies|Comments Off