ISSN: 1543-9518

Sport Management Field Experiences: The Impact of the Federal Labor Standards Act on Internships

Submitted by: David Gargone, United States Sports Academy Doctoral Student

Abstract

This paper examines the importance of the internship experience in sport management curriculums and how field experiences are affected by the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The academic discipline of sport management relies heavily on internships to assist students with the application of classroom theory in professional environments, and these internships are unpaid. The FLSA does not speak specifically to unpaid internships. A review of court cases dealing with professional sport organizations suggests that adjustments need to be made to the FLSA or to sport management curriculums in order to protect student interns from unfair labor practices.

Sport Management Field Experiences: The Impact of the Federal Labor Standards Act on Internships

Business and education departments in colleges and universities across the globe have embraced the growing presence of professional and recreational sports and have implemented curriculums in the field of sport management. As the field of sport management continues to grow in the business world, the demand for qualified professionals continues to expand. According to Case (2007), over 200 graduate and undergraduate programs exist in the field of sport management, and the number of sport management programs has continued to grow at a rapid pace. In the past 2 years the number of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in sport management has grown to a total of 309 (Scremin, 2007).

Although a key component of preparing sport management students for the real world is their progression through a sport management–specific curriculum, more research is beginning to focus on the importance of field experiences in the preparatory process (Cunningham & Sagas, 2004). A field experience can also be known as an internship, practicum, or mentorship, depending on the details of the experience and the preferences of the educational program. The field experience serves as an integral part of sport management programs (Ross & Beggs, 2007), providing an opportunity for learning that is not available in the classroom. Challenging internships that allow the student to play an active role in an organization enhance the educational value of the experience to the student (Cunningham, Sagas, Dixon, Kent, & Turner, 2005). Through them, students have the opportunity to acquire new skills while applying theories learned in the classroom. A student’s confidence will also grow when there is a sense of serving the organization in a positive manner.

While the field of sport management offers lucrative positions that may initially interest students in the industry, the reality is that they must start a sport management career at the ground level. Most of the industry positions for sport management interns are unpaid (Case, 2007). Although the primary objective of a field experience is for the student to apply theories learned in the classroom in a professional atmosphere, some educators feel that students are being taken advantage of in non-wage situations (Cunningham & Sagas, 2004). Some professional sport organizations have come under direct fire concerning their overreliance on unpaid interns. However, the labor laws in the United States do not have clear language dealing with unpaid internships.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the importance of field experiences in the sport management curriculum by evaluating current curricular trends at leading universities within the sport management discipline. Additionally, labor laws associated with unpaid internships and specific court cases dealing with professional sport organizations and interns will be presented.

Sport Management Program Review Council

As the sport management discipline caught hold and the academic community recognized sport management as a viable area of study, education professionals decided that curricular guidelines were needed (SMPRC, 2000). In 1987, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) developed a set of guidelines for sport management programs. Less than 2 years later, NASPE organized a task force including members of both NASPE and the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) to continue to develop curricular guidelines. This task force is known as the Sport Management Curriculum Review Council (SMPRC). The SMPRC created a comprehensive set of guidelines that included required and recommended areas of content. Specific guidelines were made for baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral sport management degree programs. Although the initial guidelines were accepted by the majority of schools offering sport management programs, revisions to the original guidelines were made in 1999. Each SMPRC requirement for degree programs is categorized under standard areas such as “Governance in Sport” or “Marketing” (SMPRC, 2000, pp. 6, 9). For a bachelor’s degree program, the final SMPRC standard is “Field Experience in Sport Management.” The SMPRC (2000) says of the field experience that

An undergraduate student will benefit from culminating in-depth practical experience(s) before entering the sport industry. These experiences help the student bridge the gap between classroom learning and practical application in sport settings. They allow students to explore career options, develop management skills, and gain a greater understanding of the total operation of sports organizations. (p. 9)

The SMPRC requires that sport management programs must have their undergraduate students engage in a field experience.

The SMPRC has similar requirements at both the master’s and doctoral levels (SMPRC, 2000). The premise for the master’s level changes slightly, taking into account that the graduate student may already have experience working in sport management. The required further experience should be geared toward enhancing the student’s network and increasing the likelihood of job placement upon degree completion, according to the SMPRC (2000). The focus changes again at the doctoral level. The SMPRC identifies two focus paths for student internships. One is for those doctoral students who plan to teach at the college level. The internship for such students should focus on gaining experience in an educational setting, with possible tasks including teaching lower level sport management classes, conducting research, or providing supervision to undergraduate interns. The second focus path is for doctoral students who plan on being practitioners of sport management. The internship for these students should include more independent work in the industry than is demanded during undergraduate or master’s degree internships.

Curriculum Approval and Internship Requirements

Even though sport management is a growing discipline in academia, there is still a fundamental inconsistency in the programs across the country. An ongoing debate exists concerning the placement of the sport management program within an academic department. Some sport management programs are found in business departments (Overton, 2004), while others are located in physical education departments. Wherever a sport management program may be housed, its approval by the SMPRC is solely based on whether it meets curricular standards (SMPRC, 2000). Currently, 85 programs are approved by the SMPRC (NASSM, 2007), comprising only 27.5% of sport management programs in the United States. According to a study done by Scremin (2007), 22% of undergraduate sport management programs have received approval (n = 41), 24% of master’s degree programs have received approval (n = 26), and 21 % of doctoral programs have received approval (n = 3). The difference between NASSM’s and Scremin’s results (85 approved, 70 approved) illustrates that 15 additional programs have been approved by the SMPRC since July 2007.

Although the number of approved programs is only a small portion of the total number of programs, this does not seem related to a lack of internships or field experiences within the programs. Nearly 77% of sport management programs at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels have some type of internship requirement (Scremin, 2007). Scremin reported that 90% of programs at the bachelor’s level require an internship (n = 161), 65% of those at the master’s level require an internship (n = 70), and 43% at the doctoral level require an internship (n = 6). The high percentages at the bachelor’s and master’s levels represent a strong commitment to internships for both undergraduate and graduate students.

Labor Concerns and Federal Regulations

A widely debated aspect of the sport management field experience generally is compensation for student work (Foster & Moorman, 2001). Compensation is typically in the form either of academic credit or monetary wages. In academia, credit hours are usually awarded based on the number of hours required by the internship. The SMPRC requires internships to be at least 400 hours (SMPRC, 2000), for which the student usually receives at least 12 hours of academic credit. Financial compensation for field experiences is of growing concern to both universities and students, however. Most internships available in the sport industry do not offer monetary compensation to the student, although increasing debate surrounds this issue in the sport management field (Foster & Moorman, 2001). A number of professional organizations, specifically professional baseball franchises, rely on interns to be able to operate each season. The majority of these interns are unpaid, yet the franchises would not be able to operate without the interns. The question becomes not only whether such a practice is ethical, but also is it legal according to federal labor regulations?

In 1938, the federal government enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in order to establish a wage floor and protect the general public from the practice of cheap labor (FLSA Overview, 2007). At that time, the United States Congress felt that hourly workers had no protection or bargaining power vis-à-vis their employers. Without bargaining power, workers had no choice but to accept the substandard wages offered by employers, just to survive. The government felt the wages were so low that an acceptable way of living was not possible. Aside from implementing a minimum wage, the FLSA also addressed issues of overtime compensation, employee recordkeeping, and child labor.

The FLSA protects employees who work in both the public and private sectors (FLSA Overview, 2007). Currently, all companies that engage in interstate commerce and surpass $500,000 in annual sales must comply with the FLSA. (The FLSA also governs certain other companies regardless of annual revenue, including medical facilities, schools, colleges and universities, and all government agencies.) Thus most professional sport organizations and franchises are required to comply with the FLSA.

Federal Exemptions

Some sport organizations, however, have been successful in receiving exemptions from the FLSA. Under a provision of the FLSA, “seasonal and recreational establishments” can be granted an exemption upon approval (FLSA Exemption, 2007). In order to receive an exemption, the organization must satisfy half of a two-part test for seasonal or recreational character. The first part of the test requires the organization to demonstrate that it does not operate for more than 7 months in any calendar year. It is difficult for professional sport organizations to meet this requirement. The second part of the test, the seasonal receipts test, requires that an establishment illustrate that its average income for any 6 months of the previous year did not exceed one third of the average receipts for the other 6 months. This is also a difficult standard for any sport organization to meet.

FLSA Employment Classifications

Although some sport organizations do receive exemptions through the seasonal and recreational establishments clause, others who have not been exempted have found advantage in the FLSA’s lack of clarity about internships and other field experiences (FLSA Employment Status, 2007). Section 14(a) of the FLSA, for example, specifies several types of employees not protected under the act and allows lesser compensation in their cases; while interns are not among these specified employee groups, so-called learners, student-learners, and apprentices are specified in Section 14(a). The FLSA defines a learner as

[a] worker who is being trained for an occupation, which is not customarily recognized as an apprenticeable trade, for which skill, dexterity and judgment must be learned and who, when initially employed, produces little or nothing of value. Except in extraordinary circumstances, an employee cannot be considered a “learner” once he/she has acquired a total of 240 hours of job-related and/or vocational training with the same or other employer(s) or training facility(ies) during the past three years. An individual qualifying as a “learner” may only be trained in two qualifying occupations. (¶ 2)

The internship requirements of the SMPRC call for an experience of at least 400 hours (SMPRC, 2000), which exceeds the cutoff of 240 hours for learner status.

Although most sport management students would not fit the learner classification throughout a field experience, the student-learner category might seem potentially applicable (FLSA Employment Status, 2007). The FLSA defines a student-learner as

[a] student who is at least sixteen years of age, or at least eighteen years of age if employed in an occupation which the Secretary has declared to be particularly hazardous, who is receiving instruction in an accredited school, college or university and who is employed on a part-time basis, pursuant to a “bona fide vocational training program” as defined in subpart C of this part. (¶ 3)

However, the SMPRC guidelines (2000) define internships as a “full-time work experience in the sport industry (40 hours/week) that are [sic] offered for academic credit.” Therefore, if a sport management intern is enrolled in a program that has been approved by the SMPRC, that intern cannot be counted a student learner, either. The FLSA itself states that apprenticeships are not regulated by the provisions of the act (FLSA Employment Status, 2007). The FLSA defines an apprentice as

[a] worker, at least sixteen years of age unless a higher minimum age standard is otherwise fixed by law, who is employed to learn a skilled trade through a registered apprenticeship program. Training is provided through structured on-the-job training combined with supplemental related theoretical and technical instruction. This term excludes pre-apprentices, trainees, learners, and student-learners. (¶ 4)

Initially, this definition might seem to approximate the SMPRC’s description of the internship, especially if a program has received the council’s approved. Sport management students should receive on-the-job training that draws on classroom theories and provides technical experience. However, the FLSA goes on to limit apprenticeable occupations to those requiring a minimum of 2,000 hours of on-the-job experience. It is difficult to imagine that the sport management student in a 400-hour internship can legally be considered an apprentice for whom below-minimum wages are permitted—even should part of his or her compensation be academic credit.

Case Law Concerning Internships

While the FLSA does not identify the work arrangements typical of most sport management internships as the kind that can be unpaid or compensated below minimum wage, the courts nevertheless have sided with professional sport organizations in certain instances when such companies have sought exemptions. Professional baseball organizations have done particularly well in cases involving the seasonal or recreational establishment exemption.

The first court case involved the Sarasota White Sox, a minor league affiliate of the Chicago White Sox, and Ronald R. Jeffery, a groundskeeper employed by the team (Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 1995). Jeffery had worked for the Sarasota White Sox for a number of years and sought overtime wages for overtime work performed since the beginning of his employment. In light of the team’s schedule, he had put in more than 40 hours weekly on several occasions, receiving the same compensation for those weeks as for others. The team claimed that the FLSA’s seasonal or recreational establishment clause exempted it from overtime wage requirements, and the court ruled in its favor (Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 1995). The Sarasota White Sox passed both tests for the exemption. In the previous 5 seasons of its existence, the team made over 99% of its revenues during the 6-month period March through August. In addition, the club participated in a 6-month season only, surviving the 7-month test also posed by the clause. Therefore, the Sarasota White Sox received the exemption and were not required to pay overtime wages or adhere to any other stipulation of the FLSA.

Two additional cases involving Major League Baseball clubs also centered on the seasonal or recreational establishment exemption in the FLSA. The first case involved Adams, the plaintiff, and the Detroit Tigers, Inc., operating company of the Detroit Tigers. The plaintiff had been a bat boy for the team and was seeking compensation representing overtime pay for his work exceeding 40 hours per week (Adams v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 1997). The Detroit Tigers responded as the Sarasota White Sox had, claiming exemption from the FLSA. The court recognized that the Detroit Tigers organization operated on a yearly basis, yet it also determined that Tiger Stadium operated on a 7-month schedule only, making the operation of the venue seasonal. The Tigers won the case and their exemption remained intact.

The second case in Major League Baseball was brought by maintenance workers. Robert Bridewell, Stanley McAlpin, Daisy Pearl, Melville Walker, and Eddie Rogers filed a suit seeking overtime compensation from their employer, the Cincinnati Reds, for the 1990–93 seasons (Bridewell et al. v. Cincinnati Reds, 1998). The plaintiffs claimed they were owed overtime wages by ruling of the FLSA. Unlike the Detroit Tigers (or the Sarasota White Sox), the Cincinnati Reds struggled to justify their perceived exemption from the FLSA. Initially, the district court found in favor of the team because its competitive season lasted only 7 months. An appellate court, however, found for the maintenance workers because the Cincinnati Reds employed at least 120 employees throughout each month of the year. According to the higher court, the Cincinnati Reds were not exempted from FLSA regulations; the maintenance workers received overtime wages for the 1990–93 seasons.

Conclusions

In terms of education, field experiences are essential to the preparation of sport management students for successful careers. As research has indicated, students who complete meaningful internship assignments have the opportunity to gain skills while applying the theories they have mastered within their academic curricula. In order to ensure that sport management students continue to enjoy this opportunity, internship supervisors and sport industry professionals need to establish specific guidelines governing field experiences. A possible solution would be for the SMPRC or other governing council to establish a set of regulations concerning student internships. Although some universities have already established guidelines for field experiences, having a set of universal standards may improve the experience for all of those involved.

The biggest problem affecting sport management internships has to be the increasingly high percentage of unpaid internships. Thousands of sport management students work tirelessly for professional sport organizations across the country. The business of sports is booming, but interns’ compensation does not reflect the boom. Since the Federal Labor Standards Act does not address this problem fully, modifications to the current legislation may be in order. Many sport organizations rely on interns to maintain the daily operations of the team. An example is the very common sport industry position of ticket seller. Teams cannot survive without ticket sales, but still today’s FLSA regulations—in particular its seasonal or recreational establishment clause—leaves interns without options. The federal government may want to reassess the tests used to justify the exemption of teams based on their seasonal nature.

The legal cases cited here did not involve sport management interns, but the general themes of the cases illustrate how the Federal Labor Standards Act affects student internships. Currently, most professional sport organizations operate with the exemption in hand, allowing the work of interns and some other employees to be under-compensated. Under the present conditions, then, sport management students need to familiarize themselves well with any position under consideration. They must also grasp the idea that they will very likely work for less than the minimum wage.

As the academic discipline of sport management continues to grow, improvements in curriculum design and field experience programs will certainly occur. In order to ensure that the ultimate goal, education, remains at the forefront of such improvements, students, professors, and sport industry professionals must continue to work together with a single mission. Ultimately, the field experiences required in most sport management programs have a largely positive impact on all of those involved. Changes in some current practices, along with some additions to the Fair Labor Standards Act, will assist the field of sport management as it moves forward.

References

Adams v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 961 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

Bridewell et al. v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 830 (6th Cir. 1998).

Case, R. (2007). Sport management internships can open the door to a student’s future. Virginia Journal, 29(1), 43–44.

Cunningham, G., & Sagas, M. (2004). Work experiences, occupational commitment, and intent to enter the sport management profession. Physical Educator, 61(3), 146–156.

Cunningham. G., Sagas, M., Dixon. M., Kent. A., & Turner, B. (2005). Anticipated career satisfaction, affective occupational commitment, and intention to enter the sport management profession. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 43–57.

FLSA Employment Status. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/ Part_520/29CFR520.201.htm

FLSA Exemption. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ whd/whdfs18.htm

FLSA Overview. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

Foster, S., & Moorman, A. (2001). Gross v. Family Services Inc.: The internship as a special relationship in creating negligence liability. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 11, 245–267.

Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 594 (11th Cir. 1995).

NASSM sport management programs: United States. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nassm.com/InfoAbout/SportMgmtPrograms/United_States

Overton, R. (2004). Hiring and supervising an athletic department intern. Coach & Athletic Director, 73(9), 76–79.

Ross, C., & Beggs, B. (2007). Campus recreational sports internships: A comparison of student and employer perspectives. Recreational Sports Journal, 31(1), 3–13.

Scremin, G. (2007). The secret shopper report. Unpublished manuscript, United States Sports Academy, Daphne, Alabama.

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

2013-11-25T21:54:46-06:00April 2nd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Sport Management Field Experiences: The Impact of the Federal Labor Standards Act on Internships
Read More

Eating Disorders Among Female College Athletes

Submitted By: Nikkie Smiley, Aberdeen Family YMCA, Aberdeen, S.D.,
Jon Lim, Minnesota State University, United States Sports Academy Doctoral Graduate

Abstract

The study examined attitudes about eating in relation to eating disorders, among undergraduate female student-athletes and non-athletes at a mid-size Midwestern NCAA Division II university. It furthermore examined prevalence of eating disorders among female athletes in certain sports and determined relationships between eating disorders and several variables (self-esteem, body image, social pressures, body mass index) thought to contribute to eating disorders. A total of 125 students participated in the research, 60 athletes and 65 non-athletes. The athletes played softball (n = 11), soccer (n = 12), track (n = 8), cross-country (n = 5), basketball (n = 9), and volleyball (n = 15). The Eating Attitudes Test (EAT–26) was used to determine the presence of or risk of developing eating disorders. Results showed no significant difference between the athletes and non-athletes in terms of attitudes about eating as they relate to eating disorders, nor were significant sport-based differences in likelihood of eating disorders found. Additionally, no significant relationships were found between eating disorders and self-esteem, social pressures, body image, and body mass index. Findings inconsistent with earlier research may indicate that at Division II schools, athletes experience less pressure from coaches and teammates, but further research is needed in this area. Future studies should also look at the degree of impact coaches make on the development of eating disorders in athletes.

Eating Disorders Among Female College Athletes

Eating disorders (e.g., bulimia, anorexia nervosa) are a significant public health problem and increasingly common among young women in today’s westernized countries (Griffin & Berry, 2003; Levenkron, 2000; Hsu, 1990). According to the National Eating Disorder Association (2003), 5–10% of all women have some form of eating disorder. Moreover, research suggests that 19–30% of female college students could be diagnosed with an eating disorder (Fisher, Golden, Katzman, & Kreipe, 1995). A growing body of research indicates that there is a link between exposure to media images representing sociocultural ideals of attractiveness and dissatisfaction with one’s body along with eating disorders (Levine & Smolak, 1996; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1986). The media’s portrayal of thinness as a measure of ideal female beauty promotes body dissatisfaction and thus contributes to the development of eating disorders in many women (Levine & Smolak, 1996). Cultural and societal pressure on women to be thin in order to be attractive (Worsnop, 1992; Irving, 1990) can lead to obsession with thinness, body-image distortion, and unhealthy eating behaviors.

Like other women, women athletes experience this pressure to be thin. In addition, they often experience added pressure from within their sport to attain and maintain a certain body weight or shape. Indeed, some studies have reported that the prevalence of eating disorders is much higher in female athletes than in females in general (Berry & Howe, 2000; Johnson, Powers, & Dick; 1999; McNulty, Adams, Anderson, & Affenito, 2001; Sundgot-Borgen & Torstveit, 2004; Picard, 1999). Furthermore, the prevalence of eating disorders among female athletes competing in aesthetic sports such as dance, gymnastics, cheerleading, swimming, and figure skating is significantly higher than among female athletes in non-aesthetic or non-weight-dependent sports (Berry & Howe, 2000; O’Connor & Lewis, 1997; Perriello, 2001; Sundgot-Borgen, 1994; Sundgot-Borgen & Torstveit, 2004). For instance, Sundgot-Borgen and Torstveit found that female athletes competing in aesthetic sports show higher rates of eating disorder symptoms (42%) than are observed in endurance sports (24%), technical sports (17%), or ball game sports (16%).

Female athletes and those who coach them usually think that the thinner the athletes are, the better they will perform—and the better they will look in uniform (Hawes, 1999; Thompson & Sherman, 1999). In sports in which the uniforms are relatively revealing, the human body is often highlighted. For example, track athletes usually wear a uniform consisting of form-fitting shorts and a midriff-baring tank top. Dance and gymnastics uniforms are usually a one-piece bodysuit sometimes worn with tights. Athletes who must wear the body-hugging uniforms and compete before large crowds of people are likely very self-conscious about their physiques.

However, as is the case in most areas of study, not all research agrees. Some recent studies show that athletes are no more at risk for the development of eating disorders than non-athletes (Carter, 2002; Davis & Strachen, 2001; Guthrie, 1985; Junaid, 1998; Rhea, 1995; Reinking & Alexander, 2005). In addition, the majority of prior studies of eating disorders have restricted their samples to female athletes (and non-athletes) at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I universities.

This study’s purpose differed in that it involved an NCAA Division II university, where attitudes about eating were studied in relation to eating disorders in undergraduate female student-athletes and non-athletes. Relationships between eating disorders and a number of variables thought to contribute to eating disorders—self-esteem, body image, social pressures, and body mass index—were furthermore examined. The student-athletes at the mid-size institution in the Midwest were also queried to assess the prevalence of eating disorders among them based on sport played. Findings of the study can assist in developing and implementing appropriate eating-disorder prevention and intervention programs for female collegiate athletes.

Methods

Participants

The participants (N = 125) in our study consisted of 60 female varsity student-athletes and 65 non-athlete students at a mid-size NCAA Division II Midwestern university. The mean age of participants was 20 years (SD = 4.3 years). The majority of participants, 93%, were Caucasian; 1% were African American; 1% were Native American; 3% were Asian American; and 2% were other. Of the student-athletes, 18.3% participated in softball (n = 11), 20% in soccer (n = 12), 13.3% in track (n = 8), 8.3% in cross-country (n = 5), 15% in basketball (n = 9), and 25% in volleyball (n = 15). Non-athlete participants were recruited from general psychology and wellness classes at the university. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and in accordance with university and federal guidelines for human subjects.

Instruments

Eating-disorder behaviors were assessed using the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT–26), which consists of 26 items and includes three factors: dieting; bulimia and food preoccupation; and oral control (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979; Garner, Olmsted, Bohr & Garfinkel, 1982). Respondents rate each item using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). This instrument has been used to study eating disorders in both a clinical and non-clinical population (Picard, 1999; Stephens, Schumaker, & Sibiya, 1999; Virnig & McLeod, 1996). It is a screening test that looks for actual or initiatory cases of anorexia and bulimia in both populations (Picard, 1999). The EAT–26 has demonstrated a high degree of internal reliability (Garner et al., 1982; Ginger & Kusum, 2001; Koslowsky et al., 1992). An individual’s EAT score is equal to the sum of all the coded responses. While scores can range from 0 to 78, individuals who score above 20 are strongly encouraged to take the results to a counselor, as it is possible they could be diagnosed with an eating disorder.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965) was modified and used to assess self-esteem in this study. Responses were chosen from a 4-point scale (1=strongly agree, 4=strongly disagree). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a widely used measure of self-esteem that continues to be one of the best (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). The scale has shown high reliability and validity (Furnham, Badmin, & Sneade, 2002).

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated (based on participants’ self-reported height and weight) as the ratio of weight (kg) to height squared (m2). Participants were categorized as underweight (BMI < 20.0), normal weight (20.0 < BMI < 25.0), overweight (25.0 < BMI < 30.0), or obese (30.0 < BMI) (National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 1998). Additionally, demographic information, body image, and social pressures were measured.

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the university’s institutional review board, we requested and obtained permission from university athletic administrators, coaches, and class instructors to survey their female students, some of whom were student-athletes. We provided participants with an information sheet detailing the purpose of the study. We informed all the participants of their rights as human subjects prior to their completion of the survey, which took approximately 15 min. Because of the sensitive nature of the questions, participants were also informed that they could leave any questions unanswered and could discontinue participation at any time without penalty. The survey was administrated to non-athlete students during a class meeting. Female student-athletes completed the survey during their team meetings. All participants were assured anonymity because their names were not written on any individual questionnaires.

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS. An independent t test was used to determine if a difference existed in attitudes about eating held by female student-athletes and non-athlete students. To compare the prevalence of eating disorders among the student-athletes based on the sport played, analysis of variance was conducted with the data. Pearson product-moment correlations were computed to examine the relationship between eating disorders and variables that contribute to eating disorders. An alpha level of .05 was used to establish statistical significance.

Results

For each participant, an EAT–26 score was calculated using all 26 items. Using the 4-point clinical scoring, participants’ scores ranged from 0 to 46, with a mean score of 14.7 (SD = 5.9). Garner et al. (1982) have defined an EAT–26 score of 20 or above as indicating a likely clinical profile of an active eating disorder. In this study, the percentage of the participants who scored 20 or above on the EAT–26 was 8.8%. Among the student-athletes, 9.3% scored 20 or above, while the percentage of non-athletes with a 20 or above was 8.3%. An independent t test was conducted to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. As shown in Table 2, although the average EAT–26 score for the non-athlete group was higher than that of the student-athletes, analysis revealed no significant difference between the groups: t (123) = -.589, p>.05.

Table 1

Participating Female Students’ Average Score on EAT–26

Athletes (n = 60)
M ± SD		 Non-Athletes (n = 65)
M ± SD
EAT–26 Score

15.4 ± 5.8

14 ± 5.0

Values are means ± SD; n, number of subjects

The second objective of the study was to compare the prevalence of eating disorders among female athletes based on sport played. As shown in Table 2, 18.2% of the surveyed student-athletes who played softball scored 20 or above on the EAT–26; 8.3% of the student-athletes who played soccer had scores of 20 or above. Participants who competed in track scored 20 or above in 12.5 % of cases; 6.7% of those who played volleyball scored 20 or above. None of the surveyed student-athletes who participated in cross-country or basketball scored as high as 20. However, analysis of the data in terms of sport played showed that the differences in average EAT-26 scores were not statistically significant.

Table 2

Results of Female Student-Athletes’ EAT–26 Scores, by Sport Played

Frequency %
EAT–26 Scores Above 20 Below 20 Above 20 Below 20
Softball (n = 11)

2918.281.8Soccer (n = 12)1118.391.7Track (n = 81712.587.5Cross-Country (n = 5) 5 100.0Basketball (n = 9) 9 100.0Volleyball (n = 15)1146.793.3

The mean body weight for all participants was 68.1±12.9 kg and mean BMI was 22.9±9.1. The mean desired body weight, in contrast, was 62.1±8.3 kg, while mean desired BMI was 20.9±5.2. On average, participants wanted to lose 6 kg. They reported desired weight changes ranging from a 69-lb loss to a 10-lb gain. The non-athlete group had a higher average current weight (69.1 kg) and a lower average desired weight (60.5 kg) than did the student-athletes, among whom average current weight was 66.6 kg and average desired weight was 63.6 kg. The calculations of BMI for the group as a whole showed 28% of them having a BMI of 25 or more, with 38% of the non-athletes recording a BMI of at least 25 or higher and 16% of student-athletes recording a BMI of 25 or higher.

When the participants were asked how self-conscious they are about their appearance, 30.4% said they were extremely self-conscious. However, when they were asked how they feel about their overall appearance, 3.2% said they were extremely dissatisfied, and only 17.6% said they were somewhat dissatisfied. This study found that 12% of the participants reportedly always feel social pressures from friends or family to maintain a certain body image; 53.6% reported sometimes feeling such pressure concerning body image. The results also showed that 1.6% of all participants rated their overall self-esteem as very low; 24% as low; 48.8% as neutral; 22.4% as high; and 3.2% as very high.

A Pearson product-moment correlation was conducted to look for a significant relationship between eating disorders and self-esteem, social pressures, body image, and participant’s BMI. No statistical significance was found between these variables and eating disorders.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes about eating in relation to eating disorders among female student-athletes and non-athletes in an NCAA Division II setting, to compare student-athletes’ rates of eating disorders based on sport played, and to examine the relationship between eating disorders and a number of variables believed to contribute to the development of disordered eating. Findings associated with the study’s first objective were not consistent with those of previous studies that found a higher percentage of eating disorders among student-athletes (Picard, 1999; Berry & Howe, 2000; McNulty et al., 2001). As to our second objective, our findings did not support earlier research suggesting that the prevalence of eating disorders among female athletes differs based on the sport played (Perriello, 2001; Picard, 1999). While the institution at which the present research was conducted had no gymnastics, dance, swimming, or cheerleading program, it did sponsor women’s track and cross-country programs. The present results for student-athletes in these two programs were not consistent with Picard’s and Perriello’s determination that track and cross-country athletes are more at risk of eating disorders than some other athletes. Findings related to the study’s third objective showed that any relationships between eating disorders and the variables self-esteem, social pressures, body image, and BMI were not statistically significant, contradicting earlier research on the development of eating disorders (Berry & Howe, 2000; Greenleaf, 2002). Some of the present findings may reflect differential exertion of pressure by coaches and teammates in institutions ranked Division II as opposed to Division I. Picard (1999) found demands to perform well to be stronger within Division I athletics, something that might be linked to a higher prevalence of eating disorders in Division I schools and athletic teams. However, more research needs to be done in this area.

This study was subject to several limitations. For example, it was conducted at the end of the academic year, timing that affected the number of participants available to complete the survey. Moreover, surveys were to be administered during class meetings, but because final examinations loomed, some instructors preferred not to take time from review to devote to the survey. In addition, with teams at or nearing the end of the competitive season, some seniors were no longer sport participants, making it difficult to administer surveys to an entire athletic team. Had the sample been larger, valid comparisons of student-athletes with non-athlete students, and of the student-athletes sport by sport, would have been more readily obtained. Conducting the study on a single Division II campus was a further limitation, related to the small sample size. Collecting data from all colleges in Division II of the NCAA would provide a greater range of individuals, both from the general student population and the population of student-athletes.

Growing numbers of workshops and presentations on eating disorders are being conducted on college campuses. Thanks to growing awareness of eating disorders, student-athletes are encouraged or even required to attend them. They learn what eating disorders are, some factors related to eating disorders, dangers posed by eating disorders, and treatment of eating disorders. Such knowledge better equips female student-athletes to avoid eating disorders.

The findings of the present study, in light of the literature in the field, suggest that future research should involve a larger segment of the NCAA Division II conference. A larger number of schools would not only create larger samples of athletes and non-athletes, it would also provide access to a wider variety of athletic teams. Another recommendation concerns timing of the survey administration. The EAT–26 should initially be completed by the two populations (student athletes, non-athlete students) at the beginning of the freshmen year and should be completed again at the end of that academic year. It would be interesting to know how many students began the freshmen year with no sign of an eating disorder, but, faced with the demands of study and pressures from friends, teammates, and coaches, became vulnerable to disordered eating.

References

Berry, T., & Howe, B. (2000). Risk factors for disordered eating in female university athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(3), 207–218.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, K. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. W. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115–160). San Diego: Academic Press.

Carter, J. (2002). About 15 percent of major college athletes may have symptoms of eating disorders, study suggests. Retrieved December 21, 2006, from Ohio State University Web site: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/athlteat.htm

Davis, C., & Strachan, S. (2001). Elite female athletes with eating disorders: A study of psychopathological characteristics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23(3), 245–253.

Furnham, A., Badmin, N, & Sneade, I. (2002). Body image dissatisfaction: Gender differences in eating attitudes, self-esteem, and reasons for exercise. Journal of Psychology, 136(6), 581–596.

Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9, 273–279.

Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1982). The Eating Attitudes Test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12, 871–878.

Ginger, K., Kusum, S., & Hildy, G. (2001). Risk of eating disorders among female college athletes and nonathletes. Journal of College Counseling, 4(2), 122–32.

Greenleaf, C. (2002). Athletic body image: Exploratory interviews with former competitive female athletes. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 11(1), 63–88.

Griffin, J., & Berry, E. M. (2003). A modern day holy anorexia? Religious language in advertising and anorexia nervosa in the West. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 57(1), 43–51.

Guthrie, S. (1985). The prevalence and development of eating disorders within a selected intercollegiate athlete population (anorexia nervosa, eating pathology, bulimia). Unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Hawes, K. (1999). Experts say eating disorders, diet and nutrition weigh heavy on scale of issues affecting college student-athletes. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from the National Collegiate Athletic Association Web site: http://www.ncaa.org/ news/1999/19991122/ active/3624n01.html

Hsu, G. L. (1990). Eating Disorders. New York: Guilford.

Irving, L. (1990). Mirror images: Effects of the standard of beauty on the self- and body-esteem of women exhibiting varying levels of bulimic symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 230–242.

Johnson, C., Powers, P. S., & Dick, R. (1999). Athletes and eating disorders: The National Collegiate Athletic Association study. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 179–188.

Junaid, S. (1998). An analysis of eating disorder correlates in female varsity athletes. MAI, 37(1), 63.

Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (1996). Media as a context for the development of disordered eating. In L. Smolak, M. P. Levine, & R. Striegel-Moore (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of eating disorders (pp. 183–204). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McNulty, K., Adams, C., Anderson, J., & Affenito, S. (2001). Identifying eating disorders among athletes. Nutrition Research Newsletter, 20(9), 10.

National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (1998). First federal obesity clinical guidelines released. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm

O’Connor, P., & Lewis, R. (1997). Physical and emotional problems of elite female gymnasts. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(2), 140–142.

Perriello, V. (2001). Aiming for healthy weight in wrestlers and other athletes. Contemporary Pediatrics. 18 (9), 55.

Picard, C. L. (1999). The level of competition as a factor for the development of eating disorders in female collegiate athletes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 583–594.

Rhea, D. (1995). Risk factors for the development of eating disorders in ethnically diverse high school athlete and non-athlete urban populations (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(5A), 133.

Reinking, M. F. & Alexander, R.E. (2005). Prevalence of disordered-eating behaviors in undergraduate female collegiate athletes and non-athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 40(1), 47–52.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sundgot-Borgen, J. (1994). Risk and trigger factors for the development of eating disorders in female elite athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(4), 414–419.

Sundgot-Borgen, J., & Torstveit, M. K. (2004). Prevalence of eating disorders in elite athletes is higher than in the general population. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 14(1), 25–32.

Stephens, N., Schumaker, J., & Sibiya, T. (1999). Eating disorders and dieting behavior among Australian and Swazi university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2), 153–158.

Striegel-Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L.R., & Rodin, J. (1986). Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia. American Psychologist, 41, 246–263.

Thompson, R., & Sherman, R. T. (1999). Athletes, athletic performance, and eating disorders: Healthier alternatives. Journal of Social Issues, 55(2), 317–337.

Virnig, A. G., & McLeod, C. R. (1996). Attitudes toward eating and exercise: A comparison of runners and triathletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9(1), 82–90.

Worsnop, R. (1992). Eating Disorders, CQ Researcher, 2(47), 1097–1120.

Author Note

Nikki Smiley, Aberdeen (South Dakota) Family YMCA; Jon Lim, Department of Human Performance, Minnesota State University Mankato. Correspondence for this article should be addressed to Jon Lim, Ed.D., Coordinator & Assistant Professor,Sport Management Graduate and Undergraduate Programs, Minnesota State University, Mankato, 1400 Highland Center (HN 176), Mankato, MN 56001, 507-389-5231 Office Phone 507-389-5618. [email protected]

2013-11-25T22:09:11-06:00April 2nd, 2008|Sports Exercise Science, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology, Women and Sports|Comments Off on Eating Disorders Among Female College Athletes
Read More

Retaining Current Vs. Attracting New Golfers: Practices among the Class A Carolinas Professional Golf Association Membership

Submitted by: Dr. Michael Latta, Dr. Albert J. Taylor, Dr. Mark Mitchell & Charles Thrash

Abstract

Golf rounds declined in the U.S. from 2001 to 2004. The southeast region of the country has started to show increases in golf rounds. A possible explanation for this turn-around can be found in the theory of reasoned action. A survey among Professional Golf Association Class A Members in the Carolinas section of the PGA shows the utility of retaining current avid golfers is greater than the utility of attracting new golfers. Implications for managing golf clubs nationally are discussed.

Introduction

The golf industry in the U.S. has recently been stagnant or declining in the number of rounds of golf played annually. The National Golf Foundation (NGF) has reported a national decline from 2001 to 2004 of -4.5% (NGF, 2004). A similar trend (-4.3%) has been observed in the southeast region during that period. Some observers (Graves, 2006; Harrack, 2006) have suggested that concentrating on getting avid golfers to play more rounds is a better approach than trying to attract new golfers to a club.

More recently, the NGF (ngf.org, 2007) is reporting a national upturn in golf rounds of +0.8% with the southeast region showing a robust growth of +4.5%. The question of why the southeast region is doing so well is one of management priorities. The theory of reasoned action (Hawkins, Mothersbaugh, and Best, 2007) provides a framework for understanding how managers of business enterprises make decisions. Professional Golf Association (PGA) members who run golf club enterprises are no different than the chief executive officer of a Fortune 500 company in the decisions they need to make. A business manager needs to identify how to grow the business and make a profit. Operational goals have varying priority and utility in this effort, and golf club managers have intensified their commitment to growing rounds of golf (Staw, 1981).

Theory of Reasoned Action

The theory of reasoned action specifies the decision-making task confronting PGA members who manage golf clubs. Historically, psychologists (Baron, 2000), game theorists (Von Neuman and Morgenstern, 1972), sociologists (Homans, 1961), economists (Elster, 1986), and marketers (Johnson and White, 2004) have all embraced theory of reasoned action concepts.

The concepts embodied in the theory of reasoned action include: 1) bounded rationality (only a few evaluative criteria can be considered simultaneously implying limited capacity), 2) making trade-offs (applying the evaluative criteria to viable alternatives in a compensatory way), 3) the superior option is revealed as the one with the highest utility value to the business manager. Thus, the PGA member managing a golf club must decide what is important and which of those important goals will lead to the best business outcome.

The theory of reasoned action has a measurement methodology known as utility calculations (Baron, 2000). The basic concept, evaluative criteria, involves various dimensions, features, or benefits sought in attempts to solve a specific problem, such as reaching operational goals at a golf club. Managerial decisions involve an assessment of one or more evaluative criteria related to the potential benefits or costs that may result from a decision of which goals to pursue.

Thus, evaluative criteria are typically business activities associated with either benefits desired by managers or the costs they must incur. Depending upon the business situation, management evaluative criteria can differ in terms of type, number, and importance. Thus, a study of business management decision making involves an evaluation of both the importance of the business activity and the business performance resulting from specific criteria. Determining an evaluation of business activity options can be accomplished in two ways: 1) direct methods where PGA members are simply asked about the importance and satisfaction with performance concerning business activities they may use in a particular decision situation, and 2) indirect techniques, where it is assumed PGA members will not or cannot state their views on these issues. The approach taken here is direct assessment described below in the methodology.

The purpose of this project was to conduct a survey of PGA Class A professionals who manage golf course enterprises in the CPGA region to determine what their priorities are regarding operational goals they see as related to stimulating growth in rounds of golf played at their clubs.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that PGA Class A Members managing golf clubs in the CPGA will consider the utility of retaining current golfers to be larger than the utility of attracting new golfers.

Methodology

The Class A PGA members survey provided data concerning golf course management practices utilizing an e-mail recruitment and VOVICI (formerly WebSurveyor). The issues involved include:

1.    Making the questions easy to understand and answer;

2.    Measuring the relevant concepts such as importance and performance;

3.    Asking appropriate demographic questions;

4.    Having a relevant e-mail list;

5.    Having a short and effective invitation;

6.    Sending the e-mail invitation at an effective time; and

7.    Using follow-ups as necessary.

Faculty handled items one through four above and utilized WebSurveyor to create the survey instrument. The e-mail recruiting list came from the PGA; thus it was relatively fresh and accurate. Items five, six, and seven were handled by the students after instruction from faculty.

There were 72 students in two Retail Management classes who participated in fielding the PGA web survey. Each student had a list of approximately 20 PGA members to contact through e-mail. The first round of e-mail invitations produced few completed survey responses without an endorsement letter. The second round of e-mail invitations included an endorsement letter from the Secretary of the Carolinas Section of the PGA. In addition, a specific subject line was provided that said, “A Message from Karl Kimball, Secretary of the Carolinas Section of the PGA.” Students were also required to copy the Retail Management professor on all outgoing e-mails to keep track of their efforts so they could receive course credit and so the PGA respondents could receive a summary of the results after the responses were analyzed.

This approach to survey control ensured that e-mail invitations were sent out in a timely fashion, had an appropriate and inviting subject line, included an endorsement by an appropriate source, and offered an incentive for participation in the form of a summary of the results (Goodman, 2006). As a result, 107 completed surveys were available for analysis.

Measuring business managerial judgments of the importance of and satisfaction with performance on specific operational goals can include rank ordering scales, Semantic Differential scales, or Likert Scales. Likert Scales were used here.

Using a Likert Scale to measure importance and satisfaction with performance against operational goals in the theory of reasoned action applied to golf club management comes in the form of a calculated utility score. Here, utility is defined as the product of each operational goal’s rated importance score and its rated satisfaction with performance score measured on a Likert Scale. For this study, it is the importance and satisfaction score associated with retaining current golfers as well as attracting new golfers using the Importance and Satisfaction Likert Scales below.

Importance

5 = Extremely Important
4 = Somewhat Important
3 = Neutral
2 = Not Very Important
1 = Not Important At All

 Satisfaction with Performance

5 = Very Satisfied
4 = Somewhat Satisfied
3 = Neutral
2 = Somewhat Dissatisfied
1 = Very Dissatisfied

In addition to measuring importance and satisfaction with performance concerning retaining and attracting golfers to the club, a series of demographic items were included in the survey such as type of course, golf population served, tenure of the course manager as a Class A Member, and the time at the current club spent by the Class A Member of the PGA.

Results

Sample Characteristics

The results of the demographic items appear below and indicate the survey produced a wide variety of clubs where the PGA members are located.

Type of Course: The majority of PGA members were at either private (34.7%) or semi-private courses (28.7%), with some at public courses (17.8%), resorts (11.9%), or other type of courses (6.9%).

Golfing Population Served: Almost half of the PGA members described their golfing population as mostly permanent residents (49.5%) with few serving either mostly out-of-town visitors or mostly part-time residents (6.9% each), while close to a third (30.7%) have a golfing population balanced among these three groups.

Tenure as a PGA Class A Member: Few PGA members in the survey have been in Class A for 5 years or less (8.9%) or between 6 and 10 years (14.9%). Almost half have been in Class A between 11 and 20 years (48.5%) and less than a third have been in Class A for more than 20 years (27.7%).

Time Served at Current Club: Over a third of these Class A members have been at their current club for either 2 to 5 years (37.6%) or more than 10 years (38.6%). A minority have been in place either 6 to 10 years (18.8%) or 1 year or less (5.0%).

Importance of Retaining Current Golfers and Attracting New Golfers

The results for the importance of reaching the operational goals of attracting new golfers and retaining current golfers appear in Table 1. PGA members rated both operational goals as extremely important.

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Operational Goal Importance

Operational Goals Mean Response Standard Deviation
Attracting New Golfers 4.64 0.622
Retaining Current Golfers 4.80 0.531

Satisfaction with Performance in Retaining Current Golfers and Attracting New Golfers

Results for satisfaction with performance with operational goals appear in Table 2. PGA members were somewhat satisfied with performance against the two operational goals.

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Satisfaction with Performance in Reaching Operational Goals

Operational Goals Mean Response Standard Deviation
Attracting New Golfers 4.10 0.572
Retaining Current Golfers 4.19 0.741

Utility of Retaining Current Golfers and Attracting New Golfers

Results for the calculated utility scores for the two operational goals appear in Table 3. A paired-t test was done on the mean responses for the two operational goals and indicates retaining current golfers has significantly higher utility to the PGA members compared to attracting new golfers (t [90] = -2.44, p <.02 two-tailed).

Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Utility in Reaching Operational Goals

Operational Goals Mean Response Standard Deviation
Attracting New Golfers 19.02 3.85
Retaining Current Golfers 20.09 4.32

A final issue concerns whether or not reaching these operational goals is producing an increase in rounds played and how that utility is realized and that increase is accomplished.

Change in Rounds Played

A series of survey items dealing with number of rounds played per year at the club was also included. These items included total number of rounds played, number of rounds at a discounted price, number of rounds as part of a golf and lodging package, and number of complementary rounds. Table 4 shows the change in number rounds reported by the PGA members.

Table 4: Percentage Reporting Changes in Rounds Played

Percentage Reporting Changes in Rounds Played Increasing Stable Declining
Number of Rounds Played Per Year 45.9% 42.9% 11.2%
Number of Rounds at a Discounted Price 24.4% 50.0% 25.6%
Number of Rounds as Part of Golf and Lodging Package 22.8% 63.3% 13.9%
Number of Complimentary Rounds Played 6.5% 76.3% 17.2%

The net percentage of PGA members reporting change in rounds played can be found by subtracting the percentage reporting a decline from the percentage reporting an increase in the number of rounds while ignoring those who are stable. Thirty-five percent of the PGA members reported net rounds are increasing. This increase was attributed to golf and lodging packages bringing more golfers to the course (+9%). In addition, declines in discounted (-1%) and complementary rounds (-11%) were reported. The figure below displays these results for the net percentage of PGA Class A Members reporting changes in net rounds played.

Net Percentage Reporting Change in Rounds Played
Conclusions and Implications:

Figure 1. Net Percentage Reporting Change in Rounds Played

Conclusions and Implications

Support for the hypothesis that CPGA Class A Members would show more utility for getting additional rounds from current golfers compared to attracting new golfers indicates they have solved the problem of declining rounds of golf in accordance with the theory of reasoned action. These club professionals realized that getting additional rounds of golf from golfers who patronize their clubs is more effective than trying to attract new golfers with discounted rounds and complementary rounds. Any costs associated with golf and lodging packages were more than compensated for by a substantial increase in rounds per year.

For the PGA membership to increase rounds nationally, the focus should be on retaining current avid golfers to increase rounds and get them to the club by offering golf and lodging packages and reducing discounted and complementary rounds to attract new golfers. Growth can be restored in this manner for golf rounds in the U.S.

References

Baron, J. (200). Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Elster, J. Ed. (1986). Rational Choice. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goodman, G.F. (2006). Five common email marketing mistakes. http:// www.Entrepreneur.com>

Graves, R. (2006), Golf Ranges Drives Profits: Today’s range is a practice center, learning center, clubfitting center, Etc. PGA Magazine, (August 1), 37-57.

Harack, T. (2006), Pushing forward: A proactive recruitment program can help stimulate stagnant membership roles, Golf Business, 12 (August), 26-27.

Hawkins, D., Mothersbaugh, D., and Best, R. (2007). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy, 10th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill: Irwin.

Homans, G. (1961). Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Johnson, D., and White, J. (2004). A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 1-19.

National Golf Foundation (2004), Rounds Played in the United States, 2004 Edition.

National Golf Foundation Press Release (2007), Rounds Played in the United States, 2007, <http://www.ngf.org/cgi/whonews.asp?storyid=191>

Staw, B.M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577-587.

Von Neuman, J, and Morgenstern, O. (1972). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

2016-10-19T11:00:39-05:00March 14th, 2008|Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Retaining Current Vs. Attracting New Golfers: Practices among the Class A Carolinas Professional Golf Association Membership
Read More

Professional Team Physicians Beware! Co-employee Status May Not Ipso Facto Confer Tort Immunity

Submitted by: Timothy J. Paterick, Barbara B. Paterick, JD & Timothy E. Paterick, MD, JD

Abstract:

The relationship between a professional athlete, his or her professional sports team, and a team physician is legally complex and has inherent potential for conflict. Although a physician should always consider an athlete’s best interest when determining an athlete’s fitness to participate in competitive sport, a physician also has a responsibility to his or her employer to act in the best interest of the team. The dual role of a team physician results in the potential for conflict if a professional sports team and the professional athlete’s best interests do not coincide. The workers’ compensation co-employee doctrine immunizes a professional sports team from vicarious liability in tort for its team physician’s negligence. Recent judicial opinions and legal commentary suggest that the workers’ compensation law barring tort suits between a professional athlete and a co-employee team physician for injuries caused within the scope of employment should not ipso facto confer absolute tort immunity for a physician. The argument being made is that if a team physician breaches the ethical and legal duty to provide the standard of care, the co-employee doctrine should not provide a shield from tort liability for harm caused to professional athletes. Physicians must be aware of legal opinions surfacing in the literature so they can understand that their most prudent approach, no matter what the circumstance, is to practice in a manner in which a professional athlete’s health interest supersedes all other interests.

Introduction:

Present-day judicial opinions and legal commentary suggest that the absolute tort immunity provided under the co-employee doctrine of workers’ compensation law may need limits to encourage the implementation of medical care that, above all other interests, protects the health and safety of professional athletes. Sport- medicine physicians involved as co-employees in the care of professional athletes must be aware of current opinions and commentary to better understand their risk of liability. The shield of workers’ compensation law may not be a fail-safe defense for employed team physicians. Judicial and legal commentary about tort immunity in the context of the co-employee professional sports physician demonstrates why a prudent approach by all professional team physicians, despite their co-employee status, would be to act as a fiduciary where an athlete’s health interest supersedes all other interests.

The Team Physician and the Professional Athlete

The most frequent claim raised against a team physician by a professional athlete is negligence. Negligence for sports medicine physicians may arise for 1) allegedly failing to diagnose a medical condition in an athlete, 2) failing to appropriately warn an athlete of a medical condition when the condition is diagnosed, or 3) improperly deeming an athlete medically safe for sports competition when a physician knows or should know of an imposing medical condition that should limit or suspend competition.

To establish a negligence claim, an athlete must prove four elements: first, that a duty of care exists between the athlete and the team physician; second, that the team physician has breached that duty; third, that the breach caused harm to the athlete; fourth, that the athlete has sustained injuries that can be quantified into damages.

Physician Duty

The existence of a patient-physician relationship legally establishes a physician’s duty to appropriately diagnose and treat patients. In the environment of sports medicine, this relationship also involves a duty to disclose any material information to an athlete about his or her physical condition and to sufficiently inform an athlete regarding potential risks of participating in the sport. This is, arguably, a variation on the doctrine of informed consent; that is, an athlete must have all available information to make an informed decision to participate in a sport. Team management should expect a sport-medicine physician to discuss with management and athletes the risks and benefits of playing a sport on the basis of a medical evaluation.

Breach

Demonstration of a breach of the duty of care requires establishment of the appropriate standard of care. A team physician should consider only an athlete’s best interest when determining an athlete’s fitness to participate in competitive sports. A physician’s determination should be based on a broad range of variables, including 1) the physical demands and intensity of the sport in relation to an athlete’s unique clinical condition; 2) whether an athlete has previously participated in a sport with similar physical demands; 3) all available clinical, personal, and family history and a comprehensive physical examination of an athlete; 4) available medical organization and national conference guidelines pertinent to participation in competitive sports; 5) the probability and potential severity of adverse health events from sports participation, given an athlete’s unique health status; 6) whether medication, monitoring, or protective equipment could mitigate the potential health risks and support safe sports participation; and 7) in the case of minors and young adults, whether an athlete has the capacity to make an informed decision if risks are present (Krueger v. San Francisco Forty Niners, 1987).

The standard of care has evolved as sports medicine has evolved from general medical practice to specialty practice. Supportive of the theory that sports medicine involves specialized practice and a potentially higher standard of care is the publication of guidelines by medical societies and specialty boards which have articulated medical clearance guidelines for use by clinicians making athletic participation recommendations (Maron et al., 1996). Courts have recognized standards and guidelines by national medical associations as evidence of acceptable medical practice (James v. Woolley, 1988).

Expert medical testimony is necessary to establish a breach of the standard of care. For example, an expert may testify that any treatment that benefits the short-term needs of a team but creates long-term damage to a competitive athlete is a breach of duty to an athlete (Keim, 1999).

Causation

The burden of proof that the breach caused injury or harm is an athlete’s. A physician’s failure to recognize or failure to warn of potential harm must result in injury to an athlete. Causation requires a nexus between a physician’s negligence and the actual damage an athlete has sustained.

Causation may be reviewed at two levels: 1) cause in fact and 2) proximate cause. Cause in fact occurs when a physician’s action is a cause of the actual harm to an athlete. Proximate cause considers whether a physician’s behavior is a substantial factor in causing the harm an athlete may have incurred as a result of a physician’s actions or inactions. For example, an argument can be made that a physician’s failure to identify risk factors for heat stroke was the proximate cause of an athlete’s death (Lapchick, 2006). Alternatively, failure to disclose the extent of an existing injury could be considered the proximate cause of a further injury (Krueger v. San Francisco Forty Niners, 1987).

Damages

Damages may include long-term recovery from an injury and loss of salary or limitations to other work capacity because of inability to play after injury. In the case of an athlete’s death, the claims are typically pursued by an athlete’s estate or surviving kin. It is their responsibility to prove what an athlete’s life may have been worth in order for a court or jury to award damages. Awarding damages is an attempt to make an athlete whole, that is, as though the injury never occurred. Expert medical testimonies, in conjunction with an economic analysis provided by an expert economist, are often necessary to measure damages.

Although negligence is the most frequent claim brought against team physicians, other claims have been successfully and unsuccessfully litigated, including, but not limited to, 1) fraudulent misrepresentation, 2) concealment of medical information, 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 4) when an athlete is not cleared to play, discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) and the Rehabilitation Act (1973). Each of these claims deserves to be evaluated as a unique legal concept, and they are not discussed here.

Is the Shield of Workers’ Compensation Law a Myth for a Physician Employed by a Professional Sports Team?

Interaction of Workers’ Compensation and Tort Law

Workers’ compensation law is state defined. Thus, it varies by jurisdiction. Generally, in the case of an employee injured while acting within the scope of employment, workers’ compensation law is thought to be an efficient and adequate remedy to compensate injured employees without the necessity of proving fault of an employer. The law allows compensation for employees for work-related injuries. In exchange for the absolute requirement to pay injured employees, the law shields employers by setting recovery limits at modest amounts and specifying the remedy provided as the exclusive remedy (Workers’ Compensation Law, 1993). No tort liability is allowed.

A professional athlete is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for aggravation of an athletic injury caused by the negligent care by a team’s medical personnel. A player whose injury is secondary to negligent medical care or the failure to provide reasonable medical care is barred from recovering tort damages against the team or its employees, including a team physician who has co-employee status (Keim, 1999; Mitten, 2002).

Generally, the exclusivity provided under workers’ compensation law bars all tort claims against physicians employed by professional sports teams. It is likely the defense on which most employed team physicians rely when sued for negligence by an employed athlete.

There is an exception in most jurisdictions for certain common law claims, such as injuries resulting from the fraud or defamation of an athlete by a team physician, team management, or both. Similarly, the exclusivity remedy provisions of the state workers’ compensation laws will not bar a medical malpractice claim against an employer or co-employee team physician for an injury caused by conduct intended to harm an athlete (Hertz, 2001; Mitten, 2002).

Beyond the exceptions carved out for fraudulent and intentional tort claims, some courts’ dissenting opinions, as well as some legal commentaries, argue for the erosion of the shield of workers’ compensation as a fail-safe defense for employed team physicians. One argument is that a special relationship exists between a team physician and a professional athlete, extending the duty of care beyond the duty of a company physician to a company employee. The argument is grounded in the belief that professional sports have elevated economic incentives, and the pressure to win causes a team physician to meet the teams’ immediate needs rather than the health interests of professional athletes. The belief is that potential tort liability creates a legal incentive which urges team physicians not to succumb to the pressures that are inherent in professional sports.

Korey Stringer, a professional football player for the Minnesota Vikings, died from complications of heat stroke during preseason training camp in 2001. His heirs alleged that the Vikings’ team physician provided negligent medical care. In Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC (2004), the trial court held that there is no immunity if a co-employee, in this case the team physician, owes a personal duty of care to a fellow employee, namely the football player, which is “not pursuant to the employer’s non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace.” Thus, the trial court is saying that the employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace for all employees, and beyond that, team physicians have a separate duty of care to football players that goes beyond the owner’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Reversing the decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court (Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 2005) subsequently ruled that the Minnesota Vikings team physician’s duty to the professional athlete was fulfilled within the employment relationship and the professional sports team’s effort to provide a safe workplace for its players. Thus, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that, in the case of Korey Stringer’s death, the team physician did not have a separate duty of care to the football player beyond that of the team owner to provide a safe workplace. The dissenting opinion for the Minnesota Supreme Court expressed doubt that concealing the duty of a co-employee physician under the umbrella of an owner’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace is a reliable legal remedy when a physician co-employee provides medical care to employees. The dissent also articulated a policy argument stating that extending immunity to co-employee physicians would encourage them to neglect their duties. Of note, dissenting opinions do not define the law but can give authority to an argument supporting a change in the law.

The California case of Hendy v. Losse (1990) raised issues that make the absolute immunity of a co-employee team physician less certain. Hendy explored a dual-capacity theory, that is, when an employer has two separate relationships with employees. An employer, normally shielded from tort liability by the exclusive remedy principle, may become liable in tort to an employee if the employer occupies, in addition to its capacity as employer, a second capacity that confers additional obligations. California courts have long recognized that a physician, as an employee of a company, may operate in the dual capacity of co-employee and physician. In Hendy, a professional football player’s malpractice case against the team physician was allowed to proceed at the trial level on the basis of the dual-capacity doctrine. The California Supreme Court (1991) dismissed the claims, holding that the state’s workers’ compensation laws bar tort suits between co-employees for injuries caused within the scope of employment. However, the Supreme Court stated that if a co-employee provides medical care other than that contemplated by the employee’s employment, the physician co-employee no longer enjoys immunity from tort.

Some legal commentators have articulated the belief that if a team physician breaches his or her duty of care to a team’s athletes, the co-employee doctrine should not provide a shield from tort liability. According to Young (2003), “[A]ny notion that a doctor’s co-employee status will shield his liability to a patient he negligently treats should … be removed.” In Mitten’s opinion (2005), “[A] team physician should not have immunity from malpractice merely because he or she is characterized as an ’employee.'”

Conclusions:

Professional sport-teams physicians in charge of clearing professional athletes for competition and treating professional athletes’ injuries have a complex position with unique responsibilities to athletes. A co-employee professional team physician should be mindful of the best interests of athletes and sustain the appropriate standard of care. If physician negligence is alleged, workers’ compensation laws may shield a physician from tort liability arising from injuries occurring in the course of an athlete’s employment, so long as there is no finding of fraudulent or intentional misconduct. However, the dual-capacity doctrine articulated in Hendy, the dissenting opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Korey Stringer case, and expert legal commentary should give physicians, acting in the co-employee role for professional sports teams, reason to reflect on their potential liability. A prudent approach-in an attempt to reduce potential for tort liability-would be to understand that, despite the co-employee status of team physicians, all the inherent responsibilities of independent contractor physicians, who are not shielded from tort liability, may apply in a court of law, and an athlete’s medical interest should supersede all competing interests.

References:

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §§1210 et seq; 1990.

California Supreme Court 819 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1991).

Hendy v. Losse, No. D010557. Court of Appeals of California, 4th appellate District, Division One. 231 Cal. App. 3d 1149; 274 Cal. Rptr. 31; 1990.

Hertz, G. (2001). Professional athletes and the law of workers’ compensation: rights and remedies. Law of Professional and Amateur Sports, 2, 15-1.

James v. Woolley. 523 So. 2d 110, 112 (Ala. 1988).

Keim, T. (1999). Physicians for professional sports teams: Health care under pressure of economics and commercial interests. Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law, 9, 139-58.

Krueger v. San Francisco Forty Niners. 189 Cal. App. 3d 823, 2 Cal. Rptr. 579 (1987).

Lapchick, R. E. Dying for the game. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.northeastern.edu/csss/rel-article22.html.

Maron, B. J., Thompson, P. D., Puffer, J. C., McGrew, C. A., Strong, W. B., Douglas, P. S., et al. (1996). Cardiovascular preparticipation screening of competitive athletes: A statement for health professionals from the Sudden Death Committee (clinical cardiology) and Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee (cardiovascular disease in the young), American Heart Association. Circulation, 94, 850-856.

Mitten, M. J. (2002). Emerging legal issues: A synthesis, summary, and analysis. St John’s Law Rev, 76, 5.

Mitten, M. J. (2005). Team physicians as co-employees: A prescription that deprives professional athletes of an adequate remedy for sports medicine malpractice. St. Louis Univ Law J, 50.

Rehabilitation Act, 29 USC §§504, 794; 1973.

Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC. 686 N.W. 2d 545 (Minn. App. 2004).

Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC. 705 N.W. 2d 746, 762 (Minn. 2005).

Workers’ Compensation Law 68.13 (1993).

Young, J. D. (2003). Liability for team physician malpractice: A new burden shifting approach. Rutgers L Rec, 27:4.

2016-10-12T14:53:11-05:00March 14th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Professional Team Physicians Beware! Co-employee Status May Not Ipso Facto Confer Tort Immunity
Read More

The NFL Rookie Cap: An Empirical Analysis of One of the NFL’s Most Closely Guarded Secrets

Submitted by: McDonald P. Mirabile

Abstract:

This article presented an empirical analysis of the relationship between the portion of the “Entering Player Pool” (Rookie Cap) for each of the 32 National Football League franchises and that franchise’s draft selections. Although the formula for determining each franchise’s Rookie Cap is closely guarded by the NFL, the author hypothesized that it should be possible to model the deterministic structure used to calculate franchise spending for each rookie’s contract. The OLS-estimated models revealed statistically significant relationships between groups segmented by draft selection order and each franchise’s Rookie Cap. The model was verified in an out-of-sample test using the Rookie Cap values for the 2007 NFL season. It was found to have a mean absolute percentage error of 2.1%. The implications of these findings were contrary to language in the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, as the majority of rookie contracts are implicitly determined by each franchise’s Rookie Cap. The published estimates of each selection’s NFL determined cap value will provide useful bargaining information for rookie contracts.

(more…)

2020-10-06T08:27:11-05:00March 14th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on The NFL Rookie Cap: An Empirical Analysis of One of the NFL’s Most Closely Guarded Secrets
Read More

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

Go to Top