Latest Articles

The Impact of Service Quality and Satisfaction on Customers’ Future Intentions, in the Sport Spectators’ Context

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-03T10:44:47-05:00June 15th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|

Abstract

This study was aimed to determine the degree to which service quality perceptions and customer satisfaction predict the intentions of repurchase and word-of-mouth communication. Nine hundred and twenty five (N=925) spectators of Greek professional football, participated in the study and completed the SPORTSERV questionnaire, to measure the perceptions of service quality, satisfaction, repurchase intention and word-of-mouth. An alpha reliability analysis of the service quality was conducted, to test the internal consistency of the five dimensions (responsiveness, access, security, reliability and tangibles) as a result they were all in acceptable ranges. Satisfaction was measured by five items. Repurchase intention was measured by two items and word-of-mouth was measured by three items. In order to discover possible relations among service quality, satisfaction and future intentions multiple regression analysis were conducted. The results revealed that service quality and satisfaction predict together a significant proportion of spectators’ repurchase intention (the total percentage of prediction was 51%, R2=.511, p< 0.001) and word-of-mouth communication (the total percentage of prediction was 53.8% R2=.538, p< 0.001). This study supports previous research findings with a focus on the sport spectators’ realm, regarding the general impact of service quality and satisfaction on fans future intentions, however there have been some differences in terms of how the service quality dimensions affect these factors. Moreover, sport managers should use this information as a means to understand the future behavior of sport spectators in order to design marketing strategies so as to retain their customers and attract new ones.

Key words: service quality, satisfaction, repurchases intention, word-of-mouth.

Introduction

Service quality and satisfaction have dominated the bibliography on services and sport services literature (8). For many years sport management focused on service quality and satisfaction, which constituted the two key factors of sport organizations, in order to predict the customer’s desirable behavior. Service quality is an important topic in the marketing literature, since perceptions for service quality are directly related to customer satisfaction and customer retention (1). The need for delivering qualitative services to sport spectators’ area can be achieved, by focusing on the spectators’ needs and paying attention to the quality and operation of well-organized sport facilities (47). According to researchers it is widely believed (e.g. 30, 42) that satisfaction is a very important factor which affects the repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication and thus influence future behavior (19, 25).

In terms of sports, there is no doubt that football is an individual case in the spectrum of sports. This is because of its global popularity, the large number of dedicated fans who clearly identify with the sport as well as the incredible amount of financial investments provided by private enterprise, sponsors and investors (37). Let’s not disregard the nominal profits this sport accumulates.

As far as Greek football is concerned, we can undoubtedly identify specific particularities within the sport (40). For example it is obvious that the overwhelming enthusiasts tend to become quite obsessive and identify with their teams in a personal level. The fans really take it to heart to such an extent that this can lead to friction violence and chaos in the stadium. It should be pointed out that in recent years it has been forbidden for fans to attend matches away from home in order to prevent these violent kinds of outbreaks in the stadiums (52).

The relationships among service quality satisfaction and future intentions are well established in the services area and there is enough evidence to support these relationships in the sport spectrum and the sport spectators’ area as well. Many scholars investigated these relationships and they found that service quality and satisfaction are directly related to customer’s future intentions (8, 30 and 43). However, there is limited information concerning these relationships in the realm of football especially in the Greek region where there is no data available whatsoever.

This study aims to investigate the relationships among service quality, satisfaction and future intentions in sport spectators’ area and particularly within professional football in the Greek spectrum.

Review of literature

Service Quality

In the modern era the continuously increasing competition in the service sector led managers to re-define their strategy to acquire advantages over their competitors and to focus their attention on service quality (16, 35 and 51). The first theoretical approach for quality of services was based on the “disconfirmation paradigm” (16, 34). According to this theory, the quality of services is resulted from a process of comparison of expected performance with the perception for the real performance as it was initially prescribed by Gronroos (15-16). It is has also been suggested that quality can be considered as a personal perception regarding superiority and perfection of a given product or a service (48).

The measurement of service quality has always been a controversial issue. The first instrument for measuring service quality was developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Gronroos (1984). Parasuraman et al. (1988) proposed the five-dimensional SERVQUAL model, while Gronroos (1984) proposed a three-dimensional model. Many other models were developed in the following years along the range of the marketing industry. However, despite the fact that it has been criticized in terms of its applicability across different industries, the SERVQUAL model is the most popular one in the literature (1). Based on SERVQUAL, Theodorakis and Alexandris (2008) developed the five-dimensional SPORTSERV scale for measuring service quality in the sport spectator context. The five dimensions of SPORTSERV scale are “responsiveness,” “access,” “security,” “reliability,” and “tangibles.”

The conceptualization and measurement of service quality remain controversial topics in the services marketing literature (4). However, the vast majority of scholars agree to the importance and the effects of service quality (4, 9). Zeithaml (1988) mentioned that delivery of quality services is a precondition for success. Kelley and Turley (2001) claim that service quality is vital for the survival and the success of sports, while Cronin and Taylor (1992) considered service quality as a key-strategy for the service providers to be placed more effectively in the market.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction has been widely researched and analyzed in great depth in the last four decades (13, 17, 44 and 49). It’s one of the most favored subjects in the services literature in previous decades (11, 20, 32 and 33), as well as in recent times (5, 14, 17, 38 and 43). As for satisfaction, there have been a lot of definitions which show that there are many different perceptions, opinions and arguments among the researchers who deal with the particular subject, regarding the nature and the elements of satisfaction. In the commercial enterprising terminology, satisfaction is reported as a dimension that measures how the products or the services that are offered by a provider satisfy or even exceed the expectations of customers (25).

In the sports context, Oliva et al. (1992) found that sports fans reach some level of satisfaction that is experienced from the follow-up of an athletic act, through the frame “expectation-disconfirmation”. The frame “expectation – disconfirmation”, based on the significance that the satisfaction level is determined by the degree in which the initial customers’ expectations is achieved or is not achieved by the evaluated service. Alexandris et al. (2004) noted that regardless of the disagreements and differences in conceptualizing satisfaction, it is acceptable that satisfaction is a post-choice evaluative judgment and refers to consumer fulfillment. According to Jahanshahi et al. (2011) most definitions for satisfaction share some common elements: a) consumer satisfaction is a cognitive or emotional response, b) this response refers to a particular focus (expectations, product, consumption experience, etc.), c) the response occurs at a particular time (after consumption, after choice, based on accumulated experience, etc.). Customers’ satisfaction is critical in the sports industry, where the sport organizations focus on the needs and wishes of their customers, in order to achieve their objectives (25). Many researchers have concluded that satisfaction affects customers’ repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication. Therefore such elements are vital for the success of the sport organizations (e.g., 12, 25).

Repurchase Intention

The repurchase intention refers to the consumers’ tendency to buy products or services from the same company or the same organization that provide services (8, 48 and 51). Similarly, according to Hellier et al. (2003) the repurchase intention is the process of purchasing a product or a service from the same company based on a previous experience which undoubtedly was satisfying.

Word-of-Mouth Communication

Word-of-mouth communication is a process in which consumers that have used a product or a service, communicate their experience through word-of-mouth, to consumers planning to buy the product or the service (25). Positive word-of-mouth is reported to be the informal communication among consumers with regard to the evaluations of products or services, particularly when the evaluations are positive and include recommendations to others to proceed in similar purchases (2). Consequently, in contrast to other external promotional strategies used by a sport organization, positive word-of-mouth that includes recommendations, is more important and has a stronger impact on customer’s attitudes and future behavior (18, 25).

Relations among service quality, satisfaction and future intentions

Customer’s future intentions and their decisions to repurchase a service and to indulge in positive word-of-mouth, depends often on a complete evaluation of service and supplier, based on the experience of multiple transactions of services with the given supplier (5, 10). Many researchers determined various factors that influence these intentions. The environment where the service is provided or the facility and its qualitative features have a significant influence on the repurchase intention, as they affect the total experience and satisfaction (5, 14, 25, 28, 38, 43 and 45). Similar results also have been found in other studies, where the researchers paid a lot of attention to the environment and quality of services in facilities (13, 46 and 49), as well as the responsiveness of the personnel (13, 43). Other researchers found in their studies that the most powerful factor that leads to behavioral intentions is satisfaction (7, 30 and 36). Matsuoka et al. (2003) also asserted that satisfaction predicts the repurchase intention. Yoshida et al. (2010) mentioned that satisfaction can create long term profits for sport organizations, including positive word-of-mouth, parallel markets and enhancing the customers’ loyalty. In the sport spectators’ context, satisfaction has been considered as an important feature of predicting customer’s intentions when it comes to attending future sporting events (8, 46). The researchers in the area of services marketing, propose that the spectator’s perceptions for the core product and the secondary services (as an example in the sport spectators area), can coexist as precedents to customer’s satisfaction and their behavioral intentions (35). Other studies (22, 26, 29 and 39), noted that satisfaction is a basic factor, but is only one of the many variables that can influence the future intentions of customers. Kuo et al. (2009) mentioned that service quality positively influences satisfaction; therefore satisfaction positively influences future intentions. They also stated that service quality has an indirect positive effect on repurchase intention through customer satisfaction or perceived value. However, it must be noted that other researchers found that there is a direct link between service quality and future intentions (3, 51).

Although the relationships among service quality, satisfaction and future intentions, are well established in the services area, there is limited evidence regarding these relationships in the sport services area (30). This study, aims to investigate the relationships among the above mentioned factors in the sport spectators area, especially in the area of Greek professional football.

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which service quality perceptions and customer satisfaction predict repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth communication. It was hypothesized that service quality and satisfaction would have a strong impact and predict repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth communication.

Methodology

Sample

Nine hundred and twenty five (N=925) football spectators participated in the study. These spectators were attending games of Greek professional football in six different stadiums in Greece. The majority of the spectators were males (80%), single (46.8%), full time employed (52.3%) and aged between 26-35 years old (29.9%). Their educational level was mostly secondary education (40.7%) and university graduates (36.6%). The majority of spectators were of low annual income (39.7% less than 12.000 € per year).

Instrumentation

A modified version of the (SPORTSERVE) questionnaire proposed by Theodorakis et al. (2008) was used that was previously validated and determined to be reliable, in measuring service quality, satisfaction, repurchase intention and word-of- mouth communication for Greek sports spectators. Twenty two items measured service quality. More specifically five items were used to measure “Responsiveness” (e.g. “The stadium personnel has always the willingness to help me”); five items were used to measure “Access” (e.g. “Access to the stadium is easy”); four items were used to measure “Security” (e.g. “I feel secure in the stadium during the game”); four items were used to measure “Reliability” (e.g. “The football club keeps their promises”) and four items were used to measure “Tangibles” (e.g. “My seat in stadium is comfortable”). Five items were used to measure satisfaction (e.g. “I am satisfied with my decision to watch the game”). Two items were used to measure repurchase intentions (e.g., “How possible is to continue watching games of your favorite team in this stadium in the future?”) and three items were used to measure word-of-mouth (e.g., “How possible is it to encourage your friends to come and watch football games in this stadium?”). All, answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very strongly Disagree) to 7 (Very strongly agree) and referred in previous games.

Data collection

A stratified sampling procedure ensured that the sample was representative of the population measured. Spectators were randomly selected and completed the questionnaires voluntarily. Questionnaires were distributed inside the stadiums and were completed prior to the start of the games. The research had been conducted from September 2010 until March 2011.

Statistical analysis

Reliability analyses (Cronbach’s alpha) tested the internal consistency of the service quality dimensions, satisfaction, and repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication in the context of the football spectators. Multiple regression analyses were used to investigate the impact of service quality and satisfaction to the prediction of repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication.

Results

The internal consistency of the five dimensions of service quality (“Tangibles”, “Responsiveness”, “Access”, “Reliability” and “Security”), satisfaction and future intentions (repurchase intention and word of mouth communication) was measured by Cronbach’s alpha reliability and the results are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1

Cronbach’s alpha reliability for Service Quality, Satisfaction and Future Intentions

The analysis indicated high reliability for all five service quality components satisfaction and future intentions.

Descriptive statistics

The findings indicated that people weren’t so happy with “tangibles” (M= 4.31), “responsiveness” (M= 4.40) and “access” (M= 4.47). More positive compared to the previous, was the perception regarding “security” (M=4.70) and “reliability” (M=4.67). People also declared being somewhat satisfied (M=5.08). They also stated that they were very likely to continue watching games at the specific stadium (M= 5.68), but not as much likely to be involved in word-of-mouth communication (M= 4.61).

Regression Analyses

Two separate multiple regression analyses were performed in order to test the degree to which service quality and satisfaction could predict repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication. In both regression analyses the five service quality dimensions and satisfaction were set as the independent variables, whereas the repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication as the dependent ones. Service quality contributed significantly (F = 65,698, p< 0.001) and predicted a significant proportion (26.3%) of the variance of the repurchase intention. However, it is worth noting that only “reliability” (t=7,327, p<0.001), and “access” (t=2.395, p<.05), offered a significant contribution. “Responsiveness”, “security” and “tangibles” were not included within the predictors. Satisfaction also contributed significantly (F= 463,835, p< 0.001) and predicted another 24.7% of the variance of the dependent variable. The total percentage of prediction was 51% (R2= .511, p< 0.001). The results for repurchase intention are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Multiple Regression, Model Summary for Repurchase Intention

As far as word-of-mouth communication is concerned, service quality contributed significantly (F=97,826, p< 0.001) and predicted a significant proportion (34.4%) of the variance of the dependent variable. Of the five dimensions of service quality, this time four offered significant contribution (“responsiveness”, (t =2,514, p< 0.05); “security”, (t =3,016, p < 0.05); “reliability”, (t = 6,199, p< 0.001) and “tangibles” (t = 2,787, p< 0.05). “Access” was not included within the predictors. Satisfaction contributed significantly (F=387,699, p< 0.001) and predicted another 19.4%, of the variance of the dependent variable. The total percentage of prediction was 53.8% (R2= .538, p< 0.001). The results for word-of-mouth communication are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Multiple Regression Analysis, Model Summary for word-of-mouth

Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to determine the degree to which service quality and customer satisfaction predicts repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication in the sport spectators’ context and especially in professional football. The results supported the research hypothesis, which service quality and satisfaction have an influence and can predict both repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication in professional football. Based on the results, it can be argued that satisfaction is the most influential factor, especially regarding repurchase intentions. These results confirm the findings from other researchers in the services area (8, 33, 36, 43 and 48). However, the results gave an interesting view for the service quality role towards future intentions. In terms of repurchase intentions, only “reliability” and “access” seem to have a significant impact, while the total percentage of prediction was 26.3%. Surprisingly enough, the influence of “security”, “tangibles” and “responsiveness” were not significant which is an issue that needs further investigation. Theodorakis et al. (2008) found similar results, although in his research “responsiveness” had a significantly weak impact statistically, on repurchase intention. On the other hand, service quality has a closer relation with word-of-mouth communication, given that four out of five dimensions (reliability, tangibles, responsiveness and security) had a statistically significant impact and they predicted 34.7% of the word-of-mouth total variance. Studies in the marketing literature reported that service quality perceptions (3, 51) directly connected to repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication. The results of the present study provide support for this report. Trying to interpret these findings, we can argue that the nature of sport services and its features create this form. Service quality components relate closely to word-of-mouth communication, but they have a weak relation in correlation with the repurchase intention, whereas on the other hand satisfaction seems to play a more significant role (8, 43 and 48). Given that we have had serious violence phenomena in Greek football recently, it was a surprise that “security” does not affect spectators’ repurchases intention. That might have happened because security might be considered as a problem only in specific matches, where the result of games is very important, and/or the rival teams are located in the same city. It must be noted that fans of the opposite team are not permitted by the Greek law to follow their favourite team when they play away from home. Also, it was not expected that “responsiveness” would not have a significant impact on the repurchase intention.

In summary, this paper has a theoretical value, as it confirms findings from researches in the services area (12, 30 and 36), and enhances the knowledge regarding the service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions cycle in the area of sport spectators, particularly in professional football.

Applications in sport

The practical implications are also important, as the sport organizations are struggling to get a competitive advantage and gain a good position in the market. The results of the present study have practical implications especially for sports managers in sport spectators’ area who aim to encourage their customers to attend more often.

In this effort repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communications are considered as vital factors. This indicates that service quality and satisfaction have a very strong impact on both repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth communication, so managers should bear in mind the contemporary needs of today’s spectators in an effort to please them. In other words, sport managers should develop appropriate marketing strategies and invest in quality of services and satisfaction. From a managerial point of view, since managers lack control of the core product, they should try to improve all the secondary services. In terms of service quality, they should emphasize first on “reliability” and then on “tangibles”, “responsiveness” and “security”. “Access” was considered as an important factor for repurchase intention but not for word-of-mouth communication.

As far as Greece is concerned, the fact is that access is already a big problem in the daily routine in Greek cities, so people mind considering this as an extra problem. However, access issues are not going to improve as long as the stadiums are located in the center of densely populated areas.

On the other hand, spectators’ satisfaction is the most influential factor and is very important particularly for repurchase intention. These findings support the results of previous studies that a satisfied spectator is very much likely to proceed in repurchase actions (e.g. 25, 27 and 43). Managers have to put a lot of their efforts on satisfying their customers, because consumers’ satisfaction is the most crucial factor for future behavior.

In conclusion, the present study in the context of professional soccer provided evidence that,

1. the relationship between service quality and spectators’ repurchase intentions is weak and limited to the dimension of reliability and access only
2. the relationship between service quality and spectators’ word-of-mouth communication is very strong,
3. satisfaction has a strong relationship with both repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication.

Limitations and future research

The present study collected data from Greece’s professional football. As the cultural diversities might influence the conclusions of each study, it would be useful to have evidence from different countries. Thus, cross-cultural research should be conducted in the future and help practitioners and academics to better understand the similarities and differences in the behavioral patterns of football fans internationally.

Finally, along with service quality and satisfaction, future research should incorporate other factors and dimensions that have been shown to significantly predict the spectator’s behavior, such as those of value, loyalty, motives and brand associations.

References

1. Alexandris, K., Zahariadis, P., Tsorbatzoudis, C., &Grouios, G. (2004). An Empirical Investigation into the Role of the Outcome Dimension in Measuring Perceived Service Quality in a Health Club Context. International Journal of Sport Management, 5, 281-294.
2. Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1, 5–17.
3. Baker, D., & Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 785-804.
4. Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J.J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 34–49.
5. Caro, L. M., & Garcia, J.A.M. (2007). Consumer satisfaction with a periodic reoccurring sport event and the moderating effect of motivations. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(2), 70-81.
6. Cronin J.,& Taylor S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
7. Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 125–131.
8. Cronin J., Brady M., &Hult T. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218.
9. Dabholkar, P., Thorpe, D.I., &Rentz, J.O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 3–16.
10. Danaher, P.J., & Mattsson J. (1994). Customer satisfaction during the service delivery process. European Journal of Marketing, 28 (5), 5-16.
11. Disney J. (1999). Customer satisfaction and loyalty: the critical elements of service quality. Total Quality Management, 10 (4 &5), 491-497.
12. Ferrand Α., Robinson L., & Valette-Florence P. (2010). The Intention tο Repurchase Paradox: A Case of the Health and Fitness Industry. European Journal of Sport Management, 24, 83-105.
13. Greenwell, T.C., Fink, J.S., &Pastore, D.L. (2002). Perceptions of the service experience: Using demographic and psychographic variables to identify customer segments. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 233–241.
14. Greenwell, T.C., Lee, J., &Naeger, D. (2007). Using the critical incident technique to understand critical aspects of the minor league spectator’s experience. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 190-198.
15. Gronroos, C. (1982). An Applied Service Marketing Theory. European Journal of Marketing, 16(7), 30–41.
16. Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18, 36-44.
17. Ha H.Y., Janda S. &Muthaly S., K. (2010). A new understanding of satisfaction model in e-re-purchase situation. European Journal of Marketing, 44 (7/8), 997-1016.
18. Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4 (1), 60–75.
19. Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customers repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (11/12), 1762–1800.
20. Hernon, P., Nitecki D., & Altman E. (1999). Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: An Assessment and Future Directions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(1), 9-17.
21. Jahanshahi A., A., Gashti M., A., H ,Mirdamadi S., A., Nawaser K., &Khaksar S., M., S.(2011).Study the Effects of Customer Service and Product Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (7), 253-260.
22. Jones, T.O., & Sasser, W.E., Jr. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business Review, 73(6), 88–99.
23. Kelley S. W.,& Turley L.W. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at sporting events. Journal of Business Research, 54, 161– 166.
24. Kuo Y.F., Wub C.M., & Deng W.J. (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25, 887–896.
25. Lambrecht K. W., Kaefer F., & Ramenofsky S.D. (2009). Sportscape Factors Influencing Spectator Attendance and Satisfaction at a Professional Golf Association Tournament. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18 (3), 165-172.
26. Liljander, V., &Strandvik, T. (1995): The Nature of Customer Relationships in Services. Ad42ces in Service Marketing and Management, 4, 141-167.
27. Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., &Harada, M. (2003). Direct and indirect effects of team identification and satisfaction on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 244–253.
28. Mc Donald H., & Stavros, C. (2007). A definition analysis of lapsed season ticket holders: A consumer and organizational study, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 26 (4), 218-229.
29. Mittal, B., &Lassar, W.M. (1998). Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty. The Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (3), 177-194.
30. Murray, D., &Howat, G. (2002). The relationship among service quality, value, satisfaction, and future intentions of customers at an Australian sports and leisure centre. SportManagement Review, 5, 25–43.
31. Oliva, T. A., Oliver, R.L., & Macmillan, I.C. (1992). “A catastrophe model for developing service satisfaction strategies”. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-95.
32. Oliver, R. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57, 25-48.
33. Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw Hill.New York.
34. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 13-40.
35. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. Berry, L.L. (1994). Alternative Scales for Measuring Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201-230.
36. Patterson, P. G., &Spreng, R.A. (1997). Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction, and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: An empirical examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8 (5), 414-434.
37. Pritchard, M.P.,& Funk, D. (2010). The formation and effect of attitude importance in professional sport. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 1017-1036.
38. Ross, S. D. (2007). Segmenting sport fans using brand associations: A cluster analysis. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(1), 15-24.
39. Sharma N., & Patterson, P., G. (2000). Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as moderators of relationship commitment in professional, consumer services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11 (5), 470-490.
40. Theodorakis, N., Vlachopoulos, S., Wann, D., Afthinos, Y. &Nassis, P. (2006). “Measuring team identification: translation and cross-cultural validity of the Greek version of the sport spectator identification scale”. International Journal of Sport Management, 7 (4), 506-522.
41. Theodorakis,Ν.,&Alexandris,Κ. (2008). Can service quality predict spectators’ behavioral intentions in professional soccer? Managing Leisure, 13, 162–178.
42. Theodorakis, N., Koustelios, A., Robinson, L., Barlas A. (2009). Moderating role of team identification on the relationship between service quality and repurchase intentions among spectators of professional sports. Managing Service Quality, 19 (4), 456-473.
43. Tsuji, Y., Bennett, G., & Zhang, J., (2007). Consumer satisfaction with an action sports event. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 199-208.
44. Van Leeuwen L., Quick S., & Daniel K., (2002). The Sport Spectator Satisfaction Model: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Satisfaction of Spectators. Sport Management Review, 5, 99–128.
45. Wakefield, K. L., (1995). The pervasive effects of social influence on sporting event attendance. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(A), 335-351.
46. Wakefield K. L., Blodgett J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing,10 (6), 45-61.
47. Walker M., &Stotlar, D. (1997). Sport Facility Management. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.USA.
48. Wang Y., Lo, H. P., Yang, Y. (2004). An integrated framework for service quality, customer value, satisfaction: Evidence from China’s telecommunication industry. Information Systems Frontiers, 6(4), 325–340.
49. Yoshida M., James J., D. (2010). Customer Satisfaction with Game and Service Experiences: Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of Sport Management, 24, 338-361.
50. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.
51. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., &Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioural consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.
52. The 11+1 points of new athletic law (2011). Retrieved December 21,2011, from http://www.soccerplus.gr/article/ta-111-simeia-kleidia-toy-neoy-athlitikoy-nomoy

Corresponding Author

Yanni Thamnopoulos
Aggelopoulou 46, TK 54352,
Thessaloniki, Greece
yathamno@gmail.com
+00306948943841

Author Biographies

Yanni Thamnopoulos

Candidate PhD of Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences in Democritus University of Thrace.

George Tzetzis

Associate Professor of Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences in Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Sakis Laios

Professor of Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences in Democritus University of Thrace.

Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes

U.S. Sports Academy2015-01-31T01:14:13-06:00June 15th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|

Abstract

The notion of paying college football players has been an ongoing debate since the early 1900’s. With current television revenue resulting from NCAA football bowl games and March Madness in basketball, there is now a clamoring for compensating both football and basketball players beyond that of an athletic scholarship. This article takes a point/counterpoint approach to the topic of paying athletes and may have potential implications/consequences for college administrators, athletes, and coaches. Dr. John Acquaviva defends the current system in which colleges provide an athletic scholarship that provides a “free college education” in return for playing on the university team. Dr. Dennis Johnson follows with a counterpoint making the case that athletes in these sports should receive compensation beyond that of a college scholarship and forwards five proposals to pay the athletes.

Key words: pay for play, athletic scholarships

Introduction: History of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)

The idea of paying college athletes to compete dates back to what is considered to be the first intercollegiate competition. In a regatta between Harvard and Yale Universities, Harvard used a coxswain who was not even a student enrolled at the Ivy League school (5). Much like today’s universities whose appetites for appearances in corporate-sponsored “big money” football bowl events; Harvard may have used the non-student to please regatta sponsor Elkins Railroad (23).

In the late 1800’s, football played by college teams was a brutal sport but enjoyed by many fans. However, from 1900 to 1905, there were 45 players who died playing the sport (22). This prompted President Theodore Roosevelt to summon the presidents of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and threaten them with a ban unless the sport was modified. As a result of that meeting, a group of 62 university presidents convened to form the Intercollegiate Athletic Association in 1906. This group evolved into the NCAA in 1910, but as a group it only possessed supervisory power (22).

College football became even more popular in the period of 1920-1940. This was a time when commercialism in the educational system was being questioned on a variety of levels. One such fundamental question was posed in 1929 by Howard Savage, a staff member of the Carnegie Foundation. He raised a question in an article entitled Athletics in American College (originally published in 1930 but reprinted in 1999) “whether an institution in the social order whose primary purpose is the development of the intellectual life can at the same time serve an agency to promote business, industry, journalism, and organized athletics on an extensive commercial basis? More importantly, the report asked “can it (the university) concentrate its attention on securing teams that win, without impairing the sincerity and vigor of its intellectual purpose” (9, p.495)? Savage also states that “alumni devices for recruiting winning teams constitutes the most disgraceful phase of recent intercollegiate athletics” (9, p. 495). In sum, the original 1929 report claimed that “big time” college sports were not educational, but were entirely financial and commercial.

Athletes during the early and mid-1900’s were routinely recruited and paid to play; and there were several instances where individuals representing the schools were not enrolled as students. For example, there is one report of a Midwestern university using seven members of its team that included the town blacksmith, a lawyer, a livery man, and four railroad employees (5). Other athletes at colleges were given high paying jobs for which they did little or no work. In 1948, the NCAA adopted a “Sanity Code” that limited financial aid for athletes to tuition and fees, and required that aid otherwise be given based on need (5). In the early 1950’s, with the threat of several southern schools bolting from the NCAA, the code was revised to allow athletic scholarships to cover tuition, fees, and a living stipend.

However, by the mid-1950’s many schools were still struggling with the issue of offering athletic scholarships. Some university presidents ultimately decided to maintain the principles of amateurism and further serve the mission of higher education. Those were presidents of universities that today make up the Ivy League. They concluded that it was not in the best interest of their universities to award athletic scholarships, and have remained steadfast even today.

After passing Title IX in the mid 1970’s, the NCAA absorbed the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) and began to govern women’s sport at the collegiate level. Over the past 50 years, the NCAA has also expanded into three divisions with a multitude of championship events on a yearly basis (20). There are more than 1,300 member institutions that represent an estimated 400,000 student athletes who participate in sport (21). The result of this growth and development are enormous increases in revenue. NCAA President Mark Emmert reports the NCAA revenues for the 2010-11 fiscal year is projected at $757 million, of which $452.2 million will go to Division I members (14).

While seemingly operating in a purely capitalistic/professional atmosphere, the NCAA continues to endorse an amateurism concept in college athletics. These competing, and often contradictory, values lead some college athletes in big time football and basketball programs to question the status quo of the present system through their words and actions. For example, many athletes are still attempting to get their “piece of the pie,” albeit under the table. And so it leads to our point-counterpoint.

Point: College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

The intensity of the argument to pay college athletes has escalated in the past few years. Perhaps it’s because of the current economic climate and everyone, including amateur athletes is looking for ways to make money? Or maybe it’s because many higher learning institutions have given the public access to their annual budget and readers focus on the profit of select athletic programs? Or maybe it is due to the absurd coaches’ salaries and the money that colleges make from football bowl games and basketball tournaments? Regardless, this has magnified the fact that the athletes see none of these profits and thus begs the simple question: “Where’s my share?” Perhaps a fair question, but to understand this argument better, a healthy debate is needed. So, here are some points to consider.

Point #1: Education is Money

Colleges and universities provide an invaluable and vital service to our communities: education. A now-famous bumper sticker once read: “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” To address that very slogan, the U.S. census bureau, as reported by Cheesman-Day and Newberger (7), expressed this best when they reported that the lifetime earnings for those with a college degree are over $1 million dollars more than non-graduates. Despite such a statistic, essays and op-ed columns continue to pour in from those who favor paying student-athletes while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge or accept the value of a college education. Is a college education priceless or not?

A sports-journalist in a recent national radio interview proposed that any argument against paying college athletes based on the sole reason that education is the prize is “antiquated”. But what seems antiquated and even shortsighted is the belief that paying a college athlete some (or even a lot of) money will solve all or even some of student’s long-term issues. The fear of the NCAA, as it should be, is that the mere notion of paying college athletes undermines the university’s primary purpose – education, something far more valuable than a modest annual stipend proposed by many. If it currently appears that the universities “don’t really care” about the athlete, paying them would intensify that belief, not dissolve it.

The irony in this dispute is that student-athletes do cost the university a substantial amount of money each year. For example, a full scholarship over four years can range between $30,000 and $200,000 depending if the institution is public or private (29). But let’s address this main point head on: There is an obvious lack of appreciation of a college degree from those in favor of paying athletes, and until a genuine gratitude for this concept develops, this argument will probably continue to linger.

Point #2: There Are Problems with Payment

Despite the well-documented scandals and corruption in college athletics (30), many would probably agree that paying athletes would exponentially increase the need for intense NCAA oversight – an enormous task by all accounts. Plus, there are the practical issues to consider. For example, how much should the athletes get paid and will payments be based on performance? What if the athlete gets hurt? What if the athlete is a bust and despite remaining on the team, doesn’t start or even play at all? – Issues that seem to raise far more questions than answers. But perhaps most important – What will happen to the non-revenue sports at the colleges who lose money from all of their sports programs – including football and basketball? It has been shown that only a fraction of Division I football and men’s basketball programs turn a profit (24, 20). The other Division I football and basketball programs as well as sports such as baseball, softball, golf, hockey, women’s basketball (minus a couple of notable programs), and just about all Division II sports not only fail to make money, but actually drain their athletic budgets. The outcome here would be inevitable: Forcing athletic departments to pay its football and basketball players would result in the eventual elimination of most, if not all, of the non-revenue sports. Is that what we want?

We cannot afford to be myopic on this issue. That is, there are only a limited number of programs that make big money, but yet there are hundreds of schools who absorb big losses at the cost of providing athletes a place to compete and earn a degree. The purpose of the NCAA, along with Amateur Athletic Union (AAU), Little League, and dozens of other organized forms of amateur sport is to provide a venue to play these sports – something we should not take for granted. The problem is that some have shifted in thinking that playing an organized sport is a right, whereas it still stands as a privilege.

Point #3: The University Offers More Than an Education

Concerts, lecture series by prominent people, on-stage productions, movies, intramural sports, fitness facilities, and a variety of clubs are all part of the typical university experience. Most students agree that colleges are self-contained acres of learning and socializing, all which takes place in a safe environment. It’s common for schools to subsidize the above-mentioned on-campus activities by adding fees to the tuition – which means that it’s free to a full-scholarship athlete. Other benefits to the athlete include the regular use of pristine gyms, well-manicured fields, athlete-only (and often team-only) workout facilities, sports medicine care, the opportunity to travel via away games, specialized meal plans and free foot gear and athletic attire. In addition, athletes are improving their trade from the best coaching minds in the sport; not to mention having access to some of the best nutrition and strength/conditioning personnel. And perhaps the most overlooked benefits are that the school provides the player with high-profile name recognition, a dedicated fan base, media exposure, and a competitive atmosphere with proven rivals, all of which took decades, effort and money for each institution to establish.

Point #4: The Athletic Department Has Its Role

Keep in mind that student-athletes are not employees of the university, rather they are students first and athletes second. The university can indeed make money from the sports programs; however, for those that do, the money simply goes back into the athletic program to fund the non-revenue sports (24). In fact, every year the NCAA sponsors over 80 national championships in three divisions, demonstrating the range and depth of their organization (20). While it is true that the champion in football and men’s basketball (and most other sports for that matter) seem to come from a relatively small pool of universities, it might be safe to assume that paying athletes would create an even bigger disparity since so few universities actually make money. Let’s face it, we are an underdog-loving country, and paying athletes would all but ensure that teams like Butler University, who made it to the Final Four in consecutive tournaments (2010 and 2011), will never do it again.

Point #5: Athletes Know the Deal

From the moment the full-scholarship papers are signed, each participant’s role is very clear: Schools accept the responsibility of the student’s tuition, meal plan, and boarding, while the athlete is provided with the opportunity to earn a degree, engage in college life and play their favorite sport in a well-organized, and often high profile fashion. The document signed by each student-athlete describes this agreement in an unmistakable manner. Although wordy and at times complex – a necessity due to the nature of the agreement – there’s no vagueness in the general arrangement or a hidden agenda from either party (10). A failure to honor the basic premise of any such contract would cause all forms of business – big or small – to crumble. If for some reason the university could be held liable for entrapment or some other form of dishonesty, then their athlete’s argument would stand on firmer ground. But frankly, the details of this agreement are well known by all involved, and rather strangely, no one seems to mind when signing them.

In conclusion, it should be noted that any NCAA improprieties or blatant corruption may have a carry-over effect into empathizing with the position given here. While corruption and other related-concerns are legitimate and need investigation, paying college athletes still remains a separate debate. It is vital to this process to view each NCAA issue independently and avoid making judgments on them as a whole. The position here is that, like many organizations, the NCAA should not be dismissed or discredited on one issue due to the mishandling of others. Further, if the contention is that many student athletes enter college unprepared or that athletics takes up too much time to excel (or even earn a degree), those are separate, but much needed arguments, and are not related to the issue of paying athletes.

Now more than ever, we live in an era of entitlement. At one time our country viewed the chance at higher education as a priceless commodity. However, it now seems that a college education is not held in the same esteem and worse yet, some see it as simply an opportunity to earn money. Although it is now evident that there has been a failure to convince much of the public of the true value of an education, keeping college athletes as pure amateurs remains the right thing to do.

Counter Point: Athletes in “Big-Time” Sports Should Be Paid

Introduction

The argument that a college athletic scholarship is an equal quid pro quo for a college education has been utilized since athletic scholarships were approved by the NCAA in 1950’s. My colleague makes one point that is totally accurate – a college graduate can in fact make a great deal more money over a lifetime when compared to non-graduates. However, the remainder of the author’s points are half-truths and in reality just plain falsehoods. For instance, a “full athletic scholarships” do not provide a “free” education (as it does not cover all costs incurred from matriculation to graduation. In many cases, the university does not live up to its end of the bargain of providing an education; as evidenced by the dismal number in the graduation rates, especially among African Americans. Furthermore, the athletic scholarship is only a one-year (renewable) agreement that can be terminated by the coach or university in any given year for any reason.

In debating the pay-for-play issue in college athletics, the history of the governing body (i.e., currently the NCAA), their mission and view of amateurism, the past history of college athletes benefitting financially, and the degree to which athletes benefit from the university experience must all be examined. The counter point section of this paper addresses each point made by my colleague. Using the Eitzen (12) analogy comparing the NCAA and big-time athletic programs to the old southern plantation system will be the underpinning wellspring for the subject of athlete exploitation and the financial benefits enjoyed by the university derived from that plantation-like exploitation. An economic viewpoint will be presented to demonstrate the cartel-like atmosphere held by the NCAA while maintaining the illusion of amateurism.

Finally, five proposals that outline means to promote pay-for-play in NCAA Division I football and men’s basketball will be presented. The arguments that follow are specifically tailored for those two sports at schools who receive bonus money from the NCAA, as those universities and their coaches enjoy considerable revenue from TV contracts and sponsorships generated by bowl games and “March Madness” appearances.

Point #1: Athletic Scholarships Provide a “Free Education” is not correct

As mentioned, in the 1950’s the NCAA approved adding living stipends to athletic scholarships that previously included only tuition and fees. Today, the “full ride” scholarship can only include tuition, fees, room, board, and books. And as mentioned in the previous section, in some cases, depending on the school attended, that scholarship can be worth anywhere from $30,000 to $200,000, although the figures $20,000 to $100,000 over a four year period might be more accurate. In any case, that still does not cover the full cost of attending college.

The Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC) estimates that NCAA scholarships are worth about $2000 less than the cost of attending a university, as it does not account for expenses such as travel and sundries. Former Nebraska head football coach and United States Congressman, Tom Osborne (R-NE), calculates the gap between scholarship funding and the actual cost of attendance to be closer to $3,000. Even former NCAA President, Myles Brand, indicated that he favored increasing scholarship limits: “Ideally, the value of an athletically related scholarship would be increased to cover the full-cost of attendance, calculated at between $2,000 to $3000 more per year than is currently provided, I favor this approach of providing the full cost of attendance” (23, p.232).

So yes, the scholarship can be seen as pay for play, or at the very least, a quid pro quo for services rendered during a four year period. However, even with a full scholarship, an athlete will have to pay somewhere between $8,000 and $12,000 out of pocket to bridge the cost-of-living gap. Therefore, the full athletic scholarship does not provide a “free” education. Thus question remains: is the full scholarship a fair and equitable deal for the athlete?

Athlete Exploitation-The Plantation System

Eitzen (12) among others (27) makes the analogy that the NCAA operates like the “plantation system” of the old south. The coaches are the overseers who get work from the laborers (players) who provide riches for the masters (universities) while receiving little for their efforts. Perhaps slightly over-stated (obviously the athlete is not a slave, but maybe an indentured servant), the student–athlete is dominated, managed, and controlled, and they don’t receive a wage commensurate to their contribution as expressed in dollars earned by the university. Eitzen notes that athletes are sometimes mistreated physically and mentally and are often denied the rights and freedoms of other citizens. Ultimately, they have no real democratic recourse in an unjust system.

There are other similarities to the plantation analogy. Slaves were not free to leave the plantation much like an athlete cannot get out of a letter of intent (without penalty) and/or transfer without the penalty of sitting out a year. Much like the slaves who had no right to privacy, athletes are subject to mandatory drug testing (even though their coaches/masters are not tested), room checks, and limits on where they can and cannot go in the community. The athletes can be prohibited from political protests and the right to assemble. And finally, they can be subjected to mental cruelty and physical abuse (e.g., early morning torture sessions), all in order to create obedient slaves; student athletes.

Furthermore, collegiate athletics is often the only game in town for many of these athletes. For instance, football players must be in their third year of college or over the age of 21 to enter the National Football League (NFL). Basketball players, on the other hand, must attend college for one year or ultimately sit out a year before they can enter the National Basketball Association (NBA). Thus, the college game has become a “feeder system” similar to a minor professional league and it is in reality, “the only game in town.”

Point #2: Athletes Don’t Know the “Real” Deal

My colleague is partially correct in that most student athletes know that they are getting a scholarship that will allow them to go to school and play a sport. However, many don’t know the “real deal” as they generally have very little understanding they are about to enter a “plantation-like” system in which their scholarship in not guaranteed (i.e., renewable yearly) and can be terminated at any time. Student-athletes are also a led to believe that they will play and receive a college degree while possibly picking up a few fringe benefits along the way.

Take, for example, the recent stories regarding players like Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, or the players at Ohio State who received money and/or other benefits as a result of playing football. Even though student athletes know they will not get directly paid for playing, many desire and even expect some form of compensation. Slack (25) surveyed 3,500 current and retired football players in 1989 only to find that 31% had received under the table money during their college careers and 48% knew of others who had received payments. This seems to imply that while many recruits may indeed know “the deal”, they display their discontent by accepting payments or other benefits not currently allowed by the NCAA.

In reality, the statement “athletes know the deal” with regard to academic achievement and degree completion seems to lack substance. Dr. Nathan Tublitz, co-chair of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletes, an organization of 51 faculty senates whose purpose is to remind college presidents, athletic directors, and coaches that student athletes are students first. He points out that:

“…schools aren’t doing these kids any favors by admitting them when it’s unlikely that they will succeed academically. We bring 17 year-old kids, some of them from the inner city and we wine and dine them. They have female chaperones. We put them up in fancy hotels. They come here and see an incredibly fancy locker room with individual TV screens, air conditioning and videogames. They go in and see the new football stadium and the new $200 million basketball arena. They see a medical training facility that is stunningly beautiful with waterfalls, treadmill pools, and the sate-of-the-art medical and dental equipment. They come here and are treated like royalty. Until they break a leg or get put on the second string and they get set aside. Many don’t earn a degree. They don’t have the training or the skills to be independent after they leave the university. They’re lost (28, p.D10).”

When the scholarship is signed, the athlete and his family have reasonable expectations which include efforts by the coaching staff and university administration to meet all obligations of the contract. Additionally, my colleague notes, “that failure to honor the basic premise of any such contract would cause all forms of business – big or small – to crumble.” If the NCAA and athletic departments in higher education are a business, why are they allowed to act in a cartel-like fashion? And finally, do student athletes really know the “deal” when they penned their name on national signing day? It appears they don’t.

Point #3: The University Offers More than Education-It’s Possible-But Not Probable

Academic Detachment. My colleague also makes the claim that the university offers more than an education (e.g., concerts, lectures, intramurals, and clubs) in settings that enrich the college experience. Due to the plantation effect, however, many athletes are not able to take advantage of those events. For instance, few if any of the scholarship athletes would be allowed to play in an intramural contest for the coach’s fear of injury. Student athletes are also over-scheduled with study halls, practices, weight training sessions, film study, individual workouts, more practice, travel, and competition; all in an attempt to help athletes maintain focus on their sport.

Adler and Adler (1) spent five years recording systematic information regarding the athletes’ lives in a big-time college basketball program. After observing, interviewing, and traveling with them, they concluded that big-time basketball and being seriously engaged in academics were not compatible. They also found that freshmen had a period of optimism regarding academics when they first arrived on campus, but after about two semesters they found that the social isolation combined with the fatigue of training kept them from becoming involved in academic life.

Positive feedback these basketball players earned was always athletic-related and not academic. They soon learned what they had to do to stay eligible. Coaches made sure they scheduled classes that did not interfere with practices. Ultimately, the researchers realized that academic detachment was encouraged by the peer culture, and because of their social status (e.g., big man on campus), it became difficult for them to focus on academics.

Coakley (8) reported that not all of the athletes in the Adler & Adler (1) study experienced academic detachment. Those who entered college well-prepared with appropriate high school courses, strong parental support and an ability to develop relationships outside of sport were able to succeed in the classroom. It’s important to note that too many minority athletes from low socioeconomic environments struggle in academics – an issue that is often perpetuated by the coaches. For instance, Robert Smith, former running back for Minnesota Vikings and pre-med student while at Ohio State, needed two afternoon labs in the same semester. Since the labs conflicted with practice, coaches suggested that he drop them because of the commitment he made to play football. Against the wishes of the coaching staff, Smith took the classes but was forced to sit out the season as red shirt athlete; a further example of the plantation effect.

Benson (3) noted that one perspective was missing from the literature included a full expression from the black athletes point of view. Benson conducted a qualitative interview study of 12 African American students at a DI football program where the graduation rate was 31-40% for black football players compared to 60-70% of white football players. The results in this instance cannot be generalized due to the small sample size (N=12), but it does provide a snapshot of the thoughts regarding education and athletics of this group. Further, they reflect the results obtained by Adler & Adler (1).

Another major finding of the Benson (3) study was that the marginal academic performance was created by a series of interrelated practices engaged in by all significant members of the academic setting, including peers, coaches, advisors, teachers, and the student athletes themselves. It began in the recruitment, and continued through the first year. Black student athletes received the message that school was not important, and that as time passed, they had no real control over their destiny in the classroom. It was simply a matter of survival to keep the grade point average (GPA) to a point to be eligible. They all felt like the coaches did not “walk the talk” in terms of academics. They would just talk the academic game in public but then in reality they would have “fits” if classes ever interfered with the program. Simply put, student athletes learned it was a matter of survival and a basic expectation to maintain a GPA just high enough to remain eligible to compete (3).

“The Black Dumb Jock”. Harry Edwards (13) discussed the creation of the “black dumb jock” image prior to studies completed by Alder and Alder (1), Benson (3), and Coakley (8). He (i.e., Edwards) theorized that they were not born, but rather systematically created. The previous mentioned studies serve as evidence to support his statement (1, 3, 8). The exploitation of athletes is not solely an NCAA issue but a societal one. For example, Fred Butler was passed on through elementary, middle, and high school because he was a good football player. He graduated from high school reading at a second grade level and went to El Camino Junior College. There he took a number of physical activity classes while hoping to be drafted into the NFL. When no offer came, he played at California State University-Los Angeles for a year and a half. When again no offer came and his eligibility expired, he failed out of school within months with no degree, no offers to play pro ball, and no skills to use for employment. And he still could not read! (18). Similarly, Former NFL player Dexter Manley testified before a Senate Committee that he played four years at Oklahoma State University, only to leave the school illiterate. And the sad feature is that academic detachment from the university athletic department perspective doesn’t seem to be an issue because there are always more impoverished (and usually minority) kids waiting to come in and play.

Thus, student athletes in many cases cannot take advantage of the many extras offered by a college education. Why do athletes accept a diluted academic experience or the corruption of doctored transcripts, phantom courses, surrogate test takers, and tutors writing papers? Perhaps it is because they are disenfranchised under the current system, and will lose scholarships, starting roles, and eligibility if they complain. George Will argued that “College football and basketball are, for many players, vocations, not avocations, and academics are unsubstantiated rumors” (12, p.5). So do full scholarship athletes get a chance to take advantage of all the extras of the university experience? More than likely it is not the case especially when they can’t even hope for a meaningful degree.

NCAA as a Cartel. Kahn (16) examined the operation of the college football and basketball systems of the NCAA and offers lessons about the determinants and effects of supply and demand. Specifically he utilizes economic principles to calculate the value of college football player to a university. He notes that total ticket revenues for football and men’s basketball were $757 million in 1999, total value that exceeded the total ticket sales for all of professional baseball, football, and hockey that year. A figure indicating that the NCAA is a very successful business entity engaged in capitalism.

According to the cartel theory, the NCAA has “enforced collusive restrictions on payments for factors of production, including player compensation, recruiting expenses, and assistant coaches salaries; it has restricted output; and it has defeated potential rival groups (16, p. 211).” He notes, along with others (11, 15, 16, 30), that the NCAA can impose sanctions that range from scholarship reductions, elimination from post-season play to program death penalties (e.g., Southern Methodist football); and possibly even threaten a school’s academic accreditation. However, restriction of pay to players is the main way in which the organization acts to restrict competition.

Economists who have studied the NCAA “view it as a cartel that attempts to produce rents, both by limiting payments for inputs such as player compensation and by limiting output” (16, p.210). When looking at the rent values based on college football or men’s basketball players’ performances, they are paid below a competitive level of compensation based on estimates of marginal revenue product produced of these players (6). Their analysis considered the total revenue for a school and the number of players that were eventually drafted by a major professional league. Utilizing this framework they concluded that in 2005 dollars a draft-ready football player returned $495,000 to the university, while a draft-ready basketball player was worth $1.422 million for men’s basketball. And all of this compared to the approximately $40,000 paid in scholarship worth. This indicates that the NCAA does indeed use cartel power to pay top athletes less than the athlete’s market value.

Based on a workload of 1000 hours per year and an average scholarship value, economist Richard Sheehan (16) calculated the basic hourly wage of a college basketball player at $6.82 and a football player at $7.69. Coaches’ hourly wages, on the other hand, ranged from $250-$647 per hour (depending on salary). Again, using the Eitzen metaphor, the masters accumulate wealth at the slave’s expense, even though the athlete/slave’s health is jeopardized by participation (12).

Parent (23) notes the hypocrisy of the amateurism construct when looking at these capitalism issues. He notes that the former president of the University of Washington, William Gerberding, said, “As one contemplates the obvious fact that so many of the most gifted athletes are economically and educationally disadvantaged blacks, this becomes less and less defensible. I have become increasingly uncomfortable about having a largely white establishment maintaining an elaborate system of rules that deprives student-athletes, many of whom are non-white, of adequate financial support in the name of the ideals of amateurism” (p.236).

So, why do athletes tolerate this system? They do mainly because they are disenfranchised and fear losing their scholarships and eligibility if they complain. In essence, this pay-for-play discussion revolves around amateurism, as advertised by the NCAA, and its competing capitalistic drive for income. According to Tulsa Law School professor Ray Yasser, the best option for athletes to change the system for their benefit is to unite and “file an antitrust suit…against the NCAA and their universities, with the claim being that the NCAA and their universities are colluding to create a monopoly over the athlete’s ability to share in the profits generated from college athletics” (23, p.236).

While the points for maintaining the status quo were stated previously, there has been sufficient evidence presented in this section to stimulate discussion of paying players. The “play for a diploma” agreement is not happening in many cases, as the athlete failure rate indicates. Another example is national champion Connecticut men’s basketball program losing two scholarships for the upcoming season as a result of a poor Academic Performance Rating (APR) from the NCAA (11). Thus, the following pay for play proposals are being submitted for consideration.

Pay Proposals

It would appear that NCAA should get out of the commercial business of football and basketball and follow the Ivy League example of providing an environment that is truly amateur where student athletes actually are students first. That move would certainly place the student first in the student athlete term. However, it doesn’t seem pragmatic that either the NCAA or any of the major universities are in any hurry to turn away millions of dollars per year in profits. Therefore, it is time to consider some pay-for-pay proposals. California and Nebraska have already passed state legislation that would enable colleges to compensate athletes; however they are blocked by the NCAA from doing so (23). Therefore, I submit five proposals that could possibly be implemented:

1. Big Ten Plan and/or Work Study Proposal: At the very least, the NCAA should follow former NCAA President Miles Brand’s suggestion and allocate athletes include a $2,000-$3,000 cost of living increase to full scholarships. Since athletes are supposedly only allowed to spend 20 hours per week involved with sport-related activities, this might actually be paid as 20 hours of work study or as a monthly living stipend. This would provide the athletes with the needed income for clothes, laundry, sundries, travel, and other small item expenses.
   Officials from the Big Ten are currently discussing a similar proposal that would help their athletes meet expenses not covered in an athletic scholarship. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany reports league athletic directors and university officials have seriously discussed using some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more. This proposal which would give athletes a $2,000-$5,000 per year living stipend also has the support of current NCAA president Mark Emmert (2).

1. SEC Game Pay Proposal: The Southeastern Conference, another of the big time football conferences recently entered into the pay for play discussion. University of South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier put forth a proposal at the recent conference meetings to pay players $300 per game. The proposal was supported by several other coaches.
   This type of a proposal could pay athletes anywhere from $300-$1000 per game based on time played per game. Since most players do not play more than 30 minutes a game, a player could be paid on a per-minute of competition basis. At a rate of $20 per minute a player could net $600 for a game and approximately $6000-$7,000 per season.

1. Professional League Proposal: Ron Woods (27) puts forth a proposal submitted by Peter Plagensa, visiting professor at Middlebury College, regarding the pay-for-play issue. He appears to agree with the likes of Stanley Eitzen that the current practice of colleges and the NCAA do in fact “amount to a little more than a plantation system” (27, p. 67). He suggests that the big time college football and basketball maintain the million-dollar industry by making them an age 23 and under professional league. This proposal would allow universities to hire players as college staff (much like the cafeteria or groundskeepers) at moderate salaries plus room and board. Universities could also grant the athletes free academic classes until they earn a degree (even after playing days are over).

1. Revenue Sharing Proposal from TV/NCAA Proceeds:
   

   “College basketball players watch the coach roaming the sidelines in his $1,500 custom-make suit. They read about his $500.000 salary and $250,000 perk from a sneaker deal. They watch the schools sell jerseys (and T-shirts) with the player’s numbers on them. They see the athletic director and NCAA officials getting rich and you wonder why they might ask; hey where’s my share? What am I, a pack mule” (17, p.46)

   Tim Tebow related on the Daily Show (26) that he joked with his college coach prior to a national championship game about getting a cut of his bonus money to ensure a victory. This brings another revenue sharing possibility to the surface: coaches sharing their bonuses and other performance incentives with the players.
   Most coaches in big time programs are paid huge bonuses based on team record and ranking, all a result of player performance. For instance, according to 2009 IRS income tax reports, Mike Krzyewski received $2,222,543 in bonuses and incentives (4). Coaches under this proposal would be required to share 25-50% of their bonuses with the players. Isn’t it reasonable to expect the athletes to get a cut of the bonus money? After all, they (i.e., the players) are the ones who put the coaches in a position to earn those bonuses.

My colleague has argued in point #2 that paying athletes raise a myriad of other issues, such as how much should they receive, what happens if an athlete gets hurt, and so on. That is a discussion for another time. First, we must agree that it is fair to compensate NCAA Division I football and basketball athletes beyond that of an athletic scholarship; then and only then may payout details be chronicled. Note: a reminder that we are only discussing compensation for the NCAA Division I-A football and basketball players; not the athletes in the AAU, Little League or other truly amateur venues of organized sport.

Summary

Throughout the history of the NCAA, college athletes have routinely received compensation beyond that of a full college scholarship (e.g., room and board, tuition, books). While such compensation is illegal, athletes like Reggie Bush and others receive under-the-table benefits as evidenced in the Slack survey (25).

Additionally, many athletes in “big time” programs do not receive a degree for their efforts in the athletic arena. Universities routinely admit students based on their athletic skills that are academically ill-prepared for success. As seen in the research (1, 3), many athletes that aspire to be academically successful soon lose hope with the over-scheduling and pressures of sport preparation. As a result, many college athletes, a majority of which are minorities, fail out of school once coaches have utilized their eligibility.

The NCAA functions like a cartel, keeping cost down while increasing profits. Rents for a draft-ready athlete earn the university somewhere between $500,000 for football and $1.422 million for men’s basketball (16), leading to a pseudo-plantation system where the coaches oversee the athletes demanding work and controlling their schedules on and off the field. This unbalanced system allows athletes to earn the equivalent of $6.80-$7.69 an hour (12) while coaches like Nick Saban of Alabama or Mack Brown of Texas earn over five million dollars a year (4).

If the NCAA continues as a corporate entity and acting in a cartel-like fashion making millions of dollars a year, implementing a plan to pay student athletes for playing must be considered. Otherwise, America’s institutions of higher learning should follow the Ivy League schools’ example and eliminate athletic scholarships, get out of the big time sport business, and get on with providing students with a complete educational experience.

Applications in Sport

Few discussions within sport are more common or controversial than the debate to pay college athletes. Some arguments are well thought and articulated, while others lack insight and are simply driven by passion. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a new perspective and some historical insight – all supported by the literature – regardless of their stance on this issue. Moreover, readers who may actually be heard by the NCAA may offer a position that has yet to be considered. The concession here is that despite any decision by the NCAA in the near future, we can be assured that college administrators, coaches, and athletes will continue this debate. However, their arguments may now be seen as relevant and more reasoned.

POSTSCRIPT: According to Michelle B. Hosick at the NCAA.org, the NCAA board of directors has moved on two issues discussed in this article since its submission. In April (2012), the board moved to implement a $2,000 allowance to an athlete’s full scholarship. They also voted to grant multi-year scholarships. However, both measures have been put on hold with the threat of an override vote by member institutions. On January 14, 2012 at the NCAA convention the board delayed implementation of the $2,000 supplement and sent it back to committee for revision at its April meeting. The multi-year scholarship issue will continue to be implemented on a conference-by-conference basis. And so the pay-for-play discussion continues.

References

1. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1999). College athletes in high-profile media sports: The consequences of glory. In Inside sports (pp. 162–70), edited by J. Coakley and P. Donnelly. London: Routledge.
2. Bennett, B. (May 19, 2011). Big Ten considers pay research proposal. ESPN College Football. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134.
3. Benson, K. F. (2000) Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes’ stories of schooling. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 223- 46.
4. Berkowitz, S., & Gardiner, A. (2011, May 17). Coach K made $4.7M in 2009. USA Today, 2C.
5. Bronson, A. G. (1958). Clark W. Hetherington-Scientist and philosopher. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
6. Brown, R. W., & Jewell, T. R. (2006). The marginal revenue product of a women’s college basketball player. Industrial Relations, 45 (1), 96-101.
7. Cheesman-Day, J., & Newberger, E. (2002). The big pay-off educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs.
8. Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
9. Crowley, W. H. (1999). Athletics in American colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 494-502.
10. Cozzillio, M. J. (1989). The athletic scholarship and the college national letter of intent: A contract by any other name. Wayne Law Review, 35, 1275-1379.
11. Eaton-Robb, P. (2011, May 20). UConn loses 2 men’s basketball scholarships. Norwich Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.norwichbulletin.com/newsnow/x31866796/UConn-mens-hoops-loses-2-scholarships#axzz1NCVV1385.
12. Eitzen, S. D. (2000, September). Slaves of big-time college sports: College athletes. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), 125.
13. Edwards, H. (1984). The black dumb jock: An American sports tragedy. College Board Review, 131, 8-13.
14. Emmert, M. (2011). How it all adds up. NCAA Champion Magazine, 4 (2), 5.
15. Fleisher, A. A., Goff, G. L., & Tollison, R. D. (1992). The National Collegiate Athletic Association: A study in cartel behavior. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
16. Kahn, L. M. (2007). Markets: Cartel behavior and amateurism in college sports. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 209-226.
17. Kornheiser, T. (1999, December 13). Six billion? Where’s mine? ESPN The Magazine, 46.
18. Lapchick, R. (1989). Pass to play: student athletes and academics. National Education Association of the United States.
19. Madesen, R. (2001). The role of the NCAA and the need for reform in big-time college sports. Academic Exchange – EXTRA. Retrieved from http:/www.unco.edu/AE-Extra/2001/3/NCAA.html.
20. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2011). Why student-athletes are not paid to play. Retrieved from www.ncaa.org.
21. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2010). 2009-10 guide for college bound student athlete: Where academics and athletic success is your goal. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.
22. Olterddorf, C. (1999). But what is the NCAA? What is the real purpose? And is it achieving it? Texas Alcalde, 28, 3-5.
23. Parent, C. M. (2004, spring). Forward progress? An analysis of whether student-athletes should be paid? Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 226-244.
24. Rosner, S., & Shropshire, K. (2004). The business of sports. (pp.527-531). Ontario, Canada: Jones and Bartlett.
25. Slack, A. (1991).The underground economy of college football. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8 (1), 1-15.
26. Stewart, J., & Albanese, R. (2011, June 2). The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. [Television broadcast] New York: The Comedy Channel (MTV Networks Entertainment Group).
27. Woods, R. B. (2007). Social issues in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
28. Yost, M. (2008, March 19). A cultural conversation with Nathan Tublitz: Has serious academic reform of college athletics arrived? The Wall Street Journal, D10.
29. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education statistics, 2009 (NCES 2010-013).
30. Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Risk Management Plans: Existence and Enforcement at NIAAA Member High School Athletic Departments

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-03T10:47:34-05:00June 14th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the current scenario of interscholastic athletics in terms of the existence and enforcement of risk management plans within high school athletic departments. Another purpose was to identify the common practices related to risk management currently utilized. The present study had a response rate of 16.7%. The results showed that 76.2 % of the respondents (N=816) conduct interscholastic activities with the support of risk management plans, but there are still 23.8% of those interscholastic athletic departments where risk management plans are nonexistent. In addition, from those who indicated having a risk management plan, 28% do not enforce it. A majority of respondents seem to be employing risk management best practices consistently, but there is an indication of a less than desired level of adoption of some practices (i.e., informed consent forms, pre-season sport specific meetings, ADA compliance, coach evaluation and written criteria, safety training, accessibility of AED’s, and warning signs). The results of our study showed a statistically significant relationship between the athletic directors’ years of experience and the adoption of certain risk management practices (i.e. coach evaluation, evaluation criteria, risk management enforcement, and hazard abatement), but (surprisingly) not to the adoption of other similarly important practices. This study provides high school athletic administrators and principals with relevant information that can be used to support their decision to adopt and enforce risk management plans for interscholastic athletic activities.

Key words: Risk Management Practices, Risk Management Plan, Interscholastic Athletics, Athletic Directors.

Introduction

In college athletics, risk management plans exist in order to reduce medical costs, prevent liability and to help schools afford insurance (Anderson, 2006). What about high school? Today, suing the schools, their coaches and officials for any reason is very common. Thus, high schools have to be prepared to defend themselves against legal claims, especially those related to interscholastic sports. Millions of teenagers participate in organized school-sponsored interscholastic sports programs each year. Competitive sports are an integral part of the lives of high school students and have the potential to offer them many benefits. Increased participation and rapid body changes make the risk of injuries for high school students engaging in interscholastic athletics a real threat (Ballard, 1996). In addition to the well-known mental, physical, economic, and spectator benefits provided by high school sports, the possible costs or hazards of interscholastic athletic participation are always present (Lipsey, 2006). Supporting that idea, an epidemiologic study commissioned by the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System showed that 55.5% of American high school students participated on at least one sports team, and 21.9% of those students reported seeking medical treatment as a result of their activities (Eaton, Kann, Kinchen, et al., 2007). These data justify the need for increased efforts in developing and implementing strategies to identify and treat potential risks related to interscholastic participation. With that in mind, it is important for interscholastic athletic administrators to become familiar with commonly utilized best practices related to risk management in high school sports.

Gray (1995) studied risk management at physical education and athletic programs at the high school level in the state of Iowa. He investigated high school principals’ perceptions of a 20 item list of best practices related to risk management and principals’ supervision of programs. The author found that these administrators perform most of the risk management behaviors within the survey in a consistent basis. He also found that the size of the school had little influence on the behavior among the surveyed principals.

A similar study conducted by Bezdicek (2009), examined 463 high school athletic directors in Minnesota. The study was conducted to determine to what extent do athletic directors develop, implement, and manage a risk management plan for their athletic department, and the levels of familiarity that athletic directors have with risk management standards. The study revealed that the majority (56%) of athletic directors in Minnesota did not have a written risk management plan. In addition, the reasons for not having a risk management plan, as expressed by the respondents, were: lack of time (26.3%), lack of expertise (20.8%), and no need for a plan (19.7%).

Mulrooney and Green (1997) determined that the following characteristics must be present for a risk management plan to be considered bonafide and functioning: (1) a staff member is the risk manager, (2) a written risk management plan should outline policies and procedures in detail (including audit checklists), (3) periodic risk audits are conducted by staff, (4) periodic staff training programs related to risk management should be in place, and (5) the risk management plan is created with legal counsel.

Doleschal (2006) points out that: “ongoing risk management programs, the preparation of written material to be disseminated to coaches, participants, and parents or guardians, signed informed consent forms, inspection of equipment, etc., are examples of proactive steps that can be taken by school districts and their athletic programs” (p.295). He argues that unfortunately “many schools either do not have/use a risk management plan or do not follow good risk management practices” (p. 295). To assist interscholastic athletic departments in developing efficient risk management plans, Doleschal (2006) recommends 14 duties of care (proper planning, proper supervision, eligibility assessment, safe playing conditions, equipment maintenance, proper instruction, proper matching of athletes, proper conditioning, risk warning, proper insurance, emergency care and response plan, safe transportation, and proper selection, training and supervision of coaches) which schools should incorporate in their plans as preventive steps to minimize possible liability for the school or coaches.

Due to the nature of interscholastic athletic activities, coaches and schools constantly deal with the risk of litigation. Thus, it is important that they understand following the steps laid out in a risk management plan is instrumental to minimizing risks and reducing loss. The choice of either not having or not enforcing a risk management plan puts schools and their staff at risk of experiencing the anguish and pain involved in the time consuming process of defending a lawsuit (Doleschal, 2006). A good risk management plan is not an absolute guarantee that litigation will be avoided. However, good risk management practices can be effective aids in developing not only safer programs, but also act as an effective defense, should litigation occur (Doleschal, 2006).

With a good risk management plan in place, the identification and treatment of risks becomes much more effective. According to Stier et al. (2008), “risk management implies the assessment of risks associated with one or more activities or events and planning for the worst-case scenario”. (p. 32). Cotton (1993) points out that there are four essential elements to any risk management plan: identification of real and potential risks, assessment of the identified risks in terms of their causes, determination of appropriate courses of action to take in dealing with these risks if they occur, and establishment of effective and efficient risk prevention measures.

Finally, it is important to emphasize the athletic administrators’ role in the implementation and management of a risk management plan. A significant number of lawsuits are negligence claims taking place after the accident and the initial injury of an individual. Thus, the administrators’ ultimate goals must be to provide the safest environment possible for everyone involved, and to be prepared to deal with accidents and injuries if and when they do occur (Stier et al, 2008). Despite the fact that “no plan can be completely effective in preventing all injuries or accidents” (p.32), administrators are still responsible for enforcing and maintaining a meaningful risk management plan (Stier et al, 2008).

For high school athletic administrators, the challenge becomes providing sport programs which take safety seriously. In other words, the task is to effectively manage the many risks to which students-athletes are exposed. To do so, schools should rely on risk management plans and best practices to ensure that all school employees involved with athletics are fully prepared to prevent losses and to deal with losses when they occur (Appenzeller, 2005). However, is that really the case? Do high schools across the country actually have a risk management plan and truly enforce it? What are the most common practices related to risk management currently utilized by athletic departments at the high school level?

The purpose of this study was to explore the current scenario of interscholastic athletics in terms of the existence and enforcement of risk management plans within high school athletic departments. Another purpose was to identify the common practices related to risk management currently utilized. This study provides high school athletic administrators and principals with relevant information that can be used to support their decision to adopt and enforce risk management plans applied to interscholastic athletic activities.

To achieve such purposes, the following questions must be answered:

1. How frequently high schools have and enforce risk management plans which are tailored to their athletic programs?
2. What are the best practices used by high school athletic departments to address the inherent risks to the athletic activities they provide?
3. Is there any relationship between athletic directors’ years of experience and existence/enforcement of specific risk management plan practices?

Methods

An online survey instrument was developed and distributed to high school athletic administrators for the purposes of examining risk management practices for high school athletics.

Subjects

The subjects were high school athletic directors belonging to the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (NIAAA). The NIAAA granted permission to the researchers to conduct the study. At the time of the survey, the NIAAA membership totaled 5,758 (while there were few email delivery failures, the amount was negligible). The first page of the online survey presented the participants information about the study and an informed consent form. Continuing to take the survey served as the respondents’ consent. The survey was available to the participants for six consecutive weeks, starting late Fall 2010.

Instrument

The survey instrument consisted of twenty-four questions related to risk management policy and practices as well as eight demographic questions. Questions were broken down into three categories: policy and procedure, supervision and personnel evaluation, and safety. The policy and procedure category consisted of questions related to Title IX, athletic association rules, insurance, informed consent, preseason meetings and ADA compliance. The supervision and personnel evaluation category consisted of questions related to coach certification and evaluation, supervision of events, and policy enforcement. Lastly, the safety category focused on emergency training, equipment and procedures, hazard inspection, game equipment, venue signage, and security and team transportation. The questions were a combination of Likert-type and open-ended. Directions for the survey were imbedded within the survey itself. Directions were placed for each section and coincided with any question format changes. Content for the questions was developed using previous literature related to risk management policies and procedures. Content validity was established using a panel of individuals chosen for their expertise and experience in risk management policy and procedures. The instrument was also tested for issues of readability using student focus groups.

Data Collection and Analysis

Using a modified Dillman (2007) method, the final version of the survey was sent to the NIAAA membership which totaled 5,758 at the time of the survey. The instrument was sent by email with a letter explaining the purpose of the study and informing them that participation was voluntary. Participants were assured of their anonymity as respondents, and also were given electronically generated respondent ID numbers by the survey program. There were 5,758 surveys sent out with 962 surveys returned for a 16 .7% response rate. Of the 962 surveys returned there were 816 fully completed and useable surveys. The researchers agree that 16% response rate seems low. However, it is important to point out that this is an exploratory study reaching out to a very large population. The group of respondents represents diverse geographic regions and a variety of school sizes. In addition, the complex and high-demand nature of the job performed by those athletic directors is a very reasonable justification for their low response rate.

Descriptive analysis was used to explore demographic information related to the administrators, and the frequency of legal action related to injuries and adoption of risk management best practices. Chi-square tests were performed to investigate the existence of relationships between the risk management practices and administrators experience.

Results

The athletic administrators surveyed represented schools ranging in size from 41 students to over 8,000. The mean enrollment of schools represented in the survey was 1,182. These schools fielded an average of 18 different athletic programs.

The administrators themselves were a majority male (83.9%). From all responding administrators, 2.6% held a doctorate, 74.6% held a master’s degree, 18.2 % held a bachelor degree, and 2 % represented other levels of education (associate or high school degree). These administrators had an average of 11.7 years of total experience with an average of 8.0 years being employed at their current school.

Policy Provision and Injury

In terms of injuries and risk, these schools have seen very little legal action related to injury (less than 1%), with (on average) three catastrophic injuries over the last five years requiring hospitalization. In light of this finding it is important to note that during this time, approximately one quarter of the sample either did not have a risk management policy (17.3%) or didn’t know if one existed at their school (6.5%). Of the schools possessing a risk management policy, 28 % said the policies were not enforced.

Risk Management Practices

To examine risk management practices, a series of questions were asked related to standard practices involving risk minimization for athletic program participation. In all categories (policy and procedure, supervision and personnel evaluation, and safety) 78% or more of respondents answered that they engaged in the practice often or always, with the exception of the item inquiring about the presence of visible risk warning signs at venues (46.9%) (Table 1). In the policy and procedure category, 10.5% of the respondents rarely, if ever, required consent forms for athletic participation. Also, only 86.4% conducted sport-specific pre-season meetings for athletes and parents. Lastly, 11.3% indicated that ADA guidelines were seldom met.

Within the supervision and personnel evaluation category, the results showed that less than 83% of the respondents evaluate their coaches on a regular basis. To compound this issue, only 85% had written criteria with which to evaluate those coaches. In addition, only 81.9% respondents indicated that their athletic department had someone responsible for enforcing the risk management plan.

The safety category results presented the largest concerns: 20.6% of the respondents indicated that emergency safety training is not provided to coaches and staff on a regular basis, and only 78.6% have AEDs within easy access at athletic activities. Having proper signage at sport venues with visible risk warning signs was also lacking, with less than half (46.9%) of administrators indicating adequate signage.

Risk Management Practices and Administrators’ Experience

A series of chi-square tests were performed to look at relationships between the risk management practices and administrators’ experience (Table 2). For the purposes of this analysis, administrators were categorized into two groups: those with fewer than eleven years of experience and those with eleven or more years. Significant associations were found between experience and the risk management practice variables of coach evaluation, evaluation criteria, risk management enforcement, and hazard abatement.

There was a significant (χ2 (1) = 12.75, p<.001) albeit weak (Phi = .126, p<.001) association between the level of administrator experience and whether the coaches were evaluated on a regular basis. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of administrators with 11 or more years of experience evaluating coaches on a regular basis was twice that of administrators with ten years or less experience.

The association between level of administrator experience and written evaluation criteria was also significant (χ2 (1) = 5.37, p<.05) and weak (Phi = .08, p<.05). The calculation of the odds ratio indicated the odds of administrators with 11 or more years of experience having written evaluation criteria were 1.6 times that of administrators with ten years or less experience.

Administrator experience and whether the athletic department had someone responsible for enforcing a risk management plan showed a significant (χ2 (1) = 5.30, p<.05) and weak (Phi = .08, p<.05) association. The odds ratio indicated the odds of administrators with 11 or more years of experience having a dedicated person responsible for risk management plan enforcement was 1.5 that of administrators with ten years or less experience.

Lastly, there was a significant (χ2 (1) = 5.15, p<.05) and weak (Phi = .08, p<.05) association between the level of administrator experience and whether identified hazards were repaired correctly and timely. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of administrators with 11 or more years of experience repairing hazards timely and correctly was twice that of administrators with ten years or less experience.

Discussion

The first goal of this study was to determine the frequency with which high schools in America have and enforce risk management plans applied to their athletic programs. Regarding the existence of a risk management plan, the results showed that 23.8% of the respondents either did not have a risk management policy or didn’t know if one existed at their school. In addition, among the schools possessing a risk management plan, 28 % said the plan policies were not enforced.

These figures are unexpected and very concerning. The concern is based on interscholastic athletic stakeholders’ expectation that schools and programs to be fully committed to the safety of athletes and fans, through the presence and enforcement of a solid risk management plan as the utmost symbol of that commitment. As such, it would be only reasonable to expect a much higher percentage of existence and enforcement of risk management plans. However, despite the increase in participation and the litigious character of our society, it seems that a significant number of interscholastic athletic administrators (or, in some cases, the local school board) choose to put their students and their schools at constant risk of major loss and liability (Bezdicek, 2009; Eaton et al., 2007; Gray, 1995; Lipsey, 2006; Stier et al, 2008). It is also surprising that, despite so many interscholastic athletic departments reporting absence of either a risk management plan or the enforcement of one, less than 1% of the respondents had legal action related to injury requiring hospitalization over the last five years. Perhaps, this could be a possible explanation for the less than desired level of adoption and enforcement of risk management plans among the respondents.

The administrators who have and enforce risk management plans will continue to reap the benefits of loss prevention and reduction (Bezdicek, 2009; Eaton et al., 2007; Gray, 1995; Lipsey, 2006; Stier et al, 2008). The same cannot be said for to the administrators who either do not have or do not enforce risk management plans. One can only hope that, by becoming acquainted with the information provided here, they may adopt practices that will certainly lead them to risk and liability reduction (Appenzeller, 2005; Bezdicek; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007; Eaton et al.; Gray; Lipsey; Stier et al).

The second goal of this study was to identify the best and most frequently used practices to address the inherent risks to interscholastic athletic activities. As expected, the survey results showed that most administrators followed these standards of risk management the vast majority of the time. However, the results presented a few points of concern, which could be another possible explanation for the low percentage of schools with risk management plans.

Initially, the fact that 10.5% of the respondents rarely required informed consent forms may place these schools in a defenseless position if facing negligence claims related to injuries occurring during participation in schools’ interscholastic activities (Appenzeller, 2005; Cotton, 1993; Doleschal, 2006). Dealing with the same liability category, 13.6% do not conduct sport specific pre-season meetings for athletes and parents. According to Doleschal (2006), “parents/guardians and athletes have a right to information regarding the possibility of injury, paralysis, and death that is inherent in all sports” (p.318).The provision of such information is a duty the institutions legally owe to the families. The lack of signed informed consent and sport specific pre-season meetings prevent participants (and their families) from being fully educated on the risks involved in the specific sport in which they desire to participate, and make the defense against a negligence claim very difficult (Appenzeller; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007; Doleschal).

ADA compliance at interscholastic venues is also an issue. 11.3% of the respondents indicated that ADA guidelines were seldom met. This lack of compliance not only prevents the access and participation of people with disabilities at those venues, but also provides strong legal claims to those affected by such lack of compliance to the law (Appenzeller, 2005; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007). One can only hope that such lack of compliance is due to the fact that those venues were built before ADA legislation was enacted (Appenzeller, 2005; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007). Despite being able to receive tax breaks for making the necessary corrections to be compliant with the law (Appenzeller; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007), it appears that the schools choose to hide behind the age of their venues rather than to take action and become compliant with the law.

Other concerning issues identified were the lack of written criteria with which to evaluate coaches (17.2%) and actual evaluation of those educators (15%). Combined, these two issues expose high schools to potential negligence and contract liability (Appenzeller, 2005; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007; Doleschal, 2006). On one hand, coaches’ various negligent actions may cause major injury and loss to all stakeholders. Such losses can be prevented if coaches’ evaluation and training are truly executed and based on written criteria (Doleschal, 2006). On another hand, the lack of written coaches’ evaluation criteria and an evaluation process following such standards may also place schools in violation of contract laws, specifically when coaches’ have to be disciplined or terminated (Appenzeller, 2005; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007; Doleschal, 2006).

Safety training, AED accessibility, and warning signs were also identified as concerning issues. Lack of safety training for coaches and staff on a regular basis (20.6% of the respondents) may expose students and spectators to a wide range of risks of injury and loss (ranging from failure to warn and equipment malfunction, to poor response to catastrophic injuries) that could be easily prevented with appropriate training (Doleschal, 2006). The absence of easily accessible AED equipment (reported by 21.4% of the respondents) adds to the major liability claims that certainly will come as a consequence of poor response to catastrophic injuries (Appenzeller, 2005). Lack of proper signage (reported by more than 50% of the respondents) may also expose students and fans to unnecessary risks and generate costly lawsuits against the schools. It is the schools’ duty to warn spectators and participants of potential risks involved in the activity through all means possible (i.e., verbal warnings, signage, and public announcement system) (Blumenthal, 2009; Girvan & Girvan, 1993; Lee, Farley & Kwon, 2010). Under any of these circumstances above, schools may be held liable.

The third goal of this study was to identify if there is any relationship between athletic directors’ experience and existence/enforcement of risk management plan practices. No significant relationship was found between experience and the existence of risk management plans. Such a result was expected, considering that the existence of a risk management is too important in preventing injury and loss at any institution to depend on the athletic director’s experience (Appenzeller, 2005; Cotton & Wolohan, 2007; Doleschal, 2006). However, significant associations were found between experience and the adoption of risk management practice variables. More experienced administrators (11 or more years) had higher odds of conducting coach evaluations, having evaluation criteria, risk management enforcement, and hazard abatement among their adopted risk management practices than administrators with less experience. The existence of such associations is not surprising. It is reasonable to expect that the experiences acquired through years on the job would lead administrators to the adoption of these best practices.

The use of written evaluation criteria and coaches’ evaluations may be a result of years of experience dealing with (either by themselves or by learning from others’ struggles) injuries, property loss, and financial loss suffered due to the lack of written evaluation criteria, and coaches’ evaluations. The existence of an enforced risk management plan and timely hazard abatement seem to be related to experience as well. By assigning the enforcement of the plan to a staff member, the administrator not only promotes injury and loss reduction, but also ensures that the plan is updated as venues and policies related to the athletic department change (Appenzeller, 2005). Regarding hazard abatement, experienced administrators know their facilities very well, including their maintenance history. Such knowledge should allow those administrators to treat hazards even before they appear, contingent to budget availability (Appenzeller, 2005).

As mentioned above, the fact that significant associations were found between experience and four of the risk management practice variables (coach evaluation, evaluation criteria, risk management enforcement, and hazard abatement) is not surprising. Intriguing is the fact that the other risk management practices did not present a similar relationship. One possible explanation is perhaps experience is less of a factor in adopting the practices that did not show a significant relationship. Another possible explanation is less experienced administrators may feel either uncomfortable or unprepared to conduct coaches’ evaluations, develop evaluation criteria, enforce a risk management, and/or deal with hazard abatement.

Recommendations for Future Research

The results of this study revealed that a significant percentage of high school athletic departments surveyed either do not have or do not enforce a risk management plan. It would be interesting to conduct a qualitative study among various state high school associations to learn their perspective on the situation and their perceived reasons for such lack of risk management plan existence and enforcement. To complement the study, athletic directors could be surveyed on their perceptions of the reasons suggested by the state high school associations’ leadership. After comparing the results from both groups, a list of potential actions to help increase risk management development, implementation and enforcement could be composed.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that interscholastic activities could be conducted with the support of risk management plans in a larger number of high schools. There is a significant amount of interscholastic athletic departments where risk management plans are either nonexistent or unenforced. A large majority of respondents seem to be employing risk management best practices consistently, but there is an indication of a less than desired level of adoption of some practices (i.e., informed consent forms, pre-season sport specific meetings, ADA compliance, coach evaluation and written criteria, safety training, AED’s accessibility, and warning signs). It also appears that the athletic directors’ years of experience plays a role in the adoption of certain risk management practices (coach evaluation, evaluation criteria, risk management enforcement, and hazard abatement), but (surprisingly) not to the adoption of other similarly important practices. It is the researchers’ hope that the evidence presented here opens the athletic directors’ minds to the importance of the adoption of a risk management plan as possibly the only reliable way to minimize loss to athletes, spectators, and institutions.

Applications in Sport

The results presented in this study are valuable to those in leadership positions at any high school in the United States. High school principals and athletic directors armed with this information would be able to (1) adopt and enforce a risk management plan, if they do not have/enforce one; and (2) review their policies and practices related to risk management and adjust them to industry standards. Other benefits to institutional leaders include the ability to provide athletes and spectators with a safer experience, and to reduce the risk of athletes’ injuries. These benefits will consequently help minimizing legal claims against high schools and their officials.

Tables with Captions

Table 1

Percent of Administrators Engaging in Risk Management Practices on a Regular Basis

Table 2

Chi-square analysis of Administrator Experience (>11 years vs. 11 or more years) and Risk Management Practices

* Significant relationship

References

1. Anderson, B. (2006). Policies and philosophies related to risk management in the athletic setting. Athletic Therapy Today, 11(1), 10-16.
2. Appenzeller, H. (Ed.). (2005). Risk management in sport: Issues and strategies. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
3. Ballard, P. A. (1996). Athletic care and injury prevention services provided to high school students in North Carolina: Opinions of athletic directors. NASSP bulletin, 80 (582)106-113.
4. Blumenthal, K. J. (2009). Leadership exchange. Retrieved on January 17, 2011, from NASPA: http://www.leadershipexchange-digital.com/leadershipexchange/2009spring/?pg=25
5. Bezdicek, P. W. (2009). Risk management practices in high school athletic departments. M. S. dissertation. University of Wisconsin – Lacrosse. United States- Wisconsin.
6. Clement, A. (1988). Law in sport and physical activity. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.
7. Cotten, D. J. (1993). Risk management—A tool for reducing exposure to legal liability. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 64(2), 58-61.
8. Cotton, D. J. & Wolohan, J. T. (2007). Law for Recreation and Sport Managers (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
9. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
10. Doleschal, K. L. (2006). Managing risk in interscholastic athletic programs: 14 legal duties of care. Marquette Sports Law Review, 17 (1), 295-339.
11. Eaton, D. K., Kann L., Kinchen S.A., et al. (2007). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Retrieved on January 20, 2011, from http://www.mcph.org/major_activities/MHPRC/IM/2008/IM608/NEWS_YRBS_2007_Summary.pdf
12. Girvan, G., & Girvan, J. T. (1993). Risk management in athletics: A content analysis. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, (April) 26-30.
13. Gray, G. R. (1995). Risk management behaviors of high school principals in the supervision of their high school physical education and athletic programs. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 5(l), 52-59.
14. Koehler, G. G. (1988). Law: Sport activity and risk management. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
15. Lee, S., Farley, L. A., & Kwon, O. (2010). The effectiveness of risk management plans in recreational sport programs of division I-A universities. Recreational Sports Journal, 34, 58-68.
16. Lipsey, J. H. (2006). Confronting the risk of high school athletics. Southern Medical Journal, 99 (2), 111.
17. McEwin, C. K. & Dickinson, T. S. (1996). Placing young adolescents at risk in interscholastic sports programs. The Clearing House, 69(4), 217-222.
18. McGregor, L., & MacDonald, J. (2000). Risk Management. Corvallis, OR: NIRSA National Center.
19. Miller, J., Veltri, F. R., & Gillentine, A. (2005). A student perspective of intramural sport risk management procedures. Recreational Sports Journal, 29(1), 22-32.
20. Miller, J., & Veltri, F. R. (2003). Security issues in public recreation centers. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sports, 13(3), 265-288.
21. Mulrooney, A. L., & Green, E. (1997). Risk management has its price. NIRSA Journal, 21(2), 42-45.
22. Mulrooney, A., Styles, A., & Green, E. (2002). Risk management practices at higher educational sport and recreation centers. Recreational Sports Journal, 26(2), 41-49.
23. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2010). 2009-2010 NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.
24. National Athletic Trainers Association (2010). Recommendations and guidelines for appropriate medical coverage of intercollegiate athletics. Retrieved on October 15, 2010, from http://nata.org/pLibicinFormation/files/amciarecs.
25. Schneider, R. C., Stier, W. F., Kempf, S., Haines, S, & Gaskins, B. (2008). Factors affecting risk management of indoor campus recreation facilities. Recreational Sports Journal, 32, 114-133 Sharp, L. A. (1990). Sport law. Topeka, KS: NOPLE.
26. Singh, C., & Surujlal, J. (2010). Risk management practices of high school sport coaches and administrators. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 32(1), 107-119
27. Stier, W. F., Jr. (2008). Sport management: The business of sport. Boston, MA: American Press.
28. Stier, W. F., Schneider, R. C., Kampf, S., Haines, S. & Gaskins, B. (2008). Selected risk management policies, practices, and procedures for intramural activities at NIRSA institutions. Recreational Sports Journal, 32, 28-44.
29. Van der Smissen, B. (1990). Legal liability and risk management for public and private entities (Vol. 2). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
30. White, B. J., & Cardinal, B. (2003). Readability of waiver of liability forms used in collegiate intramural and recreational sports programs. Recreational Sports Journal, 27(2), 37-46.
31. Young, S. J., Fields, S. K. & Powel, G. M. (2007). Risk perceptions versus legal realities in campus recreational sport programs. Recreational Sports Journal, 31,131-145.

Corresponding Author

Mauro Palmero Ph.D.
Sport Management Graduate Coordinator
East Tennessee State University
Department of Kinesiology Leisure and Sport Sciences
P.O. Box 70654
Johnson City, TN 37614
palmero@etsu.edu
423-439-4382

Technical Abilities of Elite Wheelchair Basketball Players

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-22T22:50:16-06:00April 9th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|

### Abstract

Wheelchair basketball met a rapid growth in recent decades and became one of the most popular and spectacular sports for people with disabilities. Researchers’ efforts to perform tests evaluating the physiological and technical characteristics of the disable athletes have been based on the adoption of tests, used for healthy athletes (7, 15). In addition, different types of disabilities obligated the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation to establish classification degree for the athletes, ranging from 1 to 4.5, according to their disability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Greek elite basketball players’ technical skills and to compare their performance, (a) with their classification degree and (b) with recent literature. Fourteen (N=14) Greek wheelchair basketball players, all members of the national team, volunteered to perform six skill tests: (a) 20m sprint, (b) free throws, (c) lay-ups, (d) obstacle dribble, (e) pass for accuracy, and (f) pass for distance. The high classification degree athletes, demonstrated significantly higher performance than those with low classification, only in obstacle dribble test (p <.01), but the trend indicated that athletes with high classification degree demonstrated better performance on tests requiring physical abilities (sprint, lay-ups, obstacle dribble, pass for distance), while those with low classification degree performed better on tests requiring skills and concentration (free throws, pass for accuracy). These results are in accordance with recent literature, although Greek basketball players, demonstrated lower performance compared with those of other countries, where wheelchair basketball is widespread (13). The difference between high and low classification players in obstacle dribble test, caused to the lack of abdominal muscles, while overall performance is affected by the frequency of training and years of involvement with the sport, before the time point of injury (9).

**Key words:** wheelchair, basketball, technical skills

### Introduction

Sporting activities for people with physical disabilities became widespread in recent years. Wheelchair basketball, which is regarded as one of the most popular and spectacular sports for people with disabilities, devised at the end of the Second World War. Specifically, in 1944 the British government commissioned Dr. Guttmann to establish a foundation for care and hospitalization of world-war II spinal cord injured soldiers, in the area of Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Specifically, the team called “The Flying Wheels of Birmingham” is the one that has the legal right to invoke that have devised the wheelchair basketball (1946). The evaluation of the wheelchair basketball players’ technical skills has interested researchers and trainers in the past (4, 14-15). The evaluation methods for the technical characteristics of wheelchair basketball players, mainly based on similar tests used for healthy players (1-2, 11).

The ability to perform the technical skills required for the sport, characterized by the different type and degree, of the players’ disabilities. Each athlete is classified according to degree of disability, and the ability to perform certain tests such as wheelchair sprint, stopping, obstacle dribbling, holding the ball, etc. The classification system for wheelchair basketball, which has been established by the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF), with five classification points (1-4.5), differs than U.S.A. applied system, which classifies the players in a three points scale (1-3). The main purpose of the studies so far, is to evaluate the athletes with different classification, and to investigate methods to improve their technical skills.

Brasile (4) demonstrated the performance of wheelchair basketball players which were classified according to the U.S.A. applied system (Classification I, II and III). Participants were evaluated in the following skill tests: (a) obstacle dribble, (b) free-throws, (c) dribbling and shooting the ball, and (d) pass for accuracy. The results showed that: (a) the classification II and III athletes demonstrated higher performance than the others, and (b) classification II athletes demonstrated highest performance.

Moreover, Vanlerberghe and Slock (14) evaluated 30 wheelchair athletes which were classified in the 3 points scale (I, II, III) and they applied: (a) two tests for shooting accuracy (shot under the basket and rebound; obstacle dribble, shot and rebound), (b) two tests for ball-handling (obstacle dribble and dribble around wheelchairs), and (c) two tests for passing ability (speed pass and long pass).

Results revealed significant differences between athletes with different physical disabilities. Athletes of III classification revealed the highest performance, while athletes of I classification revealed the lowest. However, researchers have argued that these specific skill tests can hardly be a reliable method for the evaluation of the wheelchair basketball players.

Also, Brasile (5) divided a sample of 79 wheelchair basketball athletes into three groups, according to their classification in order to evaluated their technical ability in six skill tests: (a) obstacle dribble, (b) 1 minute free throws using the strong hand, (c) 1 minute free throws using the weak hand, (d) pass for accuracy using the strong hand, (e) pass for accuracy using the weak hand and (f) 20m speed run. The skill tests’ results revealed that, athletes of II and III classification referred similar performance between them, but both of them higher than the athletes of I classification. These findings led the researcher to the conclusion that skill tests’ results are influenced by both of the training time and the previous experience in basketball.

Similar results were referred in a recent study by Ergun, Duzgun and Aslan (9), which evaluated 32 wheelchair basketball players. Subjects with low disability lagged behind in lay ups test, in 20m speed run, in shooting around the basket, as well as in obstacle dribble. Additionally, there were detected significant differences between athletes of different coaching experience to the tests of 20m speed run, obstacle dribble and passing for accuracy. Moreover, “age” may be an important factor that affects the performance of the athletes in wheelchair basketball.

Brasile (6) applied six field tests to evaluate twelve male and twelve female wheelchair basketball athletes in the following tests: (a) obstacle dribble, (b) free throws, (c) rebound and shot with the strong hand, (d) rebound and shot with the weak hand, (e) pass for accuracy with the strong hand and (f) pass for accuracy with the weak hand. Within the female group were revealed significant differences in tests requiring capability and discipline (rebounding and shooting the ball, obstacle dribble). In contrast, male athletes revealed improved performance in tests requiring higher power level and especially to those that were related with distance (passing for accuracy and free throws).

Finally, Molik et al. (13) evaluated 109 Poles and Lithuanian wheelchair basketball players in six skill tests. The results of the study revealed that athletes with low classification demonstrated lower performance, compared to athletes with a high classification degree. Particularly, no significant differences were detected between athletes of 1 and 2 classification degree. Reversely there were detected significant differences between athletes of 3 and 4.5 classification degree.

As is evident from reviewing the literature, the topic of wheelchair athletes’ skills is incomplete, and more incomplete regarding the high level athletes. The purpose of the present study is (a) to document the performance of elite basketball players’ in the technical skills, (b) to compare their performance in relation to their classification degree, and (c) to compared and discuss their performance with previous studies.

### Methods

#### Participants

Fourteen (N=14) wheelchair basketball athletes aged 30.1±6.6, all of them members of the national team, volunteered to participate in the present study (See Table 1). The types of their disability were the following: (a) one athlete with incomplete quadriplegia (injury on 6th and 7th cervical), (b) seven athletes with paraplegia (injury on 7th cervical to 12th thoracic), (c) one athlete with poliomyelitis and (d) six amputated athletes. They were divided in two groups of 7 athletes, according to their classification. The first group (n1=7) consisted from athletes of 1-2.5 and the second (n2=7) of 3-4.5 classification degree.

#### Skill tests

The six skill tests which assign the technical characteristics of the wheelchair basketball players and were applied in the present study are the following:

*20m speed run:* Subject takes a position behind the baseline and on the signal starts covering a 20m distance as fast as possible. In a two-minute period the subject had two attempts and the best is recorded (See Figure 1).

*Free throws:* Subject shoots 40 free throws in a series of 20 at a time. A 2-minutes rest inserted between the trials. One point was given for each basket made (See Figure 2).

*Obstacle dribble:* Subject starts on the signal at the tight side of the first obstacle and maneuvers through the course as fast as possible, pushing the wheelchair and dribbling the ball, accordingly the U.S.A. NWBA rules. The test is repeated without rest for one more time. Each dribbling violation adds 5 seconds to the trial time and each time the subject, ball, or wheelchair touch an obstacle, one second added to the trial time. One test trial was given to the subjects, for the familiarization with the test (See Figure 3).

*Lay-up:* Two cones are positioned on the 3-point line, perpendicular to the intersection, of the side lines of the free throw lane and the baseline. The subject takes position out of the 3-point line and starts with the signal to make as many lay-ups as possible within two minutes. After each attempt, he takes his own rebound, dribbles the ball around the opposite cone, preparing for the next lay up. The score was the total amount of the attempts, plus the total number of the successful lay ups (See Figure 4).

*Pass for distance:* The subject places the wheelchair so that the front wheels are behind the base line. Using the chest pass, he tries to pass the ball as far as possible. Subject was performed six attempts and the total of the measured distance was recorded (See Figure 5).

*Pass for accuracy:* The target in the specific test are three concentric rectangles of different sizes (50.8cm X 25.4cm, 101.6cm X 63.5cm and 152.4cm X 101.6cm), drown to smooth wall. The base of the larger rectangle is 60.96cm from the ground and the passing line is 10m (for 2-4.5 classification) or 7.5m (for 1 and 1.5 classification) from the wall. Subjects at the signal take position behind the line and perform 10 passes towards the wall any way the wish (i.e., chest pass, overhead, baseball), but discount any passes where the ball bounces first. If the ball hits the line or inside the smallest rectangle, subjects received 3 points which was the highest score. Two points received for the middle and one for the outer rectangle. Subjects should receive three warm up tosses from their distance and finally, only one trial of ten passes was allowed (See Figure 6).

#### Statistical analysis

Six separate (one for each skill test) independent samples t-tests were conducted to detect possible differences between the groups, and for all the carried skill tests. Significance level was set at p<0.05.

#### Classification

It is very possible, wheelchair basketball athletes because of their differences in disability degree, mobility, physical condition and training experience, to perform the technical skills by a completely different way. The skill’s performance was evaluated during games, from specialized observers called “classificators.” A basketball team comprehends athletes with high disability degree such as spinal cord injuries (e.g., quadriplegia), as well as athletes with low disability degree (e.g., amputation, other disabilities). The athletes are classified from 1 to 4.5, accordingly their basketball skills performance. The high classification degree corresponds to athletes with high functional capacity (therefore lower level of disability). The aim of this classification method is the compulsory participation of all the disable athletes in the games. These regulations have been applied since the early 1940’s, years of the game’s establishment. The first classification methods were based on the athletes’ anatomical characteristics, rather than their functional, so the athletes were classified with base their disability and not on their performance in games. Since 1984 a new classification system is in operation which primarily classified the athletes in four degrees (1, 2, 3, 4). Later, some changes were demonstrated, but the most important was the addition of the half degrees (1.5 – 2.5 – 3.5 – 4.5). The U.S.A National Wheelchair Basketball Association (N.W.B.A.) has established a different classification system, which is consistent by three degrees (1 – 2 – 3). So, the athletes are classified and the total of the in-bounce players’ degree must not exceed a specific number. The International Wheelchair Basketball Federation decided for the international games and tournaments, the limit total degree for the in-bounce players to be the 14. For the national and local championships, the Federations allow the participant teams to come in the games with more limit degrees (e.g., 14.5 or 15).

### Results

Table 2 presents the athletes’ classification and their performance in all the technical skills.

The results of the t-test process are presented in table 3. Significant differences detected only for the obstacle dribble test.

### Discussion

This study examined the performance of a sample of high level wheelchair athletes in basketball skills. It was well-documented that athletes with low classification degree, demonstrated lower performance than those with high classification, but not statistically significant. However, significant differences were presented only to the obstacle dribble test. These results are in accordance with previous studies of considerable researchers (7-8, 14). It is discussed below the results regarding the skill tests separately.

#### 20m speed run

For wheelchair basketball the speed ability holds an important role. Specifically, after adjusting the 24¨ regulation, the individual and team speed, became imperative. Brasile (4-5) referred differences in speed run, between the athletes of 2-3 and 1 classification degree, while Ergun et al (9) referred that training experience affects the speed run ability. Contrary to these researches, no significant differences were detected between the two groups in the present study but, on the one hand Brasile (3-8) used different classification method and on the other hand Ergun (9) detected differences only between the athletes of various experience.

Free throws

Although significant differences were not detected between the groups in this test, it is obvious that small differences, appears to be between the groups (20.7 vs 18.4). The results are in accordance with resent literature however, a point of attention regarding free throw shooting performance is the different technique between the players (10, 12), the different type of the wheelchair, their age and the training level before the injury (5), as well as after it (9).

#### Obstacle dribble

Regarding the obstacle dribble, significant differences were observed between the groups in the present study (55.5sec vs 47.1sec, p<0.001). These results are in accordance with literature, while in both of the studies (8-9, 14) which investigated obstacle dribble, were detected significant differences between the athletes with different classification level. Obviously, in this test, many repeated changes of direction in conjunction with controlling the ball, requiring full activation of the abdominal muscles. In these muscle groups, the difference between athletes of varying classification level, is obvious and has an important role in performance, especially in tests involving abrupt changes of direction. An important finding regarding the obstacle dribble test is the difference between Greek and U.S.A. wheelchair athletes. Vanlerberghe and Slock (14), referred values of 47.1 and 43 sec accordingly for low and high classification athletes.

These differences in performance among the Greek and U.S.A. wheelchair athletes, can be justified by the low level of Greek wheelchair basketball and the fact that their involvement in the sport is more leisure, as well as they do not train more than three times a week during the season. On the other hand, basketball in the U.S.A. is highly developed and the national team is among the top teams in the world while the Greek wheelchair basketball national team, is classified in division III of Europe.

#### Lay ups

Contrary to Ergun et al. (9) results, in this study were not detected significant differences between the groups. Specifically, the low classification athletes referred 9.1±2.3 purposeful efforts, while the high classification athletes 11.1±2.2. Although there is a lack of significance, the difference between the groups (9.1 vs 11.1) highlights a strong trend of the high classification athletes, to perform better scores in the specific test.

#### Pass for accuracy

Significant differences between these groups were not observed. However, it has to be noticed that in this test, the low classification athletes were performed their efforts closer to the target, compared to their co-participants with high classification level, which may have influenced the results. It seems that there is need for further investigation, to explore a better method, for assessing the passing test for accuracy.

#### Pass for distance

No significant differences were detected between the groups (12.1 vs 10.5). These results are in accordance with Vanlerberghe and Slock (14), they are reasonable and explained by the fact that the upper body of the athletes is not damaged, so they don’t lack of power and they can throw the basketball away.

### Conclusions

This study investigated the technical characteristics of elite basketball players with disabilities. Overall, although significant differences were not revealed between high and low classification athletes, the trend indicates that athletes with high classification degree are better on tests requiring physical abilities, while those with low classification degree performed better on tests requiring skills and concentration. It is also important to take into consideration the fact that the Greek athletes with disabilities do not train regularly and intensively and had no training experience before the injury. Future research should focus on planning and application of training programs, in order to ascertain the influence of organized and intensive training to the improvement of their physical and technical skills.

### Application In Sports
The organized and intensive training in athletes with disabilities is efficient and it is very important for their performance, from time to time to be evaluated through valid and reliable tests. The frequent applications of test functions as motive for the athletes, so they are more concentrated, energetic, and effective during practice.

### Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the wheelchair basketball players, participating in this study, for their maximum efforts to achieve the best performance. Their contribution made this research possible.

### Tables

#### Table 1
Anthropometric characteristics of Greek elite wheelchair basketball players

#### Table 2
Technical characteristics of Greek elite wheelchair basketball players

#### Table 3
t-test results for the six skill tests within the group

### Figures

#### Figure 1
20m speed run

#### Figure 2
Free throws. 2 series of 20 shot

#### Figure 3
Obstacle dribble

#### Figure 4
Lay-ups (2 min)
”)

#### Figure 5
Long pass (6 trials)
”)

#### Figure 6
Pass for accuracy (10 trials)
”)

### References

1. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) (1984). Basketball for boys and girls: skill test manual. VA Reston.
2. Apostolidis, N., Nassis, G., Bolatoglou, T., & Geladas, N. (2003). Physiological and technical characteristics of elite young basketball players. The Journal of Sport Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43, 157-163.
3. Brasile, F. (1984). A wheelchair basketball skill test. Sports and Spokes, 9(7), 36-40.
4. Brasile, F. (1986). Do you measure up? Sports and Spokes, 12(4), 43-47.
5. Brasile, F. (1990). Performance evaluation of wheelchair athletes: More than a disability classification level issue. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 7, 289-297.
6. Brasile, F. (1993). Evaluation the elite. Sports and Spokes,19(3), 52-55.
7. Brasile, F. (1996a). Wheelchair basketball skills proficiencies versus disability Classification. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 3, 6-13.
8. Brasile, F., & Hendrick, B. (1996b). The relationship of skills of elite wheelchair basketball competitors to the international functional classification system. The Recreate Journal, 30, 114-127.
9. Ergun, N., Duzgun, I., & Aslan, E. (2008). Effect of the number of years of experience on physical fitness, sports skills and quality of life in wheelchair basketball players. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, 19(2), 55-63.
10. Goosey-Tolfrey, V., Butterworth, D., & Morriss, C. (2002). Free throw shooting technique of male wheelchair basketball players. Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 238-250.
11. Hopkins, D. R. (1979). Using skill tests to identify successful and unsuccessful basketball performers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 50, 381-387.
12. Malone, L.A., Gervais, P.L., Steadward, R.D., & Sanders, R.H. (1999, July). Parameters of ball release in wheelchair basketball free throw shooting. Oral presentation at the XVII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia.
13. Molik, B., Kosmol, A., Laskin, J.J., Morgulec-Adamowicz, N., Skucas, K., Dabrowska, A., Gajewski, J., & Ergun, N. (2010). Wheelchair basketball skill tests: differences between athletes’ functional classification level and disability type. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, 21(1), 11-9.
14. Vanlerberghe, J.O.C., & Slock, K. (1987). A study of wheelchair basketball skills. International Perspective of Adopted Physical Activity. Champaign Illinois: Human Kinetics.
15. Vanlandewijck, Y.C., Daly, D.J., & Theisen, D.M. (1999) Field test evaluation of aerobic, anaerobic, and wheelchair basketball skill performances. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 20, 548-54.

### Corresponding Author

N. Apostolidis, Phd
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of Physical Education & Sport Science
Daphne – Athens, 17237 Greece
<napost@phed.uoa.gr>
+302107276085

Dr. E. Zacharakis is Lecturer to the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science of the Athens University. He is teaching Basketball techniques and tactics (Undergraduate). He was head coach of the Greek wheelchair basketball team, participated to the Olympic Games in Athens 2004. His research interest is focused on wheelchair basketball, concerning the technical and physiological characteristics.

Work-Family Conflict and Related Theories in NCAA Division II Sports Information Professionals

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-22T22:50:34-06:00April 9th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|

### Abstract

Work-family conflict (WFC) is defined as “the discord that arises when the time devoted to or time spent fulfilling professional responsibilities interferes with or limits the amount of time available to perform family-related responsibilities” (20, 21). A successful career in sports information requires long, demanding hours which can make finding balance between work and family difficult. Sports information professionals (SIDs) participate in public relations activities designed to promote the teams they represent (19, 26). Responding to increasing interest in college sports, the demand for information about collegiate athletic departments has increased (13). In order to meet this demand for information, SIDs are responsible for producing content for electronic and print media on a regular and timely basis. The work done by sports information professionals has been characterized as 24 hours a day, 7 days a week work (11). Therefore, balancing work and home life has become a topic of increasing interest for those working in this field.

The purpose of this study was to determine if work-family conflict exists in NCAA Division II SIDs and to examine the impact of WFC on the related theories of life satisfaction (LS), job satisfaction (JS), job burnout (JB), and career commitment (CC). E-mails containing a link to the online survey were sent to the highest ranking sports information professional in each NCAA Division II institution. Informed consent was obtained prior to obtaining access to the survey. The survey contained Likert scale items for WFC, LS, JS, JB, and CC, demographic information, and open ended items relating to positive aspects and challenging aspects in performing the duties of a sports information professional. Of the 273 individuals contacted, 98 (36%) completed the survey. Results indicated these professionals do suffer from work-family conflict as 84% reported high levels of conflict, while only 8% reported low levels of conflict. Examination of the other scales revealed that these professionals are fairly satisfied with life and job factors, but some do experience from a fair degree of job burnout. Further analysis revealed that those with more children in the home had greater WFC. Finally, correlation and regression analyses revealed significant statistical relationships between each scale and indicated that WFC could successfully predict variations in LS, JS, JB, and CC.

**Key Words:** sports information, media relations, work family conflict

### Introduction

Work-family conflict (WFC) is defined as “the discord that arises when the time devoted to or time spent fulfilling professional responsibilities interferes with or limits the amount of time available to perform family-related responsibilities” (20, 21). This type of conflict appears when the demands of one’s professional life interfere with the demands of one’s personal life. Stated another way “participation in the work role/family role is made more difficult by virtue of participation in the family role/work role” (16). WFC has been studied extensively in the corporate environment (2, 9). This is a growing line of inquiry in the sport context and has received visible support from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). For example, the NCAA has created a work-life task force to address these issues (10) and the topic has been prominent at [NCAA National Conventions](http://www.ncaa.org) beginning in 2008. Results from a recent study found that NCAA Division I sports information professionals do experience high levels of work-family conflict (14).

Sports information professionals (SIDs) participate in public relations activities designed to promote the teams they represent (19, 26). Responding to increasing interest in college sports, the demand for information about intercollegiate athletic departments has increased (13). In order to meet this demand for information, SIDs are responsible for producing content for electronic and print media on a regular and timely basis. They develop a wide range of publications and new media, compile and manage statistics, meet the needs of the media, manage budgets, organize events, and supervise personnel all while maintaining their composure in highly stressful situations (12, 26). SIDs report feeling overwhelmed with the increasing demands of desktop publishing and electronic media (16). A successful career in sports information requires long, demanding hours which can make finding balance between work and family difficult. Therefore, balancing work life and home life has become a topic of increasing interest for those working in this field, including SIDs at the NCAA Division II level.

In an attempt to define, brand, and uniquely position NCAA Division II, the NCAA launched a strategic initiative that incorporates a hexagon of principles (learning, balance, resourcefulness, sportsmanship, passion, and service) to clearly define and uniquely position [Division II](http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/82af4f004e0daa1e9b7ffb1ad6fc8b25/SPPlatformInColor.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=82af4f004e0daa1e9b7ffb1ad6fc8b25 ). In addition, the Division II presidents have established the first phase in a two phase process designed to promote more balance between work and life for coaches and student-athletes. The “Life in the Balance” principle reduces contest dates in 10 sports thus streamlining the seasons and includes a provision for a seven-day break from practice and competition for basketball. These actions are designed to provide time off for [players and team staffs](http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/academics/division+ii/life+in+the+balance). It is reasonable to infer that this increased focus on a balanced life, including the streamlining of seasons and reduction in contests, would promote more opportunity for work-life balance for athletic department members, including sports information professionals.

The NCAA Division II strategic positioning initiative is designed to establish a way of life on the Division II campus as uniquely different from the way of life on campuses at other institutional classifications. Several studies exist that examine the job characteristics for athletic directors at the various institutional classifications. Previous research indicates that there are very few differences among the characteristics of the organizations and the styles of administration in NCAA (all levels) and NAIA athletic departments (25). Further, Copeland and Kirsch (4) found no significant differences in job stress for NCAA athletic directors regardless of institutional classification (Division I, Division II, or Division III). Additionally, these athletic directors reported that they almost always experienced some level of job related stress (4). Given the similar organizational characteristics and administrative styles, including the similarly stressful nature of the role of the athletic director in intercollegiate athletics, it is reasonable to infer that those with other roles within athletic departments at various institutional classifications might experience similar challenges to their colleagues across divisions. In fact, the stresses faced by SIDs in NCAA Division I might also be faced by those in NCAA Division II institutions. Hatfield & Johnson (14) reported that a majority of the NCAA Division I SID participants experienced work-family conflict.

Studies examining work-family conflict in sport have focused primarily on athletes, coaches, athletic trainers, and administrators at the NCAA Division I level (6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, and 24). Male and female coaches have experienced work-family conflict (24). Work-family conflict has been closely examined in NCAA Division I athletic trainers (17, 18). Results from these studies indentified long hours, required travel, overlapping responsibilities, drive to succeed, and commitment to the profession as qualities that contribute to the challenges sport professionals face in managing work-family conflict (6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24). SIDs are another group of athletic department staff members who work in similarly demanding positions. In a study examining work-family conflict and related theories in sports information professionals, Hatfield & Johnson (14) found that 86% of participating SIDs reported experiencing work-family conflict. These professionals identified “balancing work and family life, especially on the weekends;” “balancing work/family life and prioritizing the things that must get done and putting others aside to spend time with family;” “meeting all the job demands with a small staff and meeting the demands at home as a husband and father of two young children;” and “balancing travel/events with family…more is always added, nothing is ever taken away” as some of their greatest challenges in performing their job duties (14).

Work-family conflict does not exist in isolation. Work-family conflict has been negatively related to life satisfaction and job satisfaction in athletic trainers and sports information professionals (14, 18). Work-family conflict has been positively correlated with job burnout and intent to leave the profession (14, 20). Work schedules that require long hours with little flexibility have been tied to job dissatisfaction and burnout in athletic department employees (14, 17). Further, in so much as time is a limited resource, time spent on one activity, work, is time not spent on another activity, family. Therefore, attempts to balance work and family while managing other, related constructs as experienced by SIDs warrants formal examination. The purpose of this study was to determine if work-family conflict exists in NCAA Division II sports information professionals and to examine the impact of work-family conflict on the related theories of life satisfaction (LS), job satisfaction (JS), job burnout (JB), and career commitment (CC).

### Methods

#### Participants

Sports information professionals in each of the 273 NCAA Division II member institutions were invited to participate, and 98 SIDs completed surveys. Participants in this study were the highest ranking sports information professionals in their respective NCAA Division II athletic departments. Titles for these professionals might include, but are not limited to, any of the following: sports information director, assistant athletic director for media relations, or associate athletic director for sport communications.

#### Procedures

There are 273 NCAA Division II institutions listed on the [NCAA portal](http://www.ncaa.org). The portal was used to provide access to the website for each Division II institution. Once on the website, the highest ranking communications professional in the athletic department was identified and an email inviting that individual to participate in the study was sent. A link to the survey was provided in the email. Informed consent was obtained prior to obtaining access to the survey. Following the initial invitation to participate, two additional reminders were sent. The survey was open for six weeks.

#### Instrumentation

An online survey was assembled to include five scales that had previously been tested for validity and reliability (12) and included a section for demographic information and open ended items to address the positive aspects and challenging aspects in performing the duties of a sports information professional. The following five scales were used:

*Work-Family Conflict.* Work-family conflict was assessed using the 5-item Netemeyer et al. (20) scale that included a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = *strongly disagree* or *low work-family conflict* to 7 = *strongly agree* or *high work-family conflict*) for responses.

*Life Satisfaction.* Life satisfaction was assessed using the 5-item Diener (5) Satisfaction with Life Scale that included a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = *strongly agree* or *high life satisfaction* to 7 = *strongly disagree* or *low life satisfaction*) for responses.

*Job Satisfaction.* Job satisfaction was assessed using the 6-item Agho, Price & Mueller (1) scale that included a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = *strongly agree* or *low job satisfaction* to 5 = *strongly disagree* or *high job satisfaction*) for responses.

*Job Burnout.* Job burnout was assessed using the 21-item Pines & Aronson (23) Burnout Measure that included a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = *never* or *low job burnout* to 7 = *always* or *high job burnout*) for responses.

*Career Commitment.* Career commitment was assessed using the 7-item Blau (3) scale that included a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = *strongly agree* or *high career commitment* to 5 = *strongly disagree* or *low career commitment*) for responses.

#### Data Analysis

The quantitative data was calculated using SPSS version 16. Demographic data was collected for gender, age, EEOC status, educational background, number of children under the age of 18 living in the household, and number of years in the field. Each scale was totaled and percentages for the “agree” (agree, somewhat agree, strongly agree), “neutral”, and “disagree” (disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree) responses were calculated for each scale. Cross-tabulations between demographic categories and the WFC scale were run to determine if any of these factors had an impact on WFC. Finally, correlation and regression analysis was run to examine the relationships between the scales and to determine the predictive ability of WFC on each of the other scales. Qualitative data from the open ended items were utilized to support the results from the quantitative analyses.

### Results & Discussion

Of the 273 Division II sports information professionals contacted, 98 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 36%. Within the group of respondents, 85% were male (n = 83) and 11 % were female (n = 11). Four individuals (4%) chose not to include their gender. With regard to family status, 32% were single (n = 31), 61% were married (n = 60), 1% was widowed (n = 1), 1% was divorced (n = 1), 1% was in a domestic partnership (n = 1), and 4% (n = 4) did not indicate a family status. Eighty six percent of the sample was Caucasian (n = 84), five percent were African American (n = 5), one percent was Hispanic (n = 1), two percent were of mixed heritage (n = 2), and six percent did not respond to EEOC status (n = 6). Most of the respondents were sports information directors (70%, n = 69), with a few indicating they were assistant or associate athletic directors (27%, n = 25). Four of the participants did not indicate a title (n = 4).

The results clearly show that Division II sports information professionals (SIDs) do experience levels of work-family conflict. Eighty four percent of the participants responded that they had high levels of work-family conflict while only eight percent indicated they did not feel their work conflicted with their personal lives. Responses from open-ended questions also support this finding including: “having to work seven days a week and having very little family time;” “trying to manage family time with work demands. More games are moving to weekends to avoid missed class time, but it doesn’t help staff members;” and “keeping an equal life-work balance through the entire year, not just in the summer months when there are no sports.”

With regard to the life satisfaction scale, 59% of the respondents indicated that they were happy with their current life situation, 28% indicated that they were not happy with their current life situation and another 13% responded neutral with regard to this set of questions. Even though over half of the participants did report that they are happy with their current life situation, the researchers were expecting this number to be higher as anecdotal evidence indicated that although these types of sport professionals do work long, demanding hours, the great percentage seemed to be happy with their lives. Therefore, the fact that almost 30% reported being somewhat unhappy further indicates there may be some work-life balance issues with this population. One respondent suggested that being “able to work flexible hours outside of events. Telecommute when possible. Go into the office after the kids are in bed” was a positive aspect of the job. Other responses included: “…involving my family in my work so I can accomplish my duties and spend time with family at the same time” and “nothing less than 100% is enough…my drive keeps me going and my family is heavily involved in the school in which I work which is good and bad.” These statements reinforce the crossover between these job and life characteristics.

Results related to the job satisfaction scale indicated that overall these professionals are satisfied with their present situation, as 80% responded that they were satisfied with their current jobs, while only nine percent reported being dissatisfied. This certainly indicates that while there are issues in this profession, the gross majority are pleased with their careers at this point in their professional lives. Respondents indicated that interacting with student-athletes and coaches, being a fan of one team, and the game-day atmosphere were positive aspects of their jobs.

Fifty five percent of the participants did not indicate high levels job burnout while 43% did indicate some level of burnout on a fairly frequent basis, according to results from the job burnout scale. Again, even though the majority of the participants do not report experiencing high levels of burnout, the fact that 43% do suffer from some level of burnout is an important finding and one indication that these individuals may experience more burnout as they progress through their professional careers as most of the participants were less than ten years into the profession. Some respondents provided work place examples related to burnout including the following: “Balancing what I physically, mentally and emotionally CAN do with what I WANT to do;” “too much work, not enough pay;” “no full-time help;” “limited staff (just me) covering 16 sports;” and “the ever changing and growing list of responsibilities.”

Results from the career commitment scale were interesting as 56% indicated that they were happy with their careers, while 41% had some level of uncertainty. This, again, further illustrates that most of these professionals do enjoy what they do although some may choose a different focus if they could “do it over again.” Positive comments related to career commitment included: “I love daily interaction with student-athletes, nothing beats the atmosphere of a college campus and the chance to make a difference in the lives of student-athletes” and “ability to develop working relationships with players and coaches. Ability to call the program ‘my own.’ Opportunity to tailor my work to the needs of my media market.” Others provided comments identifying challenges to their career commitment: “dealing with unrealistic objectives from superiors who have not the first clue what this job entails;” “I’m a one-man show. I currently do not have any full-time assistant[s] so I must complete all tasks;” and “managing expectations of administration in face of new technologies.”

To further disaggregate the data, cross-tabulations were run to determine if the responses on the work family scale were different based on gender, EEOC status, years of experience in the field, and number of children under age 18 in the home. When compared on gender, 100% of the female respondents indicated they did feel at least some degree of work-family conflict (see Table 1 for complete results). Results related to males showed 92.8% had some level of work-family conflict, while 1.2% was neutral and 6% indicated there was little or no work-family conflict. Comparison on EEOC status revealed similar results across the different categories as most felt a fair degree of work-family conflict and very few responses indicated little or no conflict (see Table 2 for complete results).

Data for years of experience as it relates to work-family conflict also showed very few differences across categories. Ninety three percent of those with ten or less years of experience indicated at least some level of conflict, compared to 96% of those with 11-20 years of experience, and 92% of those with over 20 years of experience (see Table 3 for complete results).

The most significant results of the cross-tabulations were associated with the number of children under the age of 18 in the home (see Table 4 for complete results). First, it was interesting to note that approximately 55% of the participants in the study reported having no children under the age of 18 living in the household. There could be several explanations for this result. Since many of these individuals are less than ten years into their careers they may not be at a point in their life where they want to start a family, but it may also indicate that their work schedules are interfering with the ability to start a family. Data from the cross-tabulation definitely showed differences based on the number children under age 18 in the household. Greater numbers of children in the household was associated with greater work-family conflict. Of those with three or more children, none indicated they were neutral or had little or no conflict, while 10.3% of those with two or less children under the age of 18 reported neutral or low rates of conflict.

Correlations were run to examine the degree of relationship between each of the scales. The correlations show significant relationships between each of the scales utilized in the study (see Table 5). Approximately half of the correlations were moderate (0.4 to 0.7) while the other half were low (0.2 to 0.4) but still all correlations were statistically significant at the 0.05 alpha level. These data clearly show there is a relationship between work-family conflict and each of the other scales, as well as, each of the other scales with each other.

After determining there were significant correlations between the scales, regression analyses were run between the work-family scale and each of the other scales to determine if work-family conflict could successfully predict the variations in the scores on the other scales (see Table 6 for complete results). The work-family conflict scale was able to predict each of the other scales effectively, indicating that work-family conflict is significantly related to life satisfaction, job burnout, career commitment, and job satisfaction for this group of Division II sports information professionals. Although work-family conflict was able to predict each of the other scales, the regression between work-family conflict and job burnout was substantially higher than the others, which indicates those experiencing from work-family conflict also seem to be experiencing a fair degree of job burnout.

The results of this study compare remarkably with a previous study by these authors investigating the same research questions with Division I sports information professionals (14). Eighty six percent of Division I SIDs reported having work-family conflict which compares favorably to the 84% reported in this study. All of the other scales had very similar results as well, certainly indicating that the stresses faced and the impact of these stressors on the lives of sports information professionals is very similar from Division I to Division II. The Division II SIDs did report slightly higher job burnout than their Division I counterparts (43% to 41%) which could be related to less staff and help, and additional responsibilities that may include coaching, other administrative responsibilities, etc., at the Division II level. The results from the correlation and regression data also mirrored the results from the Division I study.

### Conclusions

With increased coverage of Division II athletic events comes increased work for those providing information and promoting the athletes and teams to media outlets, fans, and other interested parties. As this demand for information increases, the potential for work-family conflict and related issues could certainly increase as well. The purpose of this study was to determine if work-family conflict exists in Division II SIDs, and if so, what is the relationship between work family conflict and life satisfaction, job satisfaction, career commitment, and job burnout? It is clear that Division II sports information professionals do experience work-family conflict, much like their Division I colleagues, and there is a significant relationship between these concepts. The correlation and regression analyses clearly show that work-family conflict can predict variations on each of the other scales. It is important for those in administrative positions to understand the demands on the SIDs and try to provide ways to reduce the impact of work-family conflict as it certainly could have potential negative results for the professionals.

### Application To Sport

Since SIDs serve as a liaison between collegiate athletic departments and media outlets, fans, and other interested parties, work-family conflict and job burnout could lead to increased stress among these professionals and could impact all entities associated with these athletic departments, including the athletes, other athletic administrators, and the university as a whole. This study has clearly demonstrated that these professionals do suffer from work-family conflict, and that WFC is related to increased job burnout and decreased life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and career commitment. Therefore, it is certainly plausible that this could lead to increased stress and negative impacts, therefore, it is important for athletic administrators to address this issue with their employees and try to find ways to decrease this conflict.

### Tables

#### Table 1
Cross-tabulation of work-family conflict by gender

#### Table 2
Cross-tabulation of work-family conflict by EEOC

#### Table 3
Cross-tabulation of work-family conflict by years of experience

#### Table 4
Cross-tabulation of work-family conflict by number of children under age 18 in the home

#### Table 5
Correlations (actual correlation coefficients) between subscales

* p < .05

#### Table 6
Regressions between WFC and each scale

### References

1. Agho, A.O., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1992) Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity, and negative affectivity. In Fields, D.L. (Ed.) (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis (p.19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
2. Anderson, D., Morgan, B., & Wilson, J. (2002). Perceptions of family friendly policies: University versus corporate employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(1), 73-92.
3. Blau, G.J. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(4), 277-288.
4. Copeland B.W. & Kirsch, S. (1995). Perceived occupational stress among NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic directors, Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 70-77.
5. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1). 71-75.
6. Dixon, M.A. & Bruening, J.E. (2005). Perspectives on work-family conflict in sport: An integrated approach, Sport Management Review, 8(3), 227-253.
7. Dixon, M.A. & Bruening, J.E. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching I: A top-down perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 377-406
8. Dixon, M.A., Bruening, J.E., Mazerolle, S.M., Davis, A., Crowder, J., & Lorsbach, M. (2006). Career, family, or both? A case study of young professional baseball players, Nine: A Journal of Baseball History & Culture, 14(2), 80-101.
9. Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124-197.
10. Evans, D. (2006). Work-life balance a matter of priorities. NCAA News, 43(21), 4-20.
11. Favorito, J. (2007). Sports publicity: A practical approach. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
12. Fields, D.L. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Gillentine, A. & Crow, R. B. (Eds.) (2005). Foundations of sport management. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
14. Hatfield, L.M, & Johnson, J.T. (in press) Work-Family Conflict in NCAA Division I Sports Information Professionals, Journal of Contemporary Athletics.
15. Inglis, S., Danylchuk, K.E., & Pastore, D.L. (2000). Multiple realities of women’s work experiences in coaching and athletic management, Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 9(2), 1-26.
16. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational Stress. In 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.
17. 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.
18. Mazerolle, S.M., Bruening, J.E., Casa, D.J., & Burton, L. (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.
19. Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S. & Sutton, W.A. (2001). Sport Marketing (2nd Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
20. Netemeyer, R.G., McMurrian, R., & Boles, J.S. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. In Fields, D.L. (Ed.) (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis (p. 202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
21. Netemeyer, R.G., McMurrian, R., & Boles, J.S. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410.
22. Pastore, D.L. (1991). Male and female coaches of women’s athletic teams: Reasons for entering and leaving the profession, Journal of Sport Management, 5(2), 128-143.
23. Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. In Fields, D.L. (Ed.) (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis (p. 63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
24. Sagas, M. & Cunningham, G.B. (2005). Work and family conflict among college assistant coaches, International Journal of Sport Management, 6(2), 183-197.
25. Scott, D.K. (1999). A multiframe perspective of leadership and organizational culture in intercollegiate athletics, Journal of Sport Management, 13(4), XYZ, 298-316.
26. Stoldt, G., Miller, L., & Comfort, P. (2001). Through the eyes of athletics directors: Perceptions of sports information directors, and other public relations issues. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(3), 164. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus database.

### Corresponding Author

Laura M. Hatfield, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Sport Management
University of West Georgia
Carrollton, GA 30118-1100
<lhatfiel@westga.edu>
678.839.6191

### Author Biographies

#### Laura M. Hatfield

Laura M. Hatfield (Ph.D., University of Southern Mississippi) is an assistant professor of sport management in the Department of Leadership and Applied Instruction at the University of West Georgia in Carrollton, GA. She teaches undergraduate courses organizational theory, organizational behavior, and communications. Her research interests include work-family conflict, organizational communication, and the scholarship of teaching.

#### Jeffrey T. Johnson

Jeffrey T. Johnson (Ph.D., Georgia State University) is an associate professor of sports science in the Department of Leadership and Applied Instruction at the University of West Georgia in Carrollton, GA. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in anatomy and physiology, biomechanics, and exercise physiology. His research interests include pathological walking and running, sport mechanics, and work-family conflict.