Parker Joens, PT, DPT, CSCS is the 2025 graduate of the Sanford Health and University of South Dakota Sports Physical Therapy Residency. He specializes in working with Division 1 collegiate athletes.
Matt Dewald, PT, DPT, OCS, SCS is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of South Dakota. He directs the Sanford Health and University of South Dakota Sports Physical Therapy Residency. His research focuses on sport rehabilitation with a special interest in running injuries.
ABSTRACT
Non-linear periodization offers a dynamic, flexible approach to rehabilitation that aligns with the complex and often unpredictable nature of recovery following sport-related injuries. Unlike linear or block periodization models, which may lack adaptability or limit concurrent development of physical qualities, non-linear periodization introduces frequent variation in training volume, load, and intensity, facilitating both physiological and neuromuscular adaptations. This paper explores the theoretical foundations and practical applications of non-linear periodization within sport rehabilitation, emphasizing its ability to restore strength, motor control, and cardiovascular fitness while mitigating injury recurrence. Sample programming structures for both high-frequency (5-day) and lower-frequency (3-day) schedules are presented to illustrate how this model can be tailored across diverse clinical and athletic settings. Key considerations include neurophysiological adaptations, blood flow restriction training, motor learning principles, and individualized progression. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that when implemented appropriately, non-linear periodization serves as a comprehensive and evidence-based strategy to guide athletes from injury through recovery and back to high performance.
KEYWORDS:programming, return to play, physical therapy
INTRODUCTION
Periodization refers to the systematic planning of training variables such as intensity, volume, and frequency, with the overarching goal of optimizing physical performance and minimizing the risk of overtraining (15, 16). This concept is rooted in the deliberate alternation of training stressors over designated timeframes, commonly organized into macrocycles, mesocycles, and microcycles (8). These structured phases allow for a strategic balance between workload and recovery, enabling athletes to steadily increase physiological capacity while safeguarding against injury and burnout.
For athletes, recovering from significant injuries resulting in prolonged time away from sport, periodization takes on an even more critical role. In the context of rehabilitation, the application of periodization serves as a mechanism to both protect healing tissue and guide the progressive reintroduction of sport-specific demands. A well-structured plan that incorporates principles such as progressive overload, specificity, and variation enhances the likelihood that an athlete will return not only safely, but also at or near their pre-injury level of performance (8, 15, 16).
Three foundational concepts that support this approach are the Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands (SAID) principle, the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), and the Fitness-Fatigue Paradigm (8). The SAID principle asserts that the human body adapts to the specific demands placed upon it, thereby necessitating intentional variability and specificity in training stimuli to ensure comprehensive adaptation. GAS outlines a four-phase response to training stress, including alarm, resistance, supercompensation, and exhaustion. Ultimately, the goal is to maximize supercompensation without overreaching and going into exhaustion. The Fitness-Fatigue Paradigm complements these ideas by suggesting that fitness adaptations and fatigue are both consequences of training stress, but they dissipate at different rates with fatigue dissipating faster than fitness. Leveraging this model allows practitioners to optimize timing and intensity of training to maximize performance while minimizing fatigue (8).
Linear periodization progresses in a relatively predictable fashion, moving from high-volume, low-intensity training toward low-volume, high-intensity training over time. This model is often suitable for novice athletes or those with a clearly defined timeline, as it allows for the systematic development of endurance, hypertrophy, strength, and power in sequence. However, its rigid structure may not be ideal for athletes with more complex needs or for those recovering from injury, as it does not readily accommodate fluctuations in performance or recovery status (9, 15, 16, 18, 22).
Block periodization, by contrast, divides training into specialized blocks or mesocycles, each targeting a specific physical quality. These typically include an accumulation phase focusing on general preparation, a transmutation phase emphasizing sport-specific qualities, and a realization phase aimed at peak performance. While block periodization offers the advantage of focused adaptation, its segmented nature may risk neglecting the interconnectedness of physical attributes. Furthermore, in a rehabilitation setting, the transitions between blocks must be handled with care to avoid regression or stagnation (3, 19). With that in mind, the purpose of this review is to demonstrate that non-linear periodization serves as a comprehensive and evidence-based strategy to guide athletes from injury through recovery and back to high performance.
Foundations of Strength and Conditioning in Rehabilitation
Periodized strength and conditioning programs are underpinned by several key neurophysiological principles. Among these is the size principle of motor unit recruitment, which describes the orderly activation of motor units based on their threshold. Low-threshold, fatigue-resistant Type I motor units are recruited first, followed by high-threshold, force-producing Type II units as the demand increases. Type II units can also be fired first if a contraction is aimed at being fast and powerful or if an exercise is taken to true muscular failure. This progression means that to stimulate the entire motor unit pool and achieve meaningful strength gains, resistance training must involve progressively heavier loads or higher velocities (8, 17).
During rehabilitation, however, these loading strategies must be applied with caution. Healing tissues are vulnerable to overstress, and overloading can compromise the recovery process. Additionally, injury often results in arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI), a reflexive decrease in muscle activation due to joint trauma (20). AMI prevents complete motor unit recruitment, diminishing strength and neuromuscular control. Rehabilitation professionals must therefore employ techniques that safely promote neural reactivation, such as joint cooling, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current (IFC), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), high-intensity isometric contractions, submaximal repetitions to failure, or electromyographic feedback to allow for retraining of motor pathways and to re-establish muscular function (6).
Applying Periodization in Rehabilitation
The application of periodization within a rehabilitation context requires a flexible and individualized approach that accounts for the unique variables presented by each patient. These variables include, but are not limited to, the nature and severity of the injury, the specific sport and position played, the athlete’s training history, and the practical limitations imposed by insurance or clinical setting constraints. Traditional rehabilitation protocols often become less prescriptive as patients progress, creating a need for more systematic yet adaptable programming. Incorporating regular assessment checkpoints allows clinicians to monitor progress, adjust programming, and ensure alignment between the rehabilitation process and the athlete’s ultimate return-to-sport goals (15, 16).
These goals typically include restoring sport-specific function, reducing the risk of re-injury, and reestablishing performance capacity to pre-injury levels or higher. By aligning rehabilitative exercises with athletic demands and integrating progressive loading patterns, clinicians can foster improvements across multiple domains, including strength, endurance, mobility, and neuromuscular coordination.
Non-linear Periodization
Non-linear periodization, also referred to as undulating periodization, introduces frequent variation in training intensity and volume within short cycles, such as weekly or even daily formats. Popularized by strength coach Charles Poliquin, this model offers a dynamic and adaptable framework that is particularly well-suited for advanced rehabilitation scenarios. The frequent alteration of neuromuscular stimuli helps to refine movement patterns, enhance motor learning, and reduce central nervous system fatigue (12, 13, 15, 16).
In addition to promoting variation and reducing monotony, non-linear periodization allows for simultaneous development of multiple physical qualities, including strength, endurance, and power. This is particularly beneficial in rehabilitation, where athletes may need to improve several attributes concurrently to return to full participation. By regularly modifying load and intensity, non-linear models also help mitigate risk of overtraining and promote consistent adaptation (12, 13, 15, 16).
Research supports the efficacy of non-linear periodization, with meta-analyses demonstrating superior gains in strength within trained individuals compared to linear or non-periodized models (18, 22). Its built-in flexibility allows for adjustments based on individual response to training, making it an ideal model for athletes progressing through various stages of rehabilitation.
Motor Learning Considerations
Incorporating variation is essential not only for physical adaptation but also for enhancing motor learning (4, 7). Exposing the neuromuscular system to a wide range of stimuli activates different neural pathways and encourages cortical reorganization. This fosters improved movement quality, coordination, and neurocognitive resilience. In rehabilitation, these principles support the relearning of fundamental motor skills and help solidify long-term improvements in functional performance.
Cardiovascular Fitness after Injury
Athletes recovering from anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, among other injuries, often experience significant declines in cardiovascular capacity, including reductions in VO2 max and heart rate efficiency. These impairments have been linked to elevated long-term cardiovascular risk (2, 6). Therefore, integrating aerobic conditioning early in the rehabilitation process is crucial. Low-impact interventions such as stationary cycling, aquatic therapy, or brisk walking allow patients to re-engage their cardiovascular systems without compromising healing tissue. Gradual progression in intensity and duration, paired with monitoring of heart rate and perceived exertion, ensures both safety and effectiveness.
The Role of Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) Training
Blood flow restriction training is a valuable adjunct to traditional rehabilitation and strength programs, particularly in early phases when high-load resistance exercises may be contraindicated. By partially restricting venous return using specialized cuffs, BFR training induces a hypoxic environment that promotes type II fiber recruitment even at low intensities. This method facilitates hypertrophy and strength gains while minimizing joint stress (14).
BFR can also be incorporated into aerobic protocols, enhancing endurance and cardiovascular adaptations. It stimulates beneficial hormonal and cellular responses, such as elevated growth hormone production and muscle protein synthesis. Additionally, BFR applied passively during rest periods may reduce muscle atrophy through cellular swelling effects. When integrated thoughtfully into a non-linear periodized plan, BFR contributes to well-rounded rehabilitation by enabling strength maintenance, motor control enhancement, and recovery optimization (14, 23).
Five-Day Sample Non-Linear Program
In settings with daily access to athletes, such as collegiate or professional sports environments, a five-day non-linear plan can facilitate comprehensive development. A sample structure can be found in Table 1.
Abbreviations: EMOM=Every Minute on the Minute, LE= Lower Extremity, BFR= Blood Flow Restriction, UE= Upper Extremity
Over a span of six to 12 months, this model allows practitioners to shift emphasis from general capacity-building to the development of maximal strength and power, all while maintaining core stability, upper body conditioning, and cardiovascular health. This holistic approach supports multi-system rehabilitation that mirrors the multifaceted demands of sport (6, 10-16).
Three-Day Sample Non-Linear Program
In clinical settings with reduced weekly patient access, a three-day non-linear structure can provide targeted variation while maintaining the core principles of periodization. For example, during weeks eight through eleven of an ACL rehab plan, day 1 may focus on hypertrophy, day 2 on strength, and day 3 on endurance. As the athlete progresses, the schedule can shift to emphasize power development while maintaining strength and hypertrophy adaptations. If a clinician sees patients twice weekly, the third day can be provided as a home-based exercise session to ensure continuity.
Table 2
A sample 3-day non-linear periodization model.
Week Number
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Week 8-11
Hypertrophy
Strength
Endurance
Week 12-15
Hypertrophy
Strength
Hypertrophy/Endurance
Week 16-19
Strength/Hypertrophy
Strength
Hypertrophy
Week 20-23
Strength
Power
Strength/Hypertrophy
Week 24-27
Strength
Power
Hypertrophy
Week 28-31
Strength/Hypertrophy
Power
Hypertrophy
Week 32-35
Strength
Power
Power/Hypertrophy
This adaptive format maintains consistency with return-to-sport objectives while respecting time constraints and individual recovery timelines. It also allows for the integration of various training emphases within the same week, addressing multiple rehabilitation goals simultaneously (10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21).
Individualizing the Periodized Plan
Successful implementation of non-linear periodization in rehabilitation depends on individualized program design. Consideration must be given to injury type and severity, surgical timelines, athlete goals, sport-specific demands, and prior training history. Continuous assessment and program refinement are essential. Clinicians may adjust weekly structure, alternate high and low-intensity days, incorporate BFR as needed, and prioritize sessions based on recovery status and the athlete’s needs.
The flexible nature of non-linear periodization accommodates variability while maintaining a structured progression (8, 15, 16). By supporting the simultaneous development of strength, endurance, motor control, and cardiovascular fitness, this approach meets the complex demands of rehabilitation. Incorporating tools such as every minute on minute (EMOM) circuits, BFR, and movement variation enhances neuromuscular engagement and ensures continued progress toward return-to-sport readiness.
CONCLUSION
Non-linear periodization represents a scientifically sound and practically effective strategy for guiding athletes through rehabilitation and back to high performance. Its inherent flexibility supports concurrent development of multiple physical qualities, accommodates the unpredictable nature of recovery, and promotes long-term athletic resilience. When integrated with modern rehabilitation tools and grounded in sound physiological principles, non-linear periodization empowers clinicians to deliver individualized, evidence-based care that enhances recovery outcomes and prepares athletes for the full demands of sport.
REFERENCES
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002). Neural adaptation to resistance training: Changes in evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses. Journal of Applied Physiology, 92(6), 2309–2318. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01185.2001
Almeida, A. M., Santos Silva, P. R., Pedrinelli, A., & Hernandez, A. J. (2018). Aerobic fitness in professional soccer players after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. PLoS ONE, 13(3), e0194432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194432
Bartolomei, S., Hoffman, J. R., Memi, F., & Stout, J. R. (2014). A comparison of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(4), 990–997.
Bayona, N. A., Bitensky, J., Salter, K., & Teasell, R. (2005). The role of task-specific training in rehabilitation therapies. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 12(3), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1310/bqm5-6ygb-mvj5-wvcr
Boggenpoel, B. Y., Nel, S., & Hanekom, S. (2018). The use of periodized exercise prescription in rehabilitation: A systematic scoping review of literature. Clinical Rehabilitation, 32(9), 1235–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518769445
Butler, C. R., Allen, K., DiStefano, L. J., & Lepley, L. K. (2020). Protracted cardiovascular impairments after anterior cruciate ligament injury: A critically appraised topic. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 29(5), 680–683. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2019-0175
Haff, G. G., & Triplett, N. T. (2016). Essentials of strength training and conditioning (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.
Harries, S. K., Lubans, D. R., & Callister, R. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(4), 1113–1125.
Hoover, D. L., VanWye, W. R., & Judge, L. W. (2016). Periodization and physical therapy: Bridging the gap between training and rehabilitation. Physical Therapy in Sport, 18, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2015.08.003
Kakavas, G., Forelli, F., Malliaropoulos, N., Hewett, T. E., & Tsaklis, P. (2023). Periodization in anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation: New framework versus old model? A clinical commentary. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 18(2), 541–546. https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.73035
Kakavas, G., Malliaropoulos, N., Bikos, G., et al. (2021). Periodization in anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation: A novel framework. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1159/000511228
Kraemer, W. J., Torine, J. C., Dudley, J., & Martin, G. J. (2015). Nonlinear periodization. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 37(6), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000179
Loenneke, J. P., Hammert, W. B., Kataoka, R., Yamada, Y., & Abe, T. (2025). Twenty-five years of blood flow restriction training: What we know, what we don’t, and where to next. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2474329
Lorenz, D. S., Morrison, S. (2015). Current concepts in periodization of strength and conditioning for the sports physical therapist. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 10(6), 734–747.
Lorenz, D. S., Reiman, M. P., & Walker, J. C. (2010). Periodization: Current review and suggested implementation for athletic rehabilitation. Sports Health, 2(6), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738110375910
Miller, J. D., Lippman, J. D., Trevino, M. A., & Herda, T. J. (2020). Neural drive is greater for a high-intensity contraction than for moderate-intensity contractions performed to fatigue. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(11), 3013–3021. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000003694
Moesgaard, L., Beck, M. M., Christiansen, L., Aagaard, P., & Lundbye-Jensen, J. (2022). Effects of periodization on strength and muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated resistance training programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(7), 1647–1666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1
Painter, K. B., Haff, G. G., Ramsey, M. W., et al. (2012). Strength gains: Block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(2), 161–169.
Sherman, D. A., Rush, J., Stock, M. S., Ingersoll, C. D., & Norte, G. E. (2023). Neural drive and motor unit characteristics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Implications for quadriceps weakness. PeerJ, 11, e16261. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16261
West, J. (2007). Effects of a cognitive behavioural intervention on stress, recovery and performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 10, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1440-2440(07)70314-6
Williams, T. D., Tolusso, D. V., Fedewa, M. V., & Esco, M. R. (2017). Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47, 2083–2100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y
Zihan, F., Yanqing, F., & Ying, W. (2025). The effects of different ischemic conditioning on strength training recovery. Biology of Sport, 42(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2025.144410
1Department of Education, The University of Virginia’s College at Wise, Wise, VA, USA
Matthew J. Williams D.S.M., M.B.A., M.S., is an Associate Professor of Sports Management at The University of Virginia’s College at Wise. His areas of research interest include NASCAR, COVID-19, college athletics, professional sports, and issues in sports management.
ABSTRACT
The NCAA has always had a firm stance that to survive, it must keep its amateurism status. The NCAA had rules in place that required colleges and universities to recruit student-athletes to play for them. It could only offer them compensation through free tuition, textbooks, room, and board; no direct money could be involved. Over the past decades, the NCAA has grown in popularity and generated a tremendous amount of revenue. At the same time, society was noticing that the NCAA was taking advantage of the student-athlete through its amateurism rules. The NCAA found itself constantly in court defending its actions regarding amateurism. After years of litigation, the NCAA settled out of court, resulting in the House Settlement, which created a new era in college athletics. These changes will allow student-athletes to receive financial compensation directly from colleges and universities. This new era will continue to bring a tremendous amount of financial burden to athletic departments’ budgets. This may lead to reductions in non-revenue sports, team roster sizes, and athletic staff.
In the past, student-athletes were very satisfied with receiving an academic/athletic scholarship from a college or university that included free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. In return, student-athletes would participate in varsity athletics for the college or university. Today’s philosophy has shifted, emphasizing that student-athletes should be directly compensated financially. Over the past twenty years, college athletics has witnessed a massive growth in popularity that has resulted in bigger television contracts, sold-out stadiums, increased revenue from corporate sponsorships, and souvenir sales. Student-athletes started to take notice of the popularity of college athletics, financial success, and the abundance of revenue that they were producing for the NCAA, colleges, and universities. They felt they should receive more compensation than just free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. At the forefront of every collegiate student-athlete’s mind in recent years is the question: “should I be getting paid for this?” (Tremps, 2024).
Most college fans, alumni, television announcers, media, and state governments believed the NCAA, colleges, and universities were exploiting the student-athletes. They all believed that student-athletes should receive more financial compensation than just free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. After all, student-athletes were generating all the revenue.
The NCAA became a billion-dollar industry off these young men and women, and they received no monetary compensation in return. Some argued that students were getting a free education out of it, but over time, that seemed to become irrelevant to many college players (Cabibi, 2022).
Discussion
NCAA’s History with Amateurism
When the NCAA was formed in the early 20th century, its cornerstone belief was built around amateurism and did not revolve at all around pay-to-play. Colleges and universities that were NCAA members in any division of athletics were not allowed to financially pay student-athletes directly. During its formation in 1906, the NCAA highlighted amateurism, or unpaid participation, as a core aspect of its student-athletes (Hart, 2024). NCAA athletes playing for free has always been a feature of the product (Lombardi, 2024).
The only type of financial support that the NCAA would allow colleges or universities to offer student-athletes was free tuition, textbooks, and room and board. The trend of not paying student-athletes financially was accepted by fans, alumni, and media. It was considered an honor and a privilege of amateurism. Many fans felt that the student-athletes were playing for the pride of the college or university and the love of the game. For many fans, amateurism was an endearing aspect, suggesting that young athletes are playing for pride, the love of the game, and the honor of their institution (Lombardi, 2024).
Over the past few decades, societal thoughts have shifted around feelings of amateurism in college athletics, and now think that student-athletes should be financially compensated. The NCAA has held a firm stance on the importance of keeping the amateurism status in college athletics. If they were to allow student-athletes to be financially paid directly, other than through free tuition, textbooks, room, and board, it would significantly hurt the student-athletes’ amateur status. The NCAA prohibited student-athletes from being paid in the past to protect their “amateurism” (McCool, 2023).
With the philosophy changing about financially paying student-athletes, the NCAA found itself in the crosshairs with the media, fans, athletes, and state governments demanding that the NCAA has to do more than just allow colleges and universities to offer student-athletes free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. They were pressuring the NCAA to eliminate its ancient rules on amateurism and allow student-athletes to be financially compensated by colleges and universities.
However, the NCAA failed to act on eliminating amateurism and stuck to its core belief about the importance of amateurism. Unfortunately, failing to act on this issue resulted in numerous lawsuits against the NCAA. Numerous lawsuits have challenged the amateur aspect of NCAA competitions (Hart, 2024).
Pressure from the media, sports broadcasters, and fans to allow student-athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness kept growing rapidly. Unfortunately, the NCAA continued to ignore the pressure to change bylaws that would allow student-athletes to do this. The failure to change its stance on this issue resulted in new state legislation.
The California State Legislature was the first to propose a bill to allow student-athletes to accept endorsement money for the use of their name, image, or likeness and not be punished by California universities. The state legislature passed this bill, and in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the first bill to allow student-athletes to accept endorsement money. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill in September 2019 stating that, starting in 2023, universities in the state couldn’t punish athletes for accepting endorsement money while in college (Moore, 2022).
The passage of California’s legislation created pressure on other states to do the same. Passing legislation to allow student-athletes to receive compensation for their endorsement deals concerning name, image, and likeness.
NCAA’s Litigation Battles
In 2014, the NCAA found itself in litigation with NCAA v. Alston. The lawsuit brought against the NCAA was that they were violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by not allowing student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alston. In July 2021, the Supreme Court’s ruling on NCAA v. Alston allowed college athletes to receive money based on their Name, Image, and Likeness (Munn, 2023).
The Alston ruling was a tremendous blow to the NCAA’s stance on amateurism, forcing them to adopt new bylaws that would allow student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. This was a complete turnaround from student-athletes being punished for receiving financial assistance. Members of the NCAA’s Board of Directors decided Wednesday to hop on this NIL train instead of getting crushed while trying to stand in front of it (Moore, 2022).
Litigation cases against the NCAA did not slow down after the Alston ruling. Instead, the lawsuits became bigger with more at stake financially for the NCAA, colleges, and universities. In 2020, House v. NCAA. Grant House, a student athlete who was a swimmer from Arizona State, and Sedona Prince, who was a women’s basketball player, and two other suits that were filed by college athletes. All three lawsuits against the NCAA were combined into one. A 2020 lawsuit by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and women’s college basketball player Sedona Prince, along with two separate suits by other college athletes, which were combined into one case (Jones, 2025).
The House lawsuit was based on the NCAA’s alleged violation of antitrust laws. The bylaws set by the NCAA prohibited the opportunity for student athletes to benefit financially from their Name, Image, and Likeness. Violated antitrust law by collectively agreeing to not provide benefits and compensation to student-athletes and denying student-athletes the opportunity to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness (Jones, 2025).
The loss of previous antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA led to the realization that the current NCAA bylaws, allowing student-athletes only to receive free tuition, textbooks, room, and board, could no longer exist. They recognized there was no chance of winning the case and decided to settle out of court. On June 6th, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilkens approved the House settlement. The settlement would now allow colleges and universities to directly pay student-athletes for their participation in college athletics. On June 6, 2025, the Northern District of California in House v. NCAA approved a landmark settlement deal allowing colleges and universities to pay their students directly for their participation in college athletics (Cernea & Pennesi, 2025).
The House settlement also eliminated three additional antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA, which was accused of not allowing student-athletes to profit off their Name, Image, and Likeness. The House v. NCAA settlement ends three separate federal antitrust lawsuits, all of which had claimed the NCAA was illegally limiting the earning power of college athletes (Murphy, D., 2025). The House settlement agreement also included continuation of the NIL along with back pay, roster limits, and revenue-sharing, which started July 1, 2025.
Financial Fallout from House Settlement
The most significant part of the House Settlement was the revenue-sharing agreement that required all Power Five Conferences to participate in. The agreement was put into place to allow student-athletes to be paid directly from colleges or universities. All other Division I Universities were not required to participate in the agreement, but each college or university could choose to either opt in or opt out. Schools are now free to begin paying their athletes directly, marking the dawn of a new era in college sports (Murphy, D., 2025).
The agreement now allows athletic departments to distribute directly to the sports programs of their choosing about a fourth of their annual revenue, roughly $20.5 million, this academic year. The annual percentage of revenue-sharing will increase each academic year after that. The athletic department’s revenue comes from ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, onsite advertising, concessions, auctions, donations, and, most importantly, media rights. Schools may distribute up to 22% of their revenue from ticket sales, sponsorship revenue, and media rights (Cernea, 2025). Schools will be allotted $20.5 million of revenue per school (Cernea, 2025).
Before the House settlement, colleges and universities’ athletic departments relied on a variety of revenue-generating streams, including ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, and, most importantly, media rights to finance their athletic programs. The implementation of revenue-sharing will create tremendous financial challenges for presidents and athletic directors to keep their athletic programs profitable.
Not all Division I athletic sports offered at colleges and universities are profitable at all. However, there are some sports that either break even or generate a profit: these include men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and football. Even more profitable programs are questioning how they will come up with the money. The Associated Press quoted Alabama Athletic Director Greg Byrne, who told Congress “Those are resources and revenues that don’t exist” (Jones, 2025).
Most colleges and universities’ athletic departments’ budgets at the Division I level across the country will either end in a deficit or break even every year; very few colleges or universities’ athletic departments make a profit. According to financial filings, Alabama reported a $28 million operating deficit during the last fiscal year (Peterson, 2025). All but a handful of Division I athletic departments operate as revenue-neutral (Schnable, 2025).
Each year, Division I conferences receive revenue distribution from the NCAA, which helps athletic departments fund all their sports. Because of the House settlement, along with the massive legal issues that the NCAA has gone through in the past few years. The NCAA was forced to distribute less money to all Division I conferences. It’s also expected to reduce the annual distributions all D-I conferences receive, as the NCAA covers damages (Christovich, 2025).
To survive the new era of college athletics and be competitive in athletics, presidents and athletic directors will have to redistribute monetary resources from non-revenue sports to their three revenue-generating sports. We have one team that makes a healthy profit in football. We have one that turns a profit in men’s basketball. We have 19 that don’t,” Byrne said (Peterson, 2025).
Texas Tech Red Raiders athletic director made a clear message to the public that the new revenue-sharing model would concentrate almost all revenue-generating sports, which are football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. Red Raiders will allocate $15.1 million to its football roster (74%), $3.6 million to men’s basketball (17.5%), $410,000 to women’s basketball (2%) (Dellenger, 2025).
A big challenge facing presidents and athletic directors is justifying non-revenue sports and why they should keep them. An argument can be made that non-revenue sports simply do not generate enough revenue to pay their bills. Athletic departments are under tremendous pressure to make a profit or at least break even every year. It gets harder to pay for sports that lose money, which is everything that’s not football or basketball (Talty, 2025).
Five years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit college athletics, it decreased many revenue streams that colleges and universities’ athletic departments relied on. The pandemic forced presidents and athletic directors to find creative ways to trim their athletic budgets. They eliminated some non-revenue sports and laid off athletic support staff to balance their athletic budgets. To this day, some colleges and universities’ athletic departments still have not fully recovered financially from the pandemic.
No one would have ever thought that college and university athletic departments would have to do the same thing again. Because of the House settlement, athletic directors and presidents will continue to look and see where cuts can be made to fund the new era of college athletics. Just as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic, they will be forced once again to eliminate some athletic support staff and some non-revenue sports. “I didn’t think another year would be as tough as COVID [in 2020], but this year has done that,” Yurachek said (Murphy, T, 2025).
Restructuring of Athletics Programs
With the new era of college athletics now in place, athletic directors and presidents will be forced to devote more money to the three revenue-generated sports, which could inflict damage on non-revenue sports budgets. Some non-revenue sports, such as cross country, volleyball, tennis, wrestling, track and field, could either be eliminated or have their roster size reduced. Athletic budgets no longer have enough money to support all the non-revenue sports that generate zero revenue for the athletic departments. As more NIL money is dedicated to football over all other sports on campus, many teams are at risk to be disbanded when there is no money to support their program (Stankovich, 2025). The doomsday option is eliminating sports altogether, which some schools are already doing with sports like tennis that neither bring in revenue nor television exposure (Talty, 2025).
A big concern about athletic departments cutting non-revenue sports is the fact that they produced many of our current or future Olympic athletes. If this does happen, many of our future Olympic athletes could be in jeopardy. Schools have outright used the House v. NCAA settlement as justification to cut Olympic sports programs (Christovich, 2025). There are deep concerns about the potential impact on sports that feed the U.S. Olympic teams (Carey, 2025).
To help reduce financial increases, athletic departments are facing now and in the future. The NCAA has decided to move away from the standard rules of scholarship limits. Now they will impose roster sizes instead for all Division I competing sports. Unfortunately, by the NCAA implementing these new rules on roster sizes, it could effectively eliminate walk-ons. Roster limitations is expected to leave walk-ons, partial scholarship earners, nonrevenue sport athletes and high school recruits at risk (Carey, 2025).
One of the biggest revenue generators for athletic departments is NIL collectives. These collectives are organizations separate from colleges or universities’ athletic departments that generate revenue to help pay for the students’ athletic performance. Unfortunately, most collectives’ money is usually designated for the revenue-producing sports. Collectives generally pay for the athlete’s performance (Hart, 2024). NIL collectives generate revenue from fundraisers, local or national businesses, donations from boosters, alumni, and fans. Collectives are organizations that collect funds from businesses and boosters to facilitate NIL deals for athletes (Hart, 2024).
Financial Cost to Student Body and Fans
To generate more revenue for athletic departments, state legislators have gotten involved in paying student-athletes. Legislation has been passed that will allow institutional funds from colleges or universities to be given to athletic departments to help pay student-athletes. In Missouri, a state law has existed for more than a year permitting the school’s collective to receive institutional funds for distribution to athletes (Dellenger, 2024). Some colleges or universities either have or are in the process of raising student fees to help athletic departments pay their student-athletes. South Carolina announced a new annual $300 athletics auxiliary fee (Rumsey, 2025).
With the implementation of revenue sharing and the NIL athletic departments are now being forced to find creative ways to generate new revenue streams. The University of Tennessee’s athletic department has found an additional revenue source in its ticket sales. They now charge each ticket purchased a 10% talent fee to generate more revenue to pay their student-athletes. Tennessee fans for all sports will be charged a 10% “talent fee” on tickets to help pay athletes as part of the new revenue-sharing plan set to begin in 2025 (Low, 2024). During the Football bowl season, the NCAA has allowed bowl sponsorship patches to be placed on football jerseys. Now conferences and or individual schools are seeking approval from the NCAA to allow advertisement on their game day jerseys to generate additional revenue for the athletic departments. The NCAA’s expected and eventual approval of commercial jersey patches looms large (Dellenger, 2025).
CONCLUSIONS
Athletic department budgets had already been strained from the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a heavy financial toll on many college and university athletic budgets. The House Settlement created additional expenses for athletic departments’ budgets. Presidents and athletic directors know that to be competitive, they must allocate all the necessary resources that they have to their revenue-generating sports to survive financially.
The settlement has caused catastrophic destruction to college athletics. The settlement could seriously damage our U.S. Olympic stronghold; it will eliminate the walk-on dreams and take away the chance for many student-athletes’ opportunities to play college athletics. The settlement rewards only a minority of student-athletes, not the majority. It has created a new era of college athletics that is hurtful and not financially sustainable long term. Lastly, this settlement has created a new era of college athletics that has truly gone a bridge too far.
REFERENCES
1. Cabibi, S. R. (2022, March 15). How money, greed, and the nil destroyed college football… or did it?. Medium. https://medium.com/@seancabibi/how-money-greed-and-the-nil-destroyed-college-football-or-did-it-5e1ea268df4d
2. Carey, M. (2025, May 8). “hands tied”: Athletes left in dark as NCAA settlement leaves murky future for nonrevenue sports. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-37ad7713f540c4597627116b1f219483
3. Cernea, E. H., & Pennesi, E. J. (2025, June 18). Long-awaited settlement agreement raises new challenges for Nil Licensing deals. Long-Awaited Settlement Agreement Raises New Challenges for NIL Licensing Deals –. https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2025/06/long-awaited-settlement-agreement-raises-new-challenges-for-nil-licensing-deals
4. Christovich, A. (2025, June 19). Olympic sports face cuts in wake of House v. NCAA settlement. Front Office Sports. https://frontofficesports.com/dozens-of-olympic-sports-have-been-cut-in-wake-of-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
5. Dellenger, R. (2024, May 28). The next evolution of Nil Collectives and the battles that await: “this is a big inflection point.” Yahoo! Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/the-next-evolution-of-nil-collectives-and-the-battles-that-await-this-is-a-big-inflection-point-120051261.html
6. Dellenger, R. (2025, January 7). With nil era ending, college sports is on verge of seismic change. how will schools adapt with industry in upheaval?. Yahoo! Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/with-nil-era-ending-college-sports-is-on-verge-of-seismic-change-how-will-schools-adapt-with-industry-in-upheaval-154722732.html
7. Hart, J. (2024, September 27). Is nil a good thing or a bad thing? sports industry expert weighs in. Temple Now . https://news.temple.edu/news/2024-06-10/nil-good-thing-or-bad-thing-sports-industry-expert-weighs
8. Jones, S. (2025, May 16). House v. NCAA settlement complicated–and still not yet settled. University Times. https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/house-v-ncaa-settlement
9. Lombardi, E. (2024, October 3). Right now, nil is bad for college football. Medium. https://spec.hamilton.edu/right-now-nil-is-bad-for-college-football-809c8af4b9ec
10. Low, C. (2024, September 17). Tennessee increases ticket prices by 10% to help pay athletes. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41302985/tennessee-ups-season-ticket-prices-10-help-pay-athletes
11. McCool, J. (2023, November 9). Why name, image and likeness policies could ruin college sports. FSView. https://www.fsunews.com/story/opinion/2023/11/09/why-name-image-and-likeness-policies-could-ruin-college-sports/71508112007/
12. Moore, T. (2022, November 9). NCAA had no choice, but nil rule will damage college football and basketball. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/terencemoore/2021/07/06/the-ncaa-hadnt-a-choice-but-nil-rule-will-damage-college-football-and-basketball/
13. Munn, T. (2023). What is name, image, and likeness? explained by NCC News. NCC News. https://nccnews.newhouse.syr.edu/college-athletes-can-now-get-paid-but-how-name-image-and-likeness-explained-by-ncc-news/
14. Murphy, D. (2025, June 6). Judge OK’s $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement
15. Murphy, T. (2025, June 27). Arkansas Athletic Department makes staff cuts in preparation for “major changes” with revenue sharing. Whole Hog Sports. https://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2025/jun/27/arkansas-athletics-department-makes-staff-cuts-in-preparation-for-major-changes-with-revenue-sharing/
16. Peterson, D. (2025, June 20). Alabama athletic director comments on future of non-revenue tide teams. Saturday Down South. https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/news/college-football/alabama-athletic-director-comments-on-future-of-non-revenue-tide-teams/
17. Rumsey, D. (2025, June 23). Colleges raising student fees to pay for athlete revenue-sharing. Front Office Sports. https://frontofficesports.com/colleges-are-raising-student-fees-to-pay-for-athlete-revenue-sharing/
18. Schnable, A., & Thompson, S. (2025, July 1). House Settlement FAQ: What will college sports look like after landmark legal case?. Post-Gazette. https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pitt/2025/07/01/house-settlement-faq-ncaa-nil/stories/202506300051
19. Stankovich, C. (2025, March 19). College athletics at a crossroads: Nil, transfer portals, and eliminating non-revenue sports. The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich . https://drstankovich.com/college-athletics-at-a-crossroads-nil-transfer-portals-and-eliminating-non-revenue-sports/
20. Talty, J. (2025, June 7). The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows. CBSSports.com. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/the-biggest-winners-and-losers-from-house-v-ncaa-settlement-amateurism-is-dead-and-the-class-divide-grows/
21. Tremps, N. (2024, October 14). The memorandum heard around the college athletics world: Why student-athletes in non-revenue-generating sports should not enjoy the status of “employee” under the NLRA. Wake Forest Law Review. https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2024/04/the-memorandum-heard-around-the-college-athletics-world-why-student-athletes-in-non-revenue-generating-sports-should-not-enjoy-the-status-of-employee-under-the-nlra/
1Full Professor, Human Sciences Department, Institut Superieur de Sport et de l’Education Physique, University of Mannouba, Tunisia
Editor’s Note: This article uses the pseudonym Nm.Wr.Qs. The Sport Journal has discussed this with the author. The acronym represents a school in North America, and The Sport Journal has confirmed that the school and district exist. This note serves to assure readers that reasonable steps have been taken to confirm the legitimacy of the content presented.
Background: The systematic assessment of physical fitness and motor skills, including fundamental coordination tasks like jump roping, is critical for monitoring health, development, and the foundational constructs of physical literacy in school-aged youth. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of fitness data across eight grade cohorts (Pre-K to Grade 8) to identify developmental and gender-related trends, with a specific focus on the diagnostic value of a 30-second jump rope test as a measure of coordination. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on anonymized fitness test records from 146 students. Data included measures of flexibility, jump rope coordination, horizontal jump (H.J.), vertical jump (V.J.), 30-meter sprint, medicine ball throw (MB6), weight, and height. Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD), independent samples t-tests, and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests were used to analyze gender and grade-level differences. Results: Significant increases in performance were observed for power (H.J., V.J., MB6) and speed (30m) from early to later grades. Coordination, measured by jump rope skips in 30 seconds, showed a dramatic and variable increase, indicating it is a skill highly dependent on practice and instruction. Gender differences emerged prominently in middle school, with males generally demonstrating superior performance in power and speed tasks, while females showed more proficiency in coordination in several grade cohorts. Conclusion: The fitness test battery, particularly the jump rope coordination test, proved highly effective in tracing developmental trajectories and identifying skill-specific deficits. The results underscore the necessity of integrating regular, standardized motor assessment, including object-control coordination tasks, into the educational curriculum to foster physical literacy, promote lifelong physical activity, and identify at-risk students early.
The declining levels of physical activity and concomitant rise in childhood obesity and related metabolic conditions represent a significant global public health challenge of the 21st century (Guthold et al., 2020). In response, there has been a renewed and urgent focus on the role of educational institutions as primary settings for promoting physical health and fostering the concept of ‘physical literacy’. Physical literacy is holistically defined as motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life (Whitehead, 2019). Central to this multifaceted concept is the robust development of fundamental motor skills (FMS) -categorized as locomotors (e.g., running, jumping) and object-control (e.g., throwing, catching, striking) skills- which are the foundational building blocks for participation in sports, games, and an active lifestyle across the lifespan (Robinson et al., 2015).
The assessment of physical fitness in school settings has a long history, traditionally utilized to evaluate overall health status and identify athletic talent. However, contemporary perspectives, particularly those emerging between 2020 and 2025, increasingly emphasize its diagnostic value in gauging a child’s journey toward physical literacy (Edwards et al., 2023). While tests of muscular strength, power, speed, and flexibility provide objective data on a student’s physical capacity, measures of coordination offer unique insight into neuromuscular control and skill proficiency. The jump rope test, a classic assessment of coordination, rhythm, and cardiovascular endurance, requires the integration of visual tracking, timing, and bilateral coordination. Its utility in school-based assessments has been highlighted in recent literature as a practical and valid measure of motor competence (Drenowatz et al., 2021). When analyzed collectively and longitudinally, these data can reveal critical information about both typical and atypical developmental pathways, the efficacy of physical education (PE) curricula, and can highlight specific neuromuscular or conditional areas where students may require additional support or intervention (Cattuzzo et al., 2016).
Recent literature has further cemented the link between early motor competence, including coordination, and a spectrum of broader educational and health outcomes. Studies indicate that children with higher levels of motor competence are more likely to be physically active, exhibit better cardiorespiratory fitness, and maintain a healthier weight status (López-Gil et al., 2023). Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests a positive correlation between physical fitness components -particularly executive function- and cognitive performance, academic achievement, and psychosocial well-being in youth (Donnelly et al., 2024). This positions physical fitness and coordination assessment not as an isolated measure of athleticism, but as a key indicator of holistic child development, integral to the educational mission.
Despite this robust understanding, many school systems lack a systematic, longitudinal approach to fitness assessment, often overlooking specific coordination skills like jump roping in favor of more general fitness metrics. Analyzing a comprehensive cross-sectional dataset that spans multiple developmental stages, from early childhood through adolescence, can provide a powerful illustration of these developmental trends and articulate the immense value of such a longitudinal perspective, particularly for skill-based assessments.
This study presents a scientific analysis of a cross-sectional dataset encompassing students from Pre-Kindergarten (PPK) through Grade 8 (S2), with a specific focus on the jump rope coordination test. The primary aims are:
To describe and quantify the physical fitness and motor competency levels, with a detailed analysis of jump rope proficiency, across different school grades.
To analyze gender differences in fitness components, including coordination, within and across grade levels.
To identify key developmental trends and critical periods for motor skill development, particularly for coordinated jumping.
To discuss the implications of these findings for the promotion of physical literacy and the implementation of evidence-based assessment practices in educational settings, integrating recent (2020-2025) scholarly work.
METHODS
Research Design and Data Source
This study employed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of existing anonymized physical fitness test records. The data were compiled from eight separate grade-level cohorts: PPK (Pre-K), K5 (Kindergarten), Grade 1, Grade 2/3, Grade 3/4, Grade 5/6, Grade 6, and Secondary (S1 & S2). The combined dataset included records for 146 students at Nm.Wr.Qs.
Participants
The sample consisted of 146 children and adolescents. A breakdown of the sample by grade and gender is presented in Table 1. Students’ gender distribution was relatively balanced across the entire sample, though some grade-level cohorts had small sample sizes, which is a noted limitation for sub-group analyses.
Grade Cohort
Male (n)
Female (n)
Total (n)
PPK
6
2
8
K5
9
5
14
Grade 1
7
5
12
Grade 2/3
5
6
11
Grade ¾
7
10
17
Grade 5/6
5
8
13
Grade 6
5
11
16
Secondary (S1/S2)
15
13
28
Total
59
60
119
Table 1: Sample Size and Gender Distribution by Grade Cohort
*Note: Gender was not reported for 27 participants in the original S2 dataset; these were excluded from gender-specific analyses, hence the total for this table is 119.*
Measures and Variables
The following fitness components were assessed using standardized field tests, as recorded in the original data tables:
Flexibility (Flex.): Measured in centimeters using a sit-and-reach test. Positive values indicate reach beyond the toes.
Coordination (Coor.): Number of successful jump rope skips in a 30-second interval.
Lower-Body Power (Horizontal Jump – H.J.): Standing broad jump distance measured in centimeters.
Lower-Body Power (Vertical Jump – V.J.): Vertical jump height measured in centimeters.
Speed (30m): Time to sprint 30 meters, measured in seconds. All times were converted to seconds (e.g., 8″ 36 became 8.36 seconds).
Upper-Body Power (MB6 Lb.): Distance thrown for a 6-pound medicine ball, measured in centimeters.
Anthropometrics: Body weight (in pounds) and height (in centimeters). These were used to calculate Body Mass Index (BMI).
Data Analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29). Data from the original tables were cleaned and standardized. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for all variables by grade and gender. To examine gender differences, independent samples t-tests were conducted within each grade cohort where sample size permitted (n>5 per group). A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differences in mean performance across grade levels for each fitness variable. Where the ANOVA was significant (p < .05), Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test was applied to identify which specific grade levels differed from one another. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d for t-tests (small: d=0.2, medium: d=0.5, large: d=0.8) and eta-squared (η²) for ANOVA (small: 0.01, medium: 0.06, large: 0.14). The alpha level for statistical significance was set at p < .05.
RESULTS
The results are presented in four sections: an overview of developmental trends across grades, a detailed analysis of gender differences, an examination of body composition, and a focused analysis of jump rope coordination.
Developmental Trends Across Grade Levels
A clear and statistically significant developmental trend was observed for all performance-based measures. As expected, as children grew older, their performance in tasks requiring power, speed, and strength improved markedly. Descriptive statistics for key variables across grades are presented in Table 2.
Grade
n
H.J. (cm) M (SD)
V.J. (cm) M (SD)
30m (s) M (SD)
MB6 (cm) M (SD)
Flex. (cm) M (SD)
Coor. (Jumps) M (SD)
PPK
8
89.4 (8.5)
9.0 (2.1)
8.76 (1.45)
93.8 (18.9)
+5.5 (4.8)
1.0 (1.6)
K5
14
103.9 (13.7)
12.6 (3.5)
7.01 (0.76)
108.6 (18.1)
+5.8 (4.1)
0.2 (0.4)
Gr 1
12
125.8 (15.2)
11.0 (3.1)
6.50 (0.83)
136.8 (16.9)
+4.8 (4.9)
9.3 (7.5)
Gr 2/3
11
124.1 (21.2)
16.7 (4.9)
6.22 (0.95)
166.4 (37.1)
+3.6 (8.6)
16.3 (7.8)
Gr 3/4
17
141.2 (25.8)
17.9 (5.1)
6.28 (0.75)
228.5 (40.8)
–4.4 (8.2)
21.5 (10.2)
Gr 5/6
13
141.2 (22.7)
16.5 (5.3)
6.05 (0.62)
218.1 (38.4)
+2.8 (7.8)
67.2 (48.1)
Gr 6
16
162.8 (16.3)
21.9 (5.1)
5.62 (0.47)
289.7 (65.8)
+1.9 (8.5)
27.6 (11.2)
Secondary
28
181.8 (29.1)
25.9 (8.8)
5.66 (0.84)
372.9 (78.9)
–1.9 (11.3)
30.5 (12.8)
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics (Mean and Standard Deviation) for Key Fitness Variables by Grade Level
One-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects for grade level on all performance variables: H.J. (F(7, 111) = 32.15, p < .001, η² = 0.67), V.J. (F(7, 111) = 21.44, p < .001, η² = 0.58), 30m sprint (F(7, 111) = 16.02, p < .001, η² = 0.51), and MB6 throw (F(7, 111) = 71.89, p < .001, η² = 0.82). Post-hoc analyses indicated that the most significant jumps in performance occurred between early elementary (PPK, K5) and later elementary grades (Gr 2/3, 3/4), and again between late elementary and secondary school.
Figure 1. Mean Horizontal Jump Distance by Grade Level
For upper-body power (MB6), the progression was even more dramatic, increasing by nearly 400% from the PPK to the Secondary cohort, highlighting the significant development of muscular strength through adolescence, particularly in males.
Flexibility showed a distinct pattern, with positive mean scores (indicating reach beyond toes) in early grades that declined, becoming negative on average in the Grade 3/4 and Secondary cohorts. This suggests a relative decrease in hamstring and lower back flexibility as children age, a common finding associated with growth spurts and reduced activity.
The Development of Jump Rope Coordination
The jump rope coordination scores presented a unique and highly informative non-linear trend (F(7, 111) = 15.89, p < .001, η² = 0.50). Performance was minimal in PPK (M=1.0, SD=1.6) and K5 (M=0.2, SD=0.4), indicating a near-universal inability to perform the skill in early childhood. A significant jump occurred in Grade 1 (M=9.3, SD=7.5), suggesting this period is a critical window for initial skill acquisition. Scores then showed a steady, significant increase through Grade 3/4 (M=21.5, SD=10.2).
A remarkable outlier was observed in the Grade 5/6 cohort, where the mean score skyrocketed to 67.2 jumps, albeit with an enormous standard deviation (SD=48.1). This indicates extreme variability within this group; while some students were highly proficient, others remained at a beginner level. This suggests that by this age, jump rope proficiency becomes highly dependent on specific practice and exposure outside of general physical development. Scores then consolidated in Grade 6 (M=27.6, SD=11.2) and Secondary (M=30.5, SD=12.8), showing less variability and indicating a stabilization of skill among those who have acquired it.
Gender Differences in Physical Performance
Gender differences were minimal in the earliest grades (PPK, K5) but became increasingly pronounced throughout elementary and middle school. Detailed comparisons for selected cohorts are presented in Table 3.
Grade & Variable
Males M (SD)
Females M (SD)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Grade 3/4 (n=7 / n=10)
H.J. (cm)
151.4 (33.9)
133.9 (17.1)
0.17
0.66
MB6 (cm)
247.1 (40.1)
215.6 (37.2)
0.10
0.81
Coordination (Jumps)
18.1 (8.2)
23.9 (10.9)
0.23
-0.60
Flexibility (cm)
-11.0 (6.5)
+0.3 (6.9)
0.002
-1.69
Grade 6 (n=5 / n=11)
H.J. (cm)
170.0 (8.9)
159.5 (17.8)
0.25
0.75
MB6 (cm)
290.0 (67.1)
289.5 (68.3)
0.99
0.01
Coordination (Jumps)
31.2 (15.5)
26.5 (9.7)
0.49
0.36
Secondary (n=15 / n=13)
H.J. (cm)
194.7 (26.3)
167.1 (23.8)
0.005
1.11
30m (s)
5.38 (0.72)
5.98 (0.83)
0.04
-0.78
MB6 (cm)
422.7 (71.5)
316.9 (38.7)
<0.001
1.86
Coordination (Jumps)
28.7 (13.1)
32.5 (12.4)
0.42
-0.30
Table 3: Gender Comparisons (Mean, SD, and p-value) for Selected Grade Cohorts
As shown in Table 3, by the secondary school level, males significantly outperformed females in the Horizontal Jump (p = .005, d = 1.11), the 30m Sprint (p = .04, d = -0.78), and the Medicine Ball Throw (p < .001, d = 1.86), representing medium to very large effect sizes. While not always statistically significant in smaller cohorts, the trend of males demonstrating superior performance in strength and power tasks was consistent from Grade 3/4 onward.
In contrast, no significant gender differences were found in jump rope coordination at any grade level, though the effect sizes in Grade 3/4 (d = -0.60) and Secondary (d = -0.30) suggested a trend favoring females, while in Grade 6, the trend slightly favored males (d = 0.36). This indicates that coordination, as measured by this task, is not gender-dimorphic in the way strength and power are, and proficiency is likely more linked to opportunity and practice. Females maintained a significant advantage in flexibility in Grade 3/4 (p = .002, d = -1.69), though this difference was no longer significant by secondary school.
Body Composition Trends
Height and weight increased predictably with age. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated and converted to kg/m² for analysis. Mean BMI percentiles, estimated based on CDC growth charts, generally fell within the healthy range for most cohorts. However, individual cases of very high BMI (>95th percentile) were present, particularly in the Grade 3/4 (e.g., Participant ZMP: BMI ~31) and Grade 6 (e.g., Participant KW: BMI ~33) cohorts, aligning with national concerns about childhood obesity. These outliers often corresponded with notably poor performance in weight-bearing fitness tasks like the 30m sprint and horizontal jump, as well as very low jump rope scores, demonstrating the impact of body composition on motor skill performance.
DISCUSSION
This cross-sectional analysis provides a compelling snapshot of the physical development of students from early childhood through late adolescence, with particular insight into the development of coordination through jump roping. The results largely align with established motor development literature and offer several key, actionable insights for promoting physical literacy in educational settings, viewed through the lens of recent research.
The Jump Rope as a Diagnostic Tool for Physical Literacy
The jump rope coordination data provide perhaps the most vivid illustration of the difference between physical growth and skill acquisition. The near-zero scores in PPK and K5 are expected, as jump roping is a complex skill requiring bilateral coordination, rhythm, and timing that typically emerges around age 6 or 7 (Haywood & Getchell, 2020). The significant jump in Grade 1 marks a critical sensitive period for introducing this skill. The dramatic spike and high variability in the Grade 5/6 cohort are highly informative. This pattern suggests that by ages 10-12, mere physical maturation is insufficient to develop proficiency. Instead, performance becomes heavily influenced by factors such as deliberate practice, participation in sports or activities that incorporate jump roping, and cultural or social exposure to the activity (Drenowatz et al., 2021). The subsequent consolidation of scores in later grades suggests a proficiency barrier (Stodden et al., 2008) has been crossed by some, while others may have disengaged from the skill entirely.
This has direct implications for physical literacy. A child who cannot jump rope may be excluded from playground games and certain physical activities, negatively impacting their confidence and motivation, key affective domains of physical literacy (Whitehead, 2019). Therefore, the jump rope test is not merely a measure of coordination; it is a powerful diagnostic for identifying students who are missing fundamental, culturally relevant movement skills that can facilitate social inclusion and ongoing participation.
Interpreting Broader Developmental Trajectories
The observed, statistically significant improvements in power, speed, and strength are consistent with normal physiological growth and maturation (Malina et al., 2004). The steep improvements in lower-body power (H.J., V.J.) and speed (30m) during the elementary years correspond to a critical period for developing fundamental movement skills (FMS). As Robinson et al. (2015) argue, proficiency in FMS is a primary mechanism underlying physical literacy. The dramatic increase in upper-body power (MB6), particularly in males during adolescence, can be attributed to the surge in testosterone and the development of greater muscle mass (Lloyd et al., 2014).
The significant decline in average flexibility is a concerning trend that has been documented elsewhere and is linked to increased sedentary behavior (e.g., screen time) and a lack of targeted stretching (Schranz et al., 2020). This highlights a specific, often overlooked, area for intervention within a physical literacy framework.
Addressing the Emergent Gender Gap and Skill Equity
The emergence of a significant gender gap in adolescence in strength and power tasks with large effect sizes is a well-established phenomenon (Thomas et al., 2022). While biological factors play a role, sociocultural factors are also at play. Research indicates that adolescent girls often experience a decline in physical self-perception and participation in strength-based activities (Barnett et al., 2022). Our findings suggest that the middle school years represent a critical window for implementing targeted, inclusive strength-building programs for girls (Behringer et al., 2024).
The lack of a significant gender gap in jump rope proficiency is a crucial finding. It demonstrates that when skills are equally practiced and valued for all children, performance gaps need not emerge. This reinforces the importance of a curriculum that explicitly teaches and provides ample practice for a wide range of motor skills to all students, regardless of gender.
CONCLUSION
This comprehensive analysis of multi-grade fitness data vividly illustrates the dynamic nature of physical development throughout the school years. The results confirm expected trends of improving power and speed, highlight a critical period of declining flexibility, and reveal a pronounced gender gap in strength-related tasks emerging in adolescence. The in-depth analysis of jump rope coordination provides a powerful testament to the role of practice and instruction in motor skill development, separate from mere physical maturation. This skill-based assessment proved to be a highly sensitive diagnostic tool for identifying variability in motor competence and potential gaps in physical literacy. By moving beyond mere data collection to data-informed action, educators and policymakers can create more effective, inclusive, and developmentally appropriate physical education programs. Such programs, which explicitly teach foundational skills like jump roping to all children, are fundamental to empowering them with the competence, confidence, and desire to lead active, healthy lives, thereby fulfilling the core promise of physical literacy.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study has several limitations. Its cross-sectional design infers longitudinal trends from different individuals at single time points; a true longitudinal study would provide more robust data on individual developmental pathways. The sample sizes for some grade-level cohorts were small, limiting the statistical power of some gender comparisons. Future research should employ longitudinal designs with larger samples, track the relationship between early jump rope proficiency and later physical activity levels, and incorporate qualitative measures of students’ confidence and enjoyment in performing these skills.
APPLICATIONS IN SPORT
The data strongly supports the integration of systematic fitness and skill assessment as a core component of a physical literacy-informed curriculum. As Edwards et al. (2023) argue, assessment should not be for grading but for guiding. The results of such tests can:
Identify Skill Deficits Early: The jump rope test can flag students in Grade 1 who are not acquiring fundamental coordination skills, allowing for early intervention.
Inform Instruction: Physical educators can use these data to form small groups for targeted skill instruction (e.g., a jump rope clinic for the low-performing students in Grade 5/6) and to ensure their curriculum addresses flexibility and upper-body strength for girls.
Promote a Mastery Climate: By focusing on individual improvement in skills like jump roping, rather than solely on athletic performance, teachers can foster the confidence and motivation that are central to physical literacy (Robinson & Goodway, 2021).
REFERENCES
Barnett, L. M., Webster, E. K., Hulteen, R. M., et al. (2022). Through the looking glass: A systematic review of longitudinal evidence, providing new insight for motor competence and health. Sports Medicine, 52 (4), 875–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01516-8
Behringer, M., Vom Heede, A., Matthews, M., & Mester, J. (2024). Effects of strength training in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 153 (1), e2023062512. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-062512
Cattuzzo, M. T., dos Santos Henrique, R., Ré, A. H. N., et al. (2016). Motor competence and health-related physical fitness in youth: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19 (2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.004
Donnelly, J. E., Hillman, C. H., Castelli, D., et al. (2024). Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: An update of the 2016 ISPAH International Consensus Statement. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2023.09.002
Drenowatz, C., Greier, K., Ruedl, G., & Kopp, M. (2021). Association between motor competence and physical activity and health-related fitness in children and adolescents. European Journal of Sport Science, 21 (10), 1450–1459. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1842512
Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Keegan, R. J., Morgan, K., & Jones, A. M. (2023). Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 53 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01761-5
Guthold, R., Stevens, G. A., Riley, L. M., & Bull, F. C. (2020). Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1.6 million participants. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4 (1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30323-2
Haywood, K. M., & Getchell, N. (2020). Life span motor development (7th ed.). Human Kinetics.
Lloyd, R. S., Faigenbaum, A. D., Stone, M. H., et al. (2014). Position statement on youth resistance training: The 2014 International Consensus. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48 (7), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092952
López-Gil, J. F., Brazo-Sayavera, J., & Tárraga-López, P. J. (2023). Associations between physical fitness and academic achievement in Spanish schoolchildren. European Journal of Pediatrics, 182 (2), 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-022-04748-6
Malina, R. M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O. (2004). Growth, maturation, and physical activity (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.
Robinson, L. E., & Goodway, J. D. (2021). Instructional climates in preschool children who are at-risk. Part I: Object-control skill development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 92 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.1712316
Robinson, L. E., Stodden, D. F., Barnett, L. M., et al. (2015). Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Medicine, 45 (9), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6
Schranz, N., Tomkinson, G., Olds, T., & Dannecker, L. (2020). What is the effect of resistance training on the strength, body composition and psychosocial status of overweight and obese children and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 50 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01238-y
Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., et al. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60 (2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582
Thomas, E., Bianco, A., Mancuso, E. P., et al. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and sedentary behavior in Italian children and adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (5), 2602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052602
Whitehead, M. (Ed.). (2019). Physical literacy across the world. Routledge.
The author holds an M.S. Exercise Science degree from West Chester University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from Drexel University.
Inner Excellence, by Jim Murphy, was published in 2020 but entered the broader public conversation several years later. During a nationally televised Wild Card game in January 2025, A.J. Brown of the Philadelphia Eagles was spotted reading the book on the sideline, a moment that drew widespread attention. His postgame praise helped propel the book to the number one spot on Amazon by the following morning.While Brown’s visibility expanded its audience, Murphy’s work ultimately stands on its own as a clear, accessible exploration of the mental habits that separate elite performers and extend beyond sport.
At its core, Inner Excellence challenges the idea that achievement alone creates a meaningful life, instead placing value on growth that begins internally through self-awareness and personal development rather than external validation. Murphy encourages readers to move away from chasing approval or outcomes and toward building a steadier foundation rooted in purpose and perspective. Central to this shift is his caution against ego, which he describes as one of the greatest obstacles people face. In Murphy’s view, excessive self-focus distorts perspective, limits growth, and distracts from long-term development.
That same mindset shapes how Murphy frames the book itself. He invites readers to approach Inner Excellence not as a destination to reach, but as an ongoing process rather than a final achievement. In doing so, he challenges conventional definitions of success, suggesting that exceptional leaders measure it through effort, growth, and a sense of purpose extending beyond oneself. This reframing feels relevant in a culture fixated on contracts, awards, and social media validation. Importantly, Murphy delivers these ideas without an authoritative tone, writing instead as a guide alongside the reader and inviting reflection rather than dictating conclusions. Although many examples draw from athletics and the language of sport, the lessons extend well beyond athletes, translating naturally to everyday life and professional pursuits through references to figures such as Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and J.K. Rowling.
Murphy draws on his background as a former member of the Chicago Cubs to illustrate how closely his sense of identity and self-worth became tied to performance. That dynamic may feel familiar to many readers and raises a natural question about how often personal worth becomes linked to results alone. I recognize that tendency in myself, particularly in the ways confidence and self-perception can become tethered to external outcomes.
Inner Excellence is organized into eleven chapters that explore a broad range of ideas, including performance, emotional control, presence, overcoming mental blocks, maintaining poise under pressure, and leadership. Across these chapters, Murphy also weaves in topics such as the subconscious, visualization, self-awareness, the difference between dreams and goals, and the development of courage. Among them, Chapter 3, “The Greatest Opponents You’ll Ever Face,” stood out most to me. In it, Murphy identifies three internal adversaries that undermine performance and growth: the Critic, the Monkey Mind, and the Trickster. The Critic delivers negative judgments, the Monkey Mind fuels relentless mental noise, and the Trickster fixates on past failures to reinforce self-doubt. What gives the chapter its weight for me is how it reflects my own experience, where progress is often limited less by external obstacles than by the internal narratives I carry.
Murphy brings further clarity to this idea by framing life as a series of choices between two paths: the path of freedom and the path of comfort. One requires risk, growth, and a willingness to confront fear, while the other favors safety and familiarity, often at the cost of long-term development. I am frequently drawn toward the option that offers less resistance, only to recognize how easily comfort can delay growth. In this way, Inner Excellence moves beyond athletic performance and becomes a personal challenge, prompting an honest reckoning with how rarely meaningful progress occurs without deliberate discomfort.
Inner Excellence is not a book meant to be rushed, and for some readers, myself included, it can feel overwhelming if approached too quickly. There is a great deal of material, but readers should not feel pressured to absorb or apply everything at once. Instead, the book benefits from a slower, more intentional pace, with chapters best read in smaller sections and revisited as needed. Murphy’s approach relies on reflection, lived experience, illustrative examples, and quotations rather than formal research or statistical validation, which may not appeal to readers who prefer strictly data-driven frameworks. That said, the book is intended as a practical resource rather than an academic text. Each chapter concludes with clearly defined “Key Points,” along with follow-up questions and activities that encourage application. In this way, Inner Excellence functions less as a book to be read straight through and, for me, more as a personal toolkit, one that invites readers to return to specific chapters and apply the lessons most relevant to their lives. The writing is clear, making the ideas easy to understand and apply in everyday settings.
Murphy draws a parallel between physical and mental training, emphasizing that mental development deserves the same consideration we give physical preparation. Inner Excellence offers not a finish line, but a framework meant to be revisited, applied, and lived over time. It reads less as a prescription for immediate change and more as an invitation to return, reflect, and apply its ideas with patience and intention, making it a book I would strongly recommend and one that at times feels akin to a personal form of therapy.
Purpose: The culture of National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Division I (DI) athletics can stimulate a culture that appears to “greedy” placing high demands on the time and energy of those working within the sport organization. These intense demands create the potential for experiences of work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict among sport professionals. We aimed to examine the overall experiences of work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict within the NCAA DI sport organization. Methods: We used an online cross-sectional survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) composed of demographics, measurement tools for work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. Each of the scales have strong internal consistency as reported by Cronbach’s alpha scores. The study was distributed to certified athletic trainers (AT), coaches, and sport performance coaches (SPC) working full-time in their position at an NCAA DI institution. Results: There was no significant difference in reported scores on the BWAS between athletic trainers and coaches (U = 3952.00, p = .160), and no significant difference was found between sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U = 5894.00, p = .879). A significant difference of burnout levels between athletic trainers and coaches was revealed (U = 3559.50, p = .017) andno significant difference discovered in the reported levels of burnout between athletic trainers and sport performance coaches (U = 5483.00, p = .313). There was no significant difference between athletic trainers and coaches for work-family conflict (U = 4483.00, p =.939), or sport performance sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U= 5576.50, p = .416). Conclusions: Our results indicate that work addiction and work-family conflict are experienced similarly across the sport organization. Athletic trainers were found to experience higher levels of burnout compared to coaches, but similar levels to sport performance coaches. Application in Sport: Implementing policies that address work and family strain coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches can face working in sport is important. Although overall burnout was low, athletic trainers were at greater risk; thus addressing the factors causing them to have greater levels of burnout than other 2 stakeholder groups is important.
Key Words: stress, role strain, workplace dynamics, organization conflict
INTRODUCTION
Working within a collegiate sport organization places high demands on an individual, regardless of the role they play within that organization. The demands of the individual working in sport can include long working hours (+40 hours a week) that extend into nights and weekends (Laskowski & Ebben, 2016; Mazerolle et al., 2011; Scriber & Alderman, 2005; Singe et al., 2023b). Working hours are often accompanied by the need to be physically present, limiting flexibility and autonomy over work scheduling (Laskowski & Ebben, 2016; Mazerolle et al., 2011; Scriber & Alderman, 2005; Singe et al., 2023b). Organizational culture represents the underlying beliefs, values, and assumptions within an organization (Schein, 2010). The culture within sport organization has been described as one that is influenced by commercialization which has led to pressures to win at all costs due to the financial implications (Pope & Pope, 2014). Coaches, athletic trainers, and others working in sport organizations can feel the pressures associated with this culture, which can increase their stress, and influence their perceptions of work saliency, work-family conflict, and burnout.
Work addiction is a preoccupation with work (Andreassen, 2014; Robinson, 1999); and can be conceptualized as an individual who prioritizes their work over other responsibilities, which can lead to work-family conflict (Eason et al., 2022). Working in sport may have an influence on experiences of work addiction, particularly if the expectations around success and commitment hinge on prioritizing work. Coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches all contribute to the mission of the sport organization yet have very different and unique roles. Thus, the level of work addiction each of these individuals working in sport may demonstrate could vary, as well as the influence it may have on burnout and work-family. Research has examined experiences of burnout and work-family conflict among coaches and athletic trainers, independently, but not simultaneously (Graham & Smith, 2021; Singe et al., 2022). Organizational factors unique to sport are perhaps keys to understanding why burnout and work-family conflict occur, and better understanding if the role assumed in the sport organization can contribute.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Working Within the Sport Organization
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the governing body that administers intercollegiate athletics in the United States. The NCAA is subdivided into three different divisions to create a fair playing field where teams are competing with schools at a similar level. Many factors separate the three subdivisions including media attention, airtime, and of course resources centered around finances and scholarship (Overview, n.d.). The NCAA Division I (DI) schools typically house the largest student bodies and possess the greatest number of athletic scholarship opportunities largely attributed to their large athletic budgets. Working within the NCAA DI setting comes with increased pressures and stress (Singe et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2019) , particularly for coaches as they must produce through wins as well as retain students in their programs (Norris et al., 2017; Singe et al., 2022). The NCAA DI programs have large budgets which has the potential to play a significant role in the pressures and stress faced by those who are employed in the division.
At the NCAA Division II (DII) level student-athletes are offered scholarships to participate, but the number per sport is much less than the NCAA DI setting (Our Division II Story, n.d.).The expectations of those student-athletes participating at this level are somewhat less than the NCAA DI level, as time demands are slightly less (Our Division II Story, n.d.). The overall philosophy of the NCAA DII setting is one about balance, in which student-athletes are pushed to excel in their sport, but also in the classroom and campus community (Our Division II story, n.d.).
The NCAA Division III (DIII) level does not award scholarships generated from athletic participation (Our Three Divisions, n.d.), and has been described as a setting that encourages student first, and athlete second. Since there are no athletic scholarships offered, the budgets within these programs are much less than the other two divisions. The demands and expectations within the NCAA DIII setting are much less than and considered to be the most well-balanced collegiate experience (Our Division III Story, n.d.).
Working in the intercollegiate setting has been described as high-pressure, demanding, and one that can increase feelings of stress. Work addiction, burnout, and challenges with work-life balance have been found to occur for those working in intercollegiate sport, including coaches, athletic administrators, sports information specialists, and athletic trainers (Dixon & Bruening, 2005; Eason et al., 2022; Graham & Smith, 2022; Hatfield & Johnson, 2012). Causative factors linked to these challenges of working in sport include culture expectations within the workplace, time demands, inflexible work schedules, travel, and role incongruence. Sport is founded on the premise of teamwork and each member of the team has a critical role to support team success. Coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches are key members within the intercollegiate setting with unique roles supporting the student-athlete. Each has different roles, responsibilities, and expectations, and evidence that suggests those working in the intercollegiate setting are challenged to push beyond their work saliency leaving them vulnerable to work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict.
Work Addiction and Sport
Workaholism is conceptualized as something that occurs when a person becomes completely engulfed in their work, investing their time and energy in their work life (McMillan et al., 2003). Those who display characteristics of a workaholic are prone to experiences of increased stress, burnout, and work-family conflict (Clark et al., 2016; Eason et al., 2022). One’s career has been associated with higher experiences of workaholism, such as sport as the culture is one of sacrifice, expectations to put in long work hours, and choosing work over one’s personal life (Dixon & Bruening, 2005; Graham & Dixon, 2014). Workaholics have a high involvement in their work (i.e. working long hours), have a hard time disengaging from work, and feel compelled or driven to work (McMillan et al., 2003). Working harder than perhaps their job requires workaholics will then start neglecting their lives outside of their jobs (Schaufeli et al., 2008).
Coaches, athletic trainers, and sport performance coaches all must work long hours; in fact, athletic trainers have reported working 60+ hour work weeks, extending into nights and weekends (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Singe et al., 2023b; Snarr & Beasley, 2022). These long working hours reported by individuals working in sport have been attributed to burnout and work-family conflict (Eason et al., 2022), and recently have been suggested to be perhaps driven by work addiction ( Eason et al., 2022) or associated with it (Taylor et al., 2019). Work addiction can be explained as an individual factor that can be attributed to one’s experiences of work-family conflict or burnout, and job demands such as long hours can be an organizational construct that influences work-family conflict or burnout (Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020; Eason et al., 2022). What is unknown is the aspects such as the navigation of long working hours and personal attributes of a coach, athletic trainer, or sport performance coach necessary to be successful members working in intercollegiate athletics.
Work addiction has seven core components or symptoms: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse, and problems. These symptoms have been developed into a scale, the Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS) as outlined by Andreassen et al. (2014) salience (the activity dominates thinking and behavior), tolerance (increasing amounts of the activity are required to achieve initial effects), mood modification (the activity modifies/improves mood), relapse (tendency for reversion to earlier patterns of the activity after abstinence of control), withdrawal (occurrence of unpleasant feelings when the activity if discontinued or suddenly reduced), conflict (the activity comes into conflict with personal life, needs, and relationships), and problems (caused by being greatly engaged in the activity).
Experiences of Burnout in Athletics
Burnout is one of the many identified stressors of those working in athletics largely attributed to the long working hours, high workloads, and demands (Singe et al., 2023b). Burnout has been defined as the degree of physical and psychological fatigue experienced by a person that can be attributed to personal, work, or client-related stress (Cairns et al., 2023; Kristensen et al., 2005). Organizational factors have been identified in being the greatest influence over experiences of burnout (Barrett et al., 2016). Individual factors such as personality have also been observed to influence burnout as well. Burnout has been positively associated with role strain, neuroticism, and work-family conflict (Barrett et al., 2016; Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020). The demanding environment of athletics involves high emotional involvement, stress, responsibility, and time restraints (Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020; Mazerolle et al., 2008). Furthermore, the organization commonly inadequately compensates their employees while still expecting them to work long hours with inadequate numbers of staff, a lack of control over scheduling, and limited time off (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Cayton & Valovich McLeod, 2020). The combination of these factors places those working within the sport organization at an increased risk of experiencing burnout. Positive relationships have been observed between burnout, work-family conflict, and intention to leave, while negative relationships have been observed with job and life satisfaction for those experiencing burnout (Mazerolle et al., 2008).
Due to the predispositions those working in sport face, burnout has been widely studied in sport. Those working in sports have been shown to experience moderate levels of burnout (Cairns et al., 2023; Singe et al., 2023a; Snarr & Beasley, 2022). However, there have been slight fluctuations in reported levels of burnout since the pandemic with levels of burnout lessening (Cairns et al., 2023). Sport professionals also tend to report high levels of personal and work-related burnout (Singe et al., 2023a; Taylor et al., 2019). Levels of personal burnout have a positive relationship with working hours and a negative relationship with hours of sleep (Singe et al., 2023a). Men and women report similar levels of burnout, suggesting that gender is not a significant predictor of experiences of burnout (Cairns et al., 2023). Incorporating coping strategies such as social support, continuing education, and self-care in addition to organizational support have all been associated with decreased levels of burnout in sport (Singe et al., 2023a; Snarr & Beasley, 2022).
Work-family Conflict
Work-family conflict defined as a form of inter-role conflict. The conflict occurs when the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the job interfere with performing family-related responsibilities (Netemeyer et al., 1996). With the high demands concerning time and presence associated with working in sport, work-family conflict is a prominent area of interest within the sport organization. Work-family conflict has been framed as a complex construct that is explained by individual, organizational/structural, and socio-cultural factors (Dixon & Bruening, 2005). This integrated approach to the exploration of work-family conflict within sport is increasingly important as studies have shown the presence of work-family conflict across the sport organization regardless of factors such as job, age, sex, or family/marital status. (Bruening & Dixon, 2007; Mazerolle et al., 2008) .
While work-family conflict is experienced regardless of demographic factors, there have been increased levels of work-family conflict associated with marital and parental statuses. Those who are married with children are more likely to experience greater levels of work-family conflict (Singe et al., 2022). Setting has also been seen to play a role in the experiences of work-family conflict with those working in collegiate athletics reporting higher levels than those in the secondary setting (Mazerolle et al., 2015). Experiences of work-family conflict among those working in the sport organization have also been seen to be above average (Mazerolle et al., 2015). Previous research has also suggested that working within the NCAA DI setting increases experiences of work-family conflict (Singe et al., 2022). This is supported by findings that those working in the NCAA DI setting report greater levels of work-family conflict compared to those working in the NCAA DIII setting which could likely be attributed to the increased demand of the DI setting (Singe et al., 2022). Beyond intense professional demands, long working hours, lack of control over work schedules, and unbalanced workloads were all also related to increased conflict at the DI level (Mazerolle et al., 2011). Within the sport organization, four types of conflict have been found attributing to work-family conflict: time, energy, attention, and emotional spillover (Graham & Smith, 2022). However, several organizational and personal strategies help establish work-family balance. As an organization, the implementation of staffing policies and the creation of a supportive work environment help in reducing experiences of work-family conflict (Mazerolle et al., 2011). Individual management strategies can be broken down into personal factors and individual strategies on the professional level. Individual strategies involve the incorporation of teamwork, boundary setting, prioritization, and integration of family with work (Mazerolle et al., 2011). Personal factors focus greatly on the separation and work and life as well as the establishment of a support network (Mazerolle et al., 2011).
Purpose
Despite the growing body of research dedicated to the examination of these constructs within the sport organization, there remains a need for a better understanding of the varied experiences held by different stakeholders within the organization. Additionally, the exploration of work-addiction within the sport organization is novel. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine overall experiences of burnout, work addiction, and work-family conflict within sport organizations. Additionally, this study seeks to compare these experiences among the various stakeholders within the sport organization. Given this information, we hypothesized the following:
H1a– Coaches will report greater levels of work addiction compared to athletic trainers.
H2b– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of work addiction compared to sport performance coaches.
H2a– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of burnout compared to coaches.
H2b– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of burnout compared to sport performance coaches.
H3a– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of work-family conflict compared to coaches.
H3b– Athletic trainers will report greater levels of work-family conflict compared to sport performance coaches.
H4a– Work addiction and work-family conflict will have a positive relationship.
H4b– Work addition and burnout will have a positive relationship.
METHODS
Study design
The study design is a web-based cross-sectional study (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Data was collected using a self-reported online questionnaire evaluating sleep, self-care, work-family conflict, work addiction, and burnout among NCAA Division I collegiate athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches. Approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board (IRB) prior to data collection, which occurred over a four-week period in the Fall of 2023.
Procedures
Prior to survey distribution, we completed a face validity process; 3 athletic trainers took the survey for the purposes of the process. No changes were made to the survey based on the face validity feedback. Two email reminders were sent at the 1-week and 3-week marks, reminding participants to complete the survey.
Participants
The target population for the current study were NCAA Division I (DI) athletic trainers, sport performance coaches, and coaches. A list of all NCAA DI institutions was created using the NCSA college recruiting website (n = 363). From the list of institutions offering NCAA DI athletics programs, the individual athletics websites were accessed to create a list of emails for those individuals identified as an athletic trainer, sport performance coach, or a head or assistant coach. We were able to identify 13,412 email addresses across the 3 stakeholder groups. Our power analysis indicated a requirement of 258 respondents, which resulted in 86 participants from each stakeholder (group). Strata randomization was utilized since we did not have a complete list of all possible participants, thus phases of distribution were utilized and represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Recruitment and Data Screening
Sample
A total of 153 athletic trainers (51.5%), 59 coaches (19.9%), and 78 sports performance coaches (26.3%) completed this research study. Of the participants, 166 were female (55.9%), 121 male (40.7%), and 2 preferred not to answer (0.7%). The mean age of the participants in this study was 33 ± 9, with ages ranging from 22 – 70 years. Participants on average had 10 ± 9 years of experience, with an average of 5 ± 6 years working at their current institution. On average, participants worked 55 ± 16 hours per week. Complete demographic data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Participant Demographics
Demographic
Score
Gender, n (%)
Male
121 (40.7)
Female
166 (55.9)
Prefer not to answer
2 (0.7)
Highest level of education, n (%)
Bachelor’s Degree
48 (16.2)
Master’s Degree
237 (79.8)
Doctorate
5 (1.7)
Primary Role, n (%)
Head Coach
18 (6.1)
Associate Coach
9 (3.0)
Assistant Coach
34 (11.4)
Head Athletic Trainer
15 (5.1)
Associate Athletic Trainer
37 (12.5)
Staff/Assistant Athletic Trainer
99 (33.3)
Director, Sport Performance (Conditioning)
23 (7.7)
Strength and Conditioning Coach
51 (17.2)
Marital status, n (%)
Single
137 (46.1)
Cohabitating
28 (9.4)
Married
117 (39.4)
Separated
2 (0.7)
Divorced
3 (0.7)
Widowed
1 (0.3)
Engaged
3 (1.0)
Spouse employment status n (%)
Employed, full-time
210 (70.7)
Employed, part-time
18 (6.1)
Does not work/stay at home
25 (8.4)
Children, n (%)
0
202 (70.0)
Currently Pregnant
8 (2.7)
1
21 (7.1)
2
33 (11.1)
3+
27 (8.8)
Group Identity, n (%)
Single Female
112 (37.7)
Single Male
33 (11.1)
Married Female
43 (14.5)
Married Male
80 (26.9)
This does not apply to me
20 (6.7)
Instrumentation
The online survey was hosted in Qualtrics and included 36-items not including the demographic questions. Participants completed 13 demographic questions, prior to the 3 scales (i.e. Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), Bergen Work Addiction Scale, and Work-Family Conflict), which were not altered as they are valid instruments.
Burnout. Burnout was measured using the CBI as a tool that demonstrates reliability (α=.85-.87) and had been used previously to measure burnout among athletic trainers (α=.88) (Kristensen et al., 2005; Naugle et al., 2013). The scale included 3 subscales: personal (n=6-items), work-related (n=7-items), and client-based burnout (n=6-items). Participants use a 5-point Likert scale 0 (never/almost never/low degree), 25 (seldom/low degree), 50 (somewhat or sometimes), 75 (often/high degree), and 100 (always/high degree). The scale is summed for an overall burnout score, with a higher score indicating a higher level of burnout (0 is low, 100 is severe).
Work addiction. The Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS) was used to measure work addiction (α=.78) among our sample. The scale has 7-items, each representing an aspect, or symptom of work addiction (salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse, and problems – Table 6). The 7-items are assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, 1 (never) to 5 (always). The responses are summed (range 7 to 35), and a score of 4 (often) or 5 (always) on 4 of 7 items indicates a high risk for work addiction.
Work-family conflict. Work-family conflict scale was assessed using the scale previously validated by Netemeyer et al. (α=.90). The 10-item scale evaluates the bi-directional nature of the construct; 5-items for work-family conflict (WFC) and 5-items for family-work conflict (FWC). Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample questions include: “WFC®The demands of my job interfere with my home and family life,” and “FWC®The things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands of my job.”
Data analyses
The data collected via Qualtrics was transferred to Excel by Microsoft Corporation. Following the completion of data collection, it underwent a filtration process to remove incomplete responses, defined as those failing to complete the required scales or the survey itself as per the scale validation. Subsequently, the filtered data was imported into SPSS, version, etc., for statistical analysis. Demographic information such as age, gender, and marital status were obtained through specific questions, and these demographic variables were subjected to descriptive and frequency analyses. The outcomes are presented as mean and standard deviation or frequency. Validated scales were assessed using means due to the non-parametric nature of the data analysis at hand, and Cohens d is reported for effect size.
RESULTS
Participant Demographics
Participants were 51.5% athletic trainers (n = 153), 19.9% were coaches (n=59), and 26.3% were sports performance coaches (n = 78). The average age of the participants was 33 ± 9 and they had been working in their respective roles for an average of 11± 9. They self-reported working 55 ± 17 hours per week (at the time of data collection).
Stakeholders and Work-Addiction
The mean score on the BWAS across all three stakeholder groups was 20.71 ± 4.57. Table 2 represents the mean scores on the BWAS, reported by each stakeholder group. Athletic trainers reported a score of 20.84 ± 4.51, whereas coaches reported a mean score of 20.05 ± 4.85. There was no significant difference in reported scores on the BWAS between athletic trainers and coaches (U = 3952.00, p = .160, d= 0.11). Additionally, sport performance coaches reported a mean score of 20.96 ± 4.50, and no significant difference was found between sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U = 5894.00, p = .879, d= -0.010). Furthermore, across all three stakeholders, 80 were found to be workaholics while 210 (38%) were found not to be work addicted. Among athletic trainers, 45 of the 153 (29%) respondents were found to be workaholics. Of coaches, 12 of the 59 (20%) respondents were found to be workaholics. Among sport performance coaches, 23 of 78 (29%) respondents were found to be workaholics.
Stakeholders and Burnout
Across all three stakeholder groups, participants reported low levels (46.27 ± 16.04) on the CBI, additionally mean scores of 54.9 5 ± 17.24 on the personal-related subscale, 49.99 ± 18.87 on the work-related subscale, and 33.25 ± 18.67 on the client-related subscale. Table 2 represents the mean scores on the CBI and subscales, reported by each stakeholder group. Athletic trainers reported a mean score of 48.07 ± 16.42 on the CBI, while coaches reported a mean score of 41.99 ± 15.89 on the CBI. A significant difference of burnout levels between athletic trainers and coaches was revealed (U = 3559.50, p = .017, d= -0.16).Additionally, sport performance coaches reported a mean score of 45.97 ± 14.92. There was no significant difference discovered in the reported levels of burnout between athletic trainers and sport performance coaches (U = 5483.00, p = .313, d= -0.06).
Table 2: Comparison of Reported Scale Scores by Stakeholder
Stakeholder
CBI (Mean±SD)
BWAS (Mean±SD)
WFC (Mean±SD)
Athletic Trainers
48.07±16.42
20.84±4.51
37.66±9.26
Coaches
41.99±15.89
20.05±4.85
37.64±10.52
Sports Performance
45.97±14.92
20.96±4.50
37.86±9.49
Stakeholders and Work-Family Conflict
The mean score across all stakeholders on the WFC scale was 37.71 ± 9.56. Athletic trainers reported a mean of 37.66 ± 9.26, whereas coaches reported a mean of 37.64 ± 10.52. There was no significant difference between athletic trainers and coaches (U = 4483.00, p =.939, d= -0.05).Furthermore, sport performance coaches reported a mean of 37.86 ± 9.49, and no significant difference was found between sport performance coaches and athletic trainers (U= 5576.50, p = .416, d= -0.06).
Variable relationships
Correlation matrices revealed a moderate positive correlation (.507) between work addiction and work-family conflict. Work addiction and burnout also resulted in a moderate positive relationship (.573).
DISCUSSION
Inferences has been made that working in sport can lead to experiences of burnout and work-family conflict, as well as that to be a productive member of the team one must be addicted to their role. Our purpose was to explore the experiences of work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict among athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches. This aim was directed at better understanding around one’s role in the sport organization and experiences of these constructs. As predicted work addiction, regardless of stakeholder position, leads to increased levels of burnout and work-family conflict. Uniquely, athletic trainers and coaches experience higher levels of burnout than sport performance coaches.
Stakeholders and Work-Family Conflict
We did not find any significant differences among our samples and experiences of WFC. The total mean score on the WFC scale is comparative to other studies examining WFC among athletic trainers work in the sport industry (Mazerolle et al. 2011; Pitney et al. 2011; Singe et al. in press). Our sample was largely represented by those who do not have children (70%); which could explain why we did not find any differences among our sample regarding experiences of WFC. Time is often a large facilitator of WFC, despite our sample reporting 55 hours per week, many did not have children another facilitator of WFC (Mazerolle et al., 2008; Pitney et al., 2011; Singe et al., 2023a). Perhaps working long hours has less of an impact on the individual when additional family responsibilities are not present, and one can focus on work and personal interests.
Stakeholders and Burnout
Overall, this sample of individuals working in the sport organization are experiencing low levels of burnout. Low levels of burnout does not imply that our sample is not experiencing it; however quantifiably it is lower. The literature over the last 5 years has suggested that coaches and athletic trainers are experiencing higher levels of burnout (Goodger et al., 2007; Singe et al., 2024; Singe et al., 2023a). We found that athletic trainers reported higher levels of burnout compared to coaches, but similar levels of burnout to sport performance coaches. Moderate levels of burnout have recently been reported among athletic trainers (Singe et al., 2023a); however, fluctuations in experiences have been observed over the past 3 years with levels varying between moderate and low (Cairns et al., 2023; Oglesby et al., 2020; Singe et al., 2023a). Sport performance coaches have yet to be identified within the literature regarding burnout; our sample reported similar levels of burnout as athletic trainers. Similar to athletic trainers, sport performance coaches have high demands placed upon them, and they are invested in the success of their athletes as well as log long hours in the workplace (Bentzen et al., 2016; Olusoga et al., 2019).
Stakeholders and Work-Addiction
Our overall sample is not classified as a workaholic; however, both athletic trainers and sport performance coaches demonstrate a larger sample (29%) of those who would be classified as such. Workaholics may work long hours but that is by choice and perhaps not as a necessity (Andersen et al., 2023). Although our sample reports working excessive hours (55), they do not self-identify as workaholics. Moreover, we did not find significant differences between stakeholders. These findings suggest that work addiction is likely an individualized factor, and not necessarily an outcome of working in sport organization. As detailed in the work-family conflict framework of Bruening and Dixon (2005, 2007), there are individual, organizational, and sociocultural outcomes of experiences of work-family conflict.
Variable relationships
Positive relationships were found between work addiction and both burnout and work-family conflict. The correlations found between the experiences of these constructs are consistent with those observed in previous studies examining these constructs in athletic trainers (Eason et al., 2022). These results make it apparent that experiences of work addiction, work-family conflict, and burnout occur at the same time. Previously stated, work-addiction can be attributed to experiences of work-family conflict and burnout. In this case all stakeholders are experiencing all three constructs.
We predicted there to be positive relationships between work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. Work addiction is yet another construct that is experienced by those working in the sport organization. This study adds to the literature that there are no differences in work-family conflict and burnout across athletic trainers, coaches, and SPCs. Yet, there are notable differences when it comes to burnout. Coaches and SPCs are experiencing work-family conflict, and work-addiction similarly to athletic trainers. This speaks to the sport organization as a whole; all employees are encountering these constructs. We suggest the sport organization investigate and assess reasons employees are work-addicted and have work-family conflict, to improve job and life satisfaction.
ATs experienced higher levels of burnout compared to coaches, and SPCs. There are many reasons this may be, the number of athletes per employee, responsibilities, and medical roles. However, in this sample athletic trainers reported low levels of burnout, though higher than coaches and SPCs, not quite as high as levels in recent literature (Barrett et al., 2016).
Consideration for Future Research and Study Limitations
The findings of this study expand upon the growing body of literature examining the constructs of work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict within the sport organization, yet limitations on these findings remain. Our study received 297 usable responses, which is a lower response rate than anticipated. Due to these factors, we recognize that these findings may not represent the experiences of all of those working within the sport organization. Our database was established using publicly available information therefore a complete list of all athletic trainers, coaches, and sports performance coaches at the DI level was unable to be obtained. Therefore, the results of this study may not represent the experiences of the entirety of NCAA DI athletic trainers, coaches, and SPCs. Our study also only examined those working within the NCAA DI setting; thus, those working in the DII, DIII, NAIA, or other collegiate levels may not have similar experiences with these constructs. Furthermore, those working in secondary schools or other settings also may not identify with the findings of this study.
Further research should include the investigation of work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict at all levels of collegiate athletics as well as those in secondary schools and alternate settings. Currently, the literature has examined these constructs within the sport organization solely focused on the experiences of athletic trainers, creating a need for future research among coaches and sports performance coaches on these constructs. Additionally, the study of work addiction within the sport organization is a novel issue, so further research is necessary to gain a better understanding of work addiction within athletics.
CONCLUSION
This study sought to further our knowledge of the experiences of athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches in the DI setting, regarding work-addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict. Experiences were nearly universal across the sport organization except for athletic trainers experiencing greater levels of burnout compared to coaches. Positive relationships were also observed between levels of work addiction and both burnout and work-family conflict. The findings of this study suggest that these constructs are prominent issues across the sport organization. Given the prevalence across the sport organization, increased implication of both personal and organizational strategies may be necessary as a means of mitigating the impact of these issues (Cairns et al., 2023; Singe et al., 2022). This study serves as a preliminary exploration into the variance of experiences of work addiction, burnout, and work-family conflict across the sport organization stakeholders.
APPLICATIONS IN SPORT
Athletic trainers reported significantly different levels of burnout compared to coaches and sport performance coaches; thus we believe that understanding the specific role stressors for the athletic trainer can help address potential programs to prevent burnout. For example, wellness programs or a workload redistribution may be warranted for athletic trainers. We did not find any differences among work-family conflict among any of the grups, which suggests more broad based policies that are family-friendly may help athletic trainers, coaches, and sport performance coaches (family-leave, time-off policies). Work addiction was a risk factor for both burnout and work-family conflict among our stakeholders, thus individuals and supervisors should be aware of the signs of burnout, but also encourage stress and boundary management, as well as healthy work habits to prevent issues around burnout and conflicts between work and home.
REFERENCES
Andersen, F. B., Djugum, M. E. T., Sjåstad, V. S., & Pallesen, S. (2023). The prevalence of workaholism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1252373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1252373
Andreassen, C. S. (2014). Workaholism: An overview and current status of the research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.2.2013.017
Barrett, J., Eason, C. M., Lazar, R., & Mazerolle, S. M. (2016). Personality Traits and Burnout Among Athletic Trainers Employed in the Collegiate Setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 51(6), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-51.7.08
Bentzen, M., Lemyre, P.-N., & Kenttä, G. (2016). Development of exhaustion for high-performance coaches in association with workload and motivation: A person-centered approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.06.004
Bruening, J. E., & Dixon, M. A. (2007). Work–Family Conflict in Coaching II: Managing Role Conflict. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.21.4.471
Cairns, A. H., Singe, S. M., & Eason, C. M. (2023). Perceived Stress as an Indicator of Work–Family Conflict and Burnout Among Secondary School Athletic Trainers. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 28(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2021-0112
Cayton, S. J., & Valovich McLeod, T. C. (2020). Characteristics of Burnout Among Collegiate and Secondary School Athletic Trainers: A Systematic Review. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care, 12(5), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.3928/19425864-20190529-01
Clark, M. A., Michel, J. S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S. Y., & Baltes, B. B. (2016). All Work and No Play? A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Correlates and Outcomes of Workaholism. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1836–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522301
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2005). Perspectives on Work-Family Conflict in Sport: An Integrated Approach. Sport Management Review, 8(3), 227–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(05)70040-1
Eason, C. M., Gilgallon, T. J., & Singe, S. M. (2022). Work-Addiction Risk in Athletic Trainers and Its Relationship to Work-Family Conflict and Burnout. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.4085/JAT0348-20
Goodger, K., Gorely, T., Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. (2007). Burnout in Sport: A Systematic Review. The Sport Psychologist, 21(2), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.21.2.127
Graham, J. A., & Dixon, M. A. (2014). Coaching Fathers in Conflict: A Review of the Tensions Surrounding the Work-Family Interface. Journal of Sport Management, 28(4), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0241
Graham, J. A., & Smith, A. B. (2021). Work and Life in the Sport Industry: A Review of Work-Life Interface Experiences Among Athletic Employees. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0633.20
Graham, J. A., & Smith, A. B. (2022). Work and Life in the Sport Industry: A Review of Work-Life Interface Experiences Among Athletic Employees. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0633.20
Hatfield, L. M., & Johnson, J. T. (2012, April 9). Work-Family Conflict and Related Theories in NCAA Division II Sports Information Professionals. The Sport Journal. https://thesportjournal.org/article/work-family-conflict-and-related-theories-in-ncaa-division-ii-sports-information-professionals/
Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720
Laskowski, K. D., & Ebben, W. P. (2016). Profile of Women Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Coaches. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(12), 3481–3493. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001471
Mazerolle, S. M., Bruening, J. E., & Casa, D. J. (2008). Work-Family Conflict, Part I: Antecedents of Work-Family Conflict in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-A Certified Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.5.505
Mazerolle, S. M., Bruening, J. E., Casa, D. J., & Burton, L. J. (2008). Work-Family Conflict, Part II: Job and Life Satisfaction in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-A Certified Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(5), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.5.513
Mazerolle, S. M., Eason, C. M., Pitney, W. A., & Mueller, M. N. (2015). Sex and Employment-Setting Differences in Work-Family Conflict in Athletic Training. Journal of Athletic Training, 50(9), 958–963. https://doi.org/10.4085/1052-6050-50.2.14
Mazerolle, S. M., Pitney, W. A., Casa, D. J., & Pagnotta, K. D. (2011). Assessing Strategies to Manage Work and Life Balance of Athletic Trainers Working in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(2), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.194
McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Workaholism: A Review of Theory, Research, and Future Directions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2003 (1st ed., pp. 167–189). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013346.ch5
Naugle, K. E., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Dodd, V. J., Tillman, M. D., & Borsa, P. A. (2013). Perceptions of Wellness and Burnout Among Certified Athletic Trainers: Sex Differences. Journal of Athletic Training, 48(3), 424–430. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.2.07
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
Norris, L. A., Didymus, F. F., & Kaiseler, M. (2017). Stressors, coping, and well-being among sports coaches: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.08.005
Oglesby, L. W., Gallucci, A. R., & Wynveen, C. J. (2020). Athletic Trainer Burnout: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Athletic Training, 55(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43-19
Olusoga, P., Bentzen, M., & Kentta, G. (2019). Coach Burnout: A Scoping Review. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2017-0094
Our Division II Story. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/our-division-ii-story.aspx
Our Division III Story. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/our-division-iii-story.aspx
Our Three Divisions. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/1/7/about-resources-media-center-ncaa-101-our-three-divisions.aspx
Overview. (n.d.). NCAA.Org. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/overview.aspx
Pitney, W. A., Mazerolle, S. M., & Pagnotta, K. D. (2011). Work–Family Conflict Among Athletic Trainers in the Secondary School Setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.185
Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2014). Understanding College Application Decisions: Why College Sports Success Matters. Journal of Sports Economics, 15(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002512445569
Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a Tentative Measure of Workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.199
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well‐being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th Edition (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Scriber, K. C., & Alderman, M. H. (2005). The Challenge of Balancing Our Professional and Personal Lives. Athletic Therapy Today, 10(6), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1123/att.10.6.14
Singe, S., Cairns, A., & Eason, C. (2024). Examining Burnout Among Collegiate Athletic Trainers: The Relationship with Age, Gender, and Years of Experience. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 22(3). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/vol22/iss3/8
Singe, S. M., Cairns, A., Eason, C. M., & Marion, P. E. (2022). Work-Family Conflict and Guilt among Athletic Trainers: Influences of Family Role Performance, Years of Experience and National Collegiate Athletic Association Level. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.
Singe, S. M., Mydosh, C. G., Cairns, A., & Eason, C. M. (2023a). Working Hours, Sleep, and Burnout Among Athletic Trainers Employed in College Athletics: A Cross-Sectional Study. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2023.2430
Singe, S. M., Rodriguez, M., Cairns, A., Eason, C. M., & Rynkiewicz, K. (2023b). Work-Family Conflict and Family Role Performance Among Collegiate Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 58(4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.4085/227.22
Snarr, R. L., & Beasley, V. L. (2022). Personal, Work-, and Client-Related Burnout Within Strength and Conditioning Coaches and Personal Trainers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(2), e31–e40. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003956
Taylor, E. A., Huml, M. R., & Dixon, M. A. (2019). Workaholism in Sport: A Mediated Model of Work–Family Conflict and Burnout. Journal of Sport Management, 33(4), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0248
