Latest Articles
Big League Deals: A Descriptive Study of Sponsorship Levels in Grassroots U.S. Baseball and Softball Programs
Abstract
Sport sponsorship lets businesses break through cluttered marketplaces, deliver messages effectively, and segment by demographics. Sponsorship also helps grassroots sports organizations enhance services as they strengthen bottom lines. Despite a decade’s marked growth in grassroots sport sponsorship, little data exists detailing it. Statistics describing sponsorship in grassroots baseball and softball offer a benchmark for organizations seeking new ventures or developing established sponsorships. Furthermore, understanding why some organizations rely on sponsorships and others do not can help managers choose wisely for their own programs. A convenience sample was surveyed; results showed sponsorships were used by 86.36% of respondents from organizations operating for 20 years and by 76.70% of all respondents. Another finding was that players’ costs were not lowered by sponsorships.
Energy Drinks’ Effects on Student-Athletes and Implications for Athletic Departments
Abstract
Worldwide, the market for so-called energy drinks has grown exponentially in the last decade. The primary targets of the industry’s marketing campaigns are young adults, and college athletes are frequent consumers of the products. Campaigns promote consumption of energy drinks to enhance performance and suggest their addition to cocktails. Studies have shown college athletes to engage regularly in binge drinking; they are also, clearly, individuals eager to maximize performance. In this article, the ingredients of energy drinks are discussed and the dangers of combining those ingredients with alcohol are explored. In addition, recent research about energy drinks and athletic performance is reviewed. Specific implications for college athletic departments are discussed.
Energy Drinks’ Effects on Student-Athletes and Implications for Athletic Departments
The worldwide market for so-called energy drink has grown exponentially in the last decade. The primary targets of the industry’s marketing campaigns are young adults. As a result, university and college athletes are frequent consumers of the products. The effects of these beverages can be quite significant. Therefore, their use by student-athletes requires analysis, results of which administrators and coaches need to be aware of so that they can share this knowledge with student-athletes in need of direction. They should also track the current trends among student-athletes concerning energy drinks.
Caffeine is the main “energy” ingredient in energy drinks. Its ability to enhance performance, under certain conditions, has been well documented. Yet consuming too much caffeine often has negative effects on overall wellness. Elite athletes continually strive for enhanced performance, trying a variety of strategies to reach that goal. Incorporating energy drinks within a training regime may be one such strategy. Many of the marketing campaigns explicitly state that an energy drink improves functioning, implying that it can boost athletic performance.
Binge drinking, too, has a negative effect on wellness, and research findings indicate that student-athletes—to a greater extent than other students—display a propensity to engage in it. On college campuses today, students commonly use energy drinks as an ingredient in alcoholic cocktails. When they consume alcohol and large amounts of caffeine in combination, many students find themselves drinking more and becoming more intoxicated, which can lead to serious health and other consequences.
History of the Energy Drink
Energy drinks entered the North American beverage market with exotic names, catchy slogans, and expensive marketing campaigns and now occupy a significant portion of the industry. They have become available everywhere, offered alongside soft drinks in vending machines, convenience stores, and grocery stores. Their manufacturers say that, in addition to providing a boost in energy, the drinks promote wellness through medicinal properties (they usually contain vitamins and/or ingredients like ginseng, guarana, and taurine). In 2005 such claims prompted Health Canada (the department of Canada’s federal government responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health) to state, “Energy drinks are meant to supply mental and physical stimulation for a short period of time” (Safe Use of Energy Drinks, n.d., Background section, ¶ 2). Whatever their intended use and purported benefits, consumers today consume energy drinks for a variety of reasons: to boost energy, quench thirst, mix cocktails. Moreover, consumers are constantly pioneering new uses, such as flavoring smoothies with popular energy drinks.
The term energy drink suggests activity, and the uninformed consumer may assume that such a drink would support physical exercise. Locating energy drinks on store shelves adjacent to traditional sports drinks like Gatorade and Powerade reinforces such an assumption of a positive relationship between their use and exercise. Caffeine, the main stimulant ingredient in most energy drinks, has been shown by research to offer questionable potential (at best) as a performance enhancer, in light of the broad variation in individuals’ tolerance of it and also in light of an accompanying range of possible adverse effects (Caffeine—Performance, n.d.).
Drinks providing high doses of caffeine are not a new concept. Jolt cola, a precursor to today’s energy drink phenomenon, was first distributed in the 1980s (Retelny, 2007). Jolt was not marketed as a medicinal health product as, to an extent, energy drinks are. But like energy drinks, it was and is laden with caffeine. The Red Bull energy drink, introduced in the United States in 1997, was the forerunner of the modern energy drink and remains the most recognizable brand in the industry (Retelny, 2007). However, it has considerable competition in today’s marketplace: 500 new varieties of energy drink were introduced to the worldwide market in 2006 (Fornicola, 2007). According to Cohen (2008), the marketing research firm A. C. Nielsen indicated that worldwide sales of the drinks rose from $3.5 billion in 2006 to $4.7 billion in 2007. This speaks volumes for the drinks’ profitability and potential new markets, chiefly within the young teen to young adult demographic. Many companies continue to introduce new drinks, hoping to capture a share of a growing consumer base. Responding to the influx of new products with which they must compete, manufacturers push the boundaries, producing drinks with increasingly complex combinations of medicinal ingredients, with ever higher levels of caffeine, served in larger sizes (Fornicola, 2007).
Ingredients of the Energy Drink
Content labeling has always been inconsistent across North America, and the steady stream of new products developed for the energy drink market further complicates the picture. Energy drinks’ proliferation and popularity clearly caught regulatory agencies such as Health Canada off guard; by all accounts, agencies were ill equipped to respond to initial claims made by the drinks’ various manufacturers. In Canada, most energy drinks have been approved since 2004 as “natural health products.” Approval was a controversial decision, resulting in the establishment of Health Canada’s Natural Health Products Directorate (Raging Bull, 2005). Dr. Eric Marsden of the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors considers Red Bull to be like “sin in a tin” (Raging Bull, 2005, p. 2, All In a Label section, ¶ 8), making a mockery of proper natural health products. On the other hand, energy drinks’ designation as natural health products means that, in Canada, they must be labeled with detailed information about amounts of medicinal and nonmedicinal ingredients and about recommended uses and doses, including cautionary statements.
In the United States, in contrast, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while it regulates caffeine content in soft drinks, does not regulate caffeine contained in energy drinks (Cohen, 2008, Anxiety Attacks section, ¶ 9). The FDA is authorized to move to regulate caffeine in energy drinks but tends not to do so unless a given product provides more caffeine than is found in the average cup of coffee (Cohen, 2008, Anxiety Attacks section, ¶ 10). In the United States, it is not required that manufacturers list the ingredients of energy drinks; therefore, it is difficult for consumers to appreciate how much caffeine they ingest with an energy drink. While the information often is available on the manufacturer’s website, it is unlikely typical consumers are concerned about product ingredients to the point of visiting a website. Most take it for granted that a product is safe simply because it is found on the shelves of food stores. And yet, studies have suggested that people with high blood pressure or heart disease should avoid energy drinks. The American Heart Association issued an alert in November 2007 concerning dangers energy drinks pose to those with known cardiovascular issues (Lofshult, 2008).
The variety of energy drinks available makes a complete review of their contents a daunting task. Sugar (whether in the form of glucose, sucrose, fructose, or other compound) is found in most, and sugar’s effects are well known. Sugar-free varieties of energy drinks are now being consumed in significant numbers, as well. In their study, Malinauskas, Aeby, Overton, Carpenter-Aeby, and Barber-Heidal (2007) found that 26% of college students who use energy drinks chose sugar-free versions; significantly more females than males opted for the low-calorie version. Sugar and sweeteners are household ingredients, but the various brands of energy drinks also contain many exotic components, as well. Four in particular seem central in the majority of the marketed products: caffeine, taurine, glucuronolactone, and vitamins.
Caffeine
The primary exotic ingredient of energy drinks is the stimulant drug caffeine. According to the website of the Sports Medicine Council of Manitoba (Caffeine—Performance, n.d.), there is scientific evidence that caffeine raises both heart rate and blood pressure, which can increase alertness and enhance performance of some tasks if small doses only are consumed. Caffeine’s effects are such that it is included in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s monitoring program, although the agency removed caffeine from its list of restricted substances in 2004 (Desbrow & Leveritt, 2007). The decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency implies that the performance-enhancing capacity of caffeine is limited; most research confirms that. Although caffeine in limited quantities improves mood and cognitive performance (Scholey & Kennedy, 2004), consuming more than limited quantities can generate many negative effects. As a result, any beneficial effect on athletic performance proposed for caffeine is not universally accepted.
The Sports Medicine Council of Manitoba (Caffeine—Performance, n.d., p. 2) indicated that a 250-ml can of Red Bull contains 80 mg of caffeine, while in caffeinated soft drinks the concentration ranges from 29 mg to 55 mg per 355-ml serving. Coffee’s caffeine content varies, but it typically contains 100 mg per 250-ml serving (Fornicola, 2007). Popular energy drinks including Monster, Full Throttle, and Rockstar contain about the same amount of caffeine as Red Bull. Some manufacturers, however, in attempting to create a unique product, have added significantly more caffeine to certain niche energy drinks. An article in the McLatchy–Tribune Business News (Energy Drinks’ Buzz, 2008) identified three drinks with extremely high caffeine levels: Boo-Koo Energy, with 360 mg of caffeine in 24 oz; Wired X344, with 344 mg in 16 oz; and Fixx, with 500 mg in 20 oz (Energy Drinks section).
When used in moderation, caffeine rarely produces visible effects, despite the fact that many negative effects have been identified in research. The acceptance and use of caffeine in contemporary society is commonplace, most caffeine being consumed without ill effect in morning coffee, to improve alertness and mood. Since coffee is generally served hot, it is generally drunk slowly. But energy drinks’ good taste and chilled state mean they can be consumed quickly (Fornicola, 2007), allowing a high dose of caffeine to enter the body fairly quickly. Even moderate amounts of caffeine can lead to severe negative effects in people who are caffeine sensitive, as well as in children, with their relatively low body weight. High doses of caffeine can negatively affect concentration, attention, and behavior and can produce irregular heartbeat, nausea, restlessness, headache, and dehydration (Griffith, 2008). Even when dehydration is not a problem, choosing an energy drink over drinks like juice, milk, and water can deprive children of nutrients (and can deplete a parent’s budget). Their students’ increasing access to energy drinks is for good reason causing concern among school officials.
Taurine
The most widely used medicinal ingredient in energy drinks after caffeine is also, perhaps, the least understood: the amino acid taurine. The human body on its own replenishes its supply of taurine (Lidz, 2003, With Taurine section, ¶ 3), which is involved in several metabolic processes and may also have antioxidant properties (Raging Bull, 2005, p. 4, Medicinal Ingredients chart, ¶ 1). A typical person’s intake of taurine is about 60 mg per day (Laquale, 2007), but a single serving of Red Bull (and of most other energy drinks) contains 1,000 mg of taurine. That amount is doubled in the 473-ml serving of Monster and nearly doubled (1,894 mg) in the same size container of Rock Star. Manufacturers imply that a special synergy exists among energy drink ingredients, and certainly taurine would be key to it. Laquale (2007) challenges the synergy notion, suggesting that taurine’s benefits were declared on the basis of testing on house cats in the 1970s.
The taurine in Red Bull has been promoted as the drink’s secret and controversial ingredient. Research on the effects of taurine is limited and inconclusive. But taurine is the reason Red Bull’s acceptance has been delayed in many countries; until recently it was actually illegal to sell Red Bull in Canada (Raging Bull, 2005). According to Lidz, Red Bull’s manufacturer “admits that taurine’s main function [in its product] is simply that of flavor enhancer” (2003, With Taurine section, ¶ 3). The German Institute for the Protection of Consumer Health suggests that claims of taurine’s value are “misleading” (Lidz, 2003, With Taurine section, ¶ 3). Alford et al.’s study (as cited in Laquale, 2007) indicated that Red Bull improved aerobic endurance and anaerobic performance, but whether that resulted from caffeine or taurine (or the combination of the two) was not determined. Griffiths’ research (also cited in Laquale, 2007) furthermore showed that consumers were being misled and that energy drinks’ effects depended on how much caffeine they contained. At this point, not enough research has been done to substantiate any positive effect of taurine, much less to investigate long-term effects of consuming taurine in the amounts present in energy drinks.
Glucuronolactone
Glucuronolactone is a carbohydrate that occurs naturally in the body and, like taurine, is suspected of helping “detoxify the body” (Raging Bull, 2005, p. 4, Medicinal Ingredients chart, ¶ 2). Red Bull includes glucuronolactone to increase energy and feelings of well-being (Laquale, 2007). Not surprisingly, the hundreds of energy drink brands joining the market following Red Bull’s introduction also contain glucuronolactone. Laquale notes that glucuronolactone has been made known by undocumented reports that it was given to American soldiers during the Vietnam War to increase energy but was eventually linked to deadly brain tumors and banned. Glucuronolactone research to date has focused on animals, making its effects in humans difficult to assess (Raging Bull, 2005, p. 4, Medicinal Ingredients chart, ¶ 2).
Vitamins
An assortment of B vitamins (B2, riboflavin; B3, niacin; B6; and B12) are the final ingredient common to the majority of energy drinks. While these vitamins’ importance to healthy living is undeniable, it may be more appropriate to ingest them in the form of a balanced diet than in the form of an energy drink supplement.
Although U.S. products may not be labeled as to their ingredients, they may include some type of warning label with recommendations for use of the product.
Effects
The long-term effects of energy drink consumption are unknown. Many studies have analyzed extended use of caffeine, generating mixed findings—although moderate use of caffeine is commonly accepted to pose little health risk. Fornicola (2007) found that on average, adults consumed 200 mg of caffeine per day, the amount in about two cups of coffee. While caffeine is undoubtedly the greatest contributor to the effect produced by energy drinks, the fact remains there is no research into possible problems associated with long-term ingestion of high concentrations of taurine and glucuronolactone.
Red Bull states that short-term positive effects of the drink—of its particular combination of ingredients—are proven by publicly available academic studies (FAQ, n.d., What proof is there that Red Bull energy drink does what it says it does? section). But the Red Bull website does not provide links or directions for accessing those studies. The majority of the extant research clearly disputes the claims, essentially attributing to caffeine the quantifiable short-term effect of increased energy (Malinauskas et al., 2007). Caffeine is also a diuretic, however, and the manufacturer of Red Bull recommends that users of its product drink ample amounts of water when they exercise (FAQ, n.d., Is Red Bull Energy Drink Suitable As Fluid Replacement? section).
There remains considerable concern regarding the negative effects of energy drinks. Emergency room visits arising from energy drink consumption are becoming commonplace. For example, Child Health Alert reported a 23-year-old was hospitalized with a dangerously high heart rate after consuming the energy drink GNC Speed Shot followed by a Mountain Dew soft drink, also containing caffeine (Caffeine: Watch Out, 2008). The report noted that the GNC Speed Shot website does warn against using the product together with others that contain caffeine. There are countries, France, Denmark, and Norway among them, that continue to ban the sale of Red Bull. Several highly publicized deaths linked to energy drinks have fueled ongoing suspicion. In one such tragedy, a healthy 18-year-old Irish basketball player experienced cardiac arrest after consuming four cans of Red Bull prior to a game (Laquale, 2007).
Consumption Patterns
Malinauskas et al. (2007) stated that energy drinks are intended for young adults but that little formal research is available accurately describing the multibillion-dollar energy drink industry’s actual clientele. Studying energy drink consumption by college students, Malinauskas et al. found that 51% used energy drinks, defined as consuming more than one energy drink monthly during the academic semester in which they were surveyed. In Canada, energy drinks labeled as natural health products must provide cautions complying with requirements of Health Canada’s Natural Health Products Directorate. For example, the beverages are not recommended for nursing or pregnant women, caffeine-sensitive persons, or children. Product labeling also establishes a maximum daily dose and advises against mixing the beverages with alcohol. An analysis of the labels on three popular energy drinks found that all delivered the same messages except when offering a maximum daily dose. Red Bull and Rock Star advise consumers not to exceed 500 ml of the product per day, while Monster recommends no more than 1,000 ml per day.
It is not clear how many adults consume energy drinks, but it is certain that, despite manufacturers’ warnings, many children are regular consumers. The Florida Poison Control Center started to track cases of caffeine overexposure after 39 people ages 2 to 20 years developed symptoms between January 2007 and March 2008 (Cohen, 2008, Anxiety Attacks section, ¶ 3). A school nurse in California sent three students to hospital by ambulance in the past year because they had irregular heart rates brought on by consumption of energy drinks (Dorsey, 2008). Energy drinks are not recommended for children or adolescents nor are they marketed directly to them. But surprisingly, there is currently no restriction on children’s purchase of energy drinks, even though caffeine’s effects are more pronounced in children than adults, due to body size and tolerance. It is furthermore clear that children and adolescents contribute significantly to the total market. Some schools have banned energy drinks from school property, and many jurisdictions are considering attempting to restrict energy drink sales to children.
Marketing
Energy drinks are marketed with colorful descriptions and provocative names that make them sound fun and exciting. Rockstar, Monster, Full Throttle, Throw Down, and Sobe No Fear are just a sampling of the inviting products that fill store shelves. Marketing slogans are developed to stimulate interest in a product and distinguish it from its competition: “Get spiked,” “Party like a rockstar,” and “Feel the freak” are slogans representing the marketing strategies of energy drink companies. The language and images of such advertising are not directed at mature adults. If anything, the marketing of energy drinks removes all ambiguity about whom these products are meant to appeal to: teens and young adults.
With 40% of the market share, Red Bull remains the leader in energy drink sales (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2008, Background section, ¶ 2). Not surprisingly, the “Red Bull gives you wiiings” slogan is widely recognized. Red Bull has developed its image over the past decade by sponsoring extreme sports and targeting college students (Lidz, 2003, Red Bull’s Effects Have Been Recognized by World-Class Athletes section, ¶ 3-4). More than other brand’s marketing, Red Bull’s marketing has created a connection between the product and sports and fitness, with the implication that greater performance in athletics is achieved by those who consume Red Bull. Currently, Red Bull containers feature the phrase “Vitalizes body and mind.” Lidz (2003) identified other slogans from Red Bull that have made a connection to sports: “increases concentration,” “improves reaction speed,” “stimulates metabolism,” and “Red Bull’s effects have been recognized by world-class athletes.” Miller (2008) suggested that other manufacturers have copied Red Bull’s strategy, since “energy drink advertising consistently emphasizes a physically active lifestyle featuring a range of extreme sports” (p. 481). Miller further suggested that, in their appeal to the young, energy drink marketing strategies are similar to those of the tobacco and alcohol industry (p. 488). Such an affinity between a “healthy natural product” and smoking and drinking is incongruous.
Consumption Among Student-Athletes
Malinauskas et al. (2007) found that 51% of college students consume energy drinks, so logic would dictate that student-athletes in colleges and universities consume the product at a similar or perhaps higher rate, given the marketing-constructed connection between energy drinks and sports. Promotional statements for Red Bull suggest consuming the product prior to a demanding athletic contest like a race or game (FAQ, n.d., When Should Red Bull Energy Drink Be Consumed? section). Also suggesting student-athletes’ susceptibility to energy drink marketing is Miller’s confirmation (2008) of the phenomenon called toxic jock identity. Miller defined toxic jock identity as the state of having “a sport-related identity predicated on risk taking and hyper masculinity” (p. 481). Toxic jock identity may increase risky behaviors, and consuming energy drinks may be a predictor of the phenomenon (Miller, 2008). The drive to improve athletic performance and exhibit one’s athletic identity could influence student-athletes to consume energy drinks at a relatively high level compared to that of the general student body.
Consumption to Boost Athletic Performance
Does ingestion of an energy drink really boost athletic performance? Caffeine is the only ingredient in energy drinks that has been studied in depth and that shows proven effects; short- and long-term effects of high doses of taurine and glucuronolactone require additional study. Athletes have long used caffeine prior to training sessions and competitions, but most nevertheless do not well understand how the drug works, for example that, as a diuretic, caffeine is capable of aggravating the dehydration athletes may experience during competition. The scientific literature itself provides mixed messages about caffeine’s performance-enhancing capability and its value prior to exercise. Fornicola (2007) stated that no real need exists to use energy drinks for performance advantage and that that quick caffeine fix is not a very intelligent strategy. In contrast, the website of the Sports Medicine Council of Manitoba reports that endurance athletes might gain some advantage by exploiting caffeine to derive energy from fat early in a competition, thereby leaving more muscle glycogen available to provide energy later on (Caffeine—Performance, n.d., p. 1). However, the website also advises athletes that “4% dehydration equals 20% of performance lost” (p. 1). Caffeine promotes dehydration, so the amount of it to be ingested for athletic advantage would have to be determined very precisely. Desbrow and Leveritt (2007) demonstrated that the majority of elite triathletes use caffeine to improve physical performance and concentration. However, these athletes’ knowledge of which products contain caffeine (and how much they contain) was limited (Desbrow & Leveritt, 2007). Umaña-Alvarado and Moncada-Jiménez (2005) studied the effects of energy drinks on male athletes’ aerobic activity, finding no performance improvement from energy drink consumption prior to testing. However, their results did demonstrate that those participants who consumed energy drinks reported lower levels of perceived exertion.
Consumption With Alcohol
Studies show student-athletes are more prone to binge drinking than other students. Grossman, Wechsler, Davenport, and Dowdall (1997) found college athletes engaged in binge drinking and used chewing tobacco at higher rates than nonathletes, although they were less likely to smoke cigarettes or marijuana. Other research indicates that team sports participants are especially likely to consume alcohol in a high-risk manner (Brenner & Swanik, 2007). Such findings, particularly when considered in light of something like toxic jock identity, suggest that the newly popular practice of mixing energy drinks into alcoholic cocktails may place student-athletes at an elevated risk. Consuming energy drinks along with alcohol lessens the subjective sense of intoxication (O’Brien, McCoy, Rhodes, Wagoner, & Wolfson, 2008). This means one can consume more alcohol than usual because one doesn’t feel intoxicated. In addition, the alcohol-induced fatigue that normally tends to limit further alcohol consumption may be masked by the caffeine in the energy drink (Dunlap, 2008).
Although energy drink companies may caution consumers against mixing the products with alcohol, young people, especially, do so. According to Miller (2008), the website Drinknation.com contained 201 Red Bull–based alcoholic beverage recipes. And despite the Red Bull label’s warning about mixing the product with alcohol, the manufacturer’s website tells visitors that Red Bull can be used for more than nonstop partying (Benefits, n.d., Red Bull—More Than Just a Myth section, ¶ 3).
Combining a depressant (alcohol) with a stimulant (energy drink containing caffeine) clearly could exacerbate the typical risks of alcohol consumption. The practice, combined with the tendency of student-athletes to binge on alcohol, should raise concern. O’Brien et al. (2008) indicated that “students who reported consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks had significantly higher prevalence of alcohol–related consequences, including being taken advantage of sexually, taking advantage of another sexually, riding with an intoxicated driver, being physically hurt or injured, and requiring medical treatment” (p. 453). Further, the U.S. Surgeon General has reported that in the United States, close to 5,000 people under age 21 die each year of alcohol-related injuries (Dunlap, 2008).
Consumption in Conjunction With Studying
Long before the introduction of energy drinks, students used caffeine to stay up late at night studying. Today student-athletes who do not like the taste of coffee can choose an energy drink instead. In moderation, use of energy drinks to sustain a study session would appear to be harmless. Nevertheless, coaches and athletic department staff should make sure student-athletes are familiar with caffeine’s potential negative effects (when it is consumed to excess), in order to help them make informed and responsible choices, whatever the circumstance.
Consumption Representing Casual Use
Casual consumption of energy drinks accounts most significantly for the rapid rise in their popularity. Now available everywhere, energy drinks strike many consumers as a choice akin to a soft drink or coffee. The market seems poised for continued expansion, supported by aggressive marketing. The consumption of energy drinks is likely to become even more common and socially acceptable. Student-athletes are likely to be part of the trend, increasing their consumption, especially if they lack complete information about energy drinks, their ingredients, and their actual effects on athletic performance and health.
Summary and Conclusions
Given the proliferation of energy drinks and their growing popularity despite possible negative effects, coaches and athletic department administrators should take the initiative in educating student-athletes about the products. Energy drinks are aggressively marketed to college students with messages touting the performance and other benefits of consuming the beverages. Students are urged be energy drink consumers, and for the uninformed student-athlete, the trend’s influence may produce negative consequences.
While the purported benefits of the taurine and glucuronolactone in energy drinks are unproven, potential positive and negative effects of another common ingredient, caffeine, are well documented. The choice to use caffeine prior to training or competition should belong to the individual, based on adequate knowledge of pros and cons and on past experiences with caffeine. Student-athletes who choose to use caffeine should be encouraged to do so in moderation. They should also be provided information about levels of caffeine contained in various foods and beverages, in order to monitor their intake. Most energy drinks in fact have not contained more caffeine than a cup of coffee, but there is a noticeable trend toward selling the beverages in larger containers—meaning larger servings and more caffeine. If consuming an energy drink before a competition improves mood and concentration, it would be difficult to suggest that it poses significant danger. Assuming a consumer is not caffeine-sensitive, caffeine’s negative effects are unlikely to become evident unless intake becomes excessive. Although deaths associated with energy drink consumption and sport have been reported, they seem to be isolated cases involving multiple servings with high levels of caffeine.
While it is important to provide student-athletes with accurate information on energy drinks and caffeine as these affect athletic performance, of greater concern to athletic departments should be the growing trend of combining energy drinks and alcohol. Take the not uncommon pattern of student-athletes, dehydrated by the effort of playing a game, gathering after that game to consume alcohol. If the alcohol is mixed with caffeinated energy drinks, the student-athletes are subjected to a double diuretic effect, since alcohol, like caffeine, has diuretic properties. Thus they further compromise hydration.
Moreover, energy drinks’ capacity to mask intoxicated feelings allows increased alcohol consumption, which in turn increases the likelihood that a young drinker will make the kind of choices that have negative, if not disastrous, results. Evidence suggests that energy drink consumption with and without alcohol remains on the increase, so educating student-athletes on all aspects of energy drink consumption needs to become an athletic department priority, to ensure both wellness and safety.
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2008). Agri-Food Trade Service: The Energy Drink Segment in North America, January 2008. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/us/4387_e.htm
Benefits (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2008, from the Red Bull website: http://www.redbullusa.com/#page=ProductPage.Benefits
Brenner, J., & Swanik, K. (2007). High-risk drinking characteristics in collegiate athletes. Journal of American College Health, 56(3), 267-272.
Caffeine—Performance enhancement or hindrance? (n.d.). Retrieved June 30, 2008, from the Sports Medicine Council of Manitoba website: http://www.sportmed.mb.ca/uploads/pdfs/Caffeine%20good%20and%20bad.pdf
Caffeine: Watch out for “energy drinks.” (2008, May). Child Health Alert, 26, 2-3.
Cohen, H. (2008, April 2). Kids + energy drinks = dangerous mix. The Miami Herald. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004322357_zhea02energy.html
Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2007). Well-trained endurance athletes’ knowledge, insight, and experience of caffine use. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 17(4), 328-339.
Dunlap, L. (2008). Wake up to the facts: Energy drinks and alcohol don’t mix. The Journal of the Air Mobility Command’s Magazine, 17(2), 20-21.
Energy drinks’ buzz may pose some risk. (2008, January 30). McClatchy–Tribune Business News. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from the ProQuest database.
FAQ (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2008, from the Red Bull website: http://www.redbullusa.com/#page=ProductPage.FAQS
Fornicola, F. (2007). Energy drinks: What’s all the “buzz” about? Coach and Athletic Director, 76(10), 38-43.
Griffith, D. (2008, May 11). Energy drinks make caffeine the drug of choice among California youth. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W6639513775&site=ehost-live
Grossman, S. J., Wechsler, H., Davenport, A. E., & Dowdall, G. W. (1997). Binge drinking, tobacco, and illicit drug use and involvement in college athletics: A survey of students at 140 American colleges. Journal of American College Health, 45(5), 195-200.
Laquale, K. (2007). Red Bull: The other energy drink and its effect on performance. Athletic Therapy Today, 12(2), 43-45. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from the SportDiscus database.
Lidz, F. (2003). The fuel of extremists (or, taurine in your tank). Sports Illustrated, 99(4), 8-16.
Lofshult, D. (2008). Energy drinks may present danger. Idea Fitness Journal, 5(4), 58.
Malinauskas, B. M., Aeby, V. G., Overton, R. F., Carpenter-Aeby, T., & Barber-Heidal, K. (2007). A survey of energy drink consumption patterns among college students. Nutrition Journal, 6(1), 35.
Miller, K. E. (2008). Wired: Energy drinks, jock identity, masculine norms, and risk taking. Journal of American College Health, 56(5), 481-490.
O’Brien, M. C., McCoy, T. P., Rhodes, S. C., Wagoner, A., & Wolfson, M. (2008). Caffeinated cocktails: Energy drink consumption, high-risk drinking, and alcohol-related consequences among college students. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(5), 453-460.
Raging bull: Health warnings over popular energy drink being brushed off? (2005, February 6). Retrieved July, 10, 2008, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) website: http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/redbull/
Retelny, V. S. (2007). Energy drinks. Obesity Management, 3(3), 139-142.
Safe use of energy drinks. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from the Health Canada website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/energy-energie-eng.php
Scholey, A. B., & Kennedy, D. O. (2004). Cognitive and physiological effects of an “energy drink”: An evaluation of the whole drink and of glucose, caffeine and herbal flavouring fractions. Psychopharmacology, 176(3-4), 320-330.
Umaña-Alvarado, M., & Moncada-Jiménez, J. (2005). Consumption of an “energy drink” does not improve aerobic performance in male athletes. International Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 17(2), 26-34.
The Professional Bull Riders Tour: Growth and Development of a Niche Sport
Abstract
The Professional Bull Riders Tour (PBR) presents an opportunity to study a niche sport in transition. After its days as simply a part of the rodeo, the tour has seen tremendous growth as a separate, independent activity. This paper highlights the beginnings of the PBR and its eventual development into one of the highest earning and most watched non-prime-time spectator sports. It also focuses on the development of the marketing behind the PBR and includes an analysis of sponsors and ancillary marketing activities.
The Professional Bull Riders Tour: Growth and Development of a Niche Sport
The Professional Bull Riders Tour (PBR) was formed in 1992, when 20 professional bull riders—previously members of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association—each invested $1,000 to form their own incorporated bull riding association. Membership in the PBR now stands at over 1,200 bull riders from four countries (the United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil) and three continents (North America, South America, and Australia). Before the advent of the PBR, bull riding was one component of the traditional rodeo (the other events were bareback riding, steer wrestling, roping, and barrel racing). Bull riding had long been considered the premier rodeo event. Specifically because of bull riding’s fan appeal, the founders of the PBR bet their $1,000 that the sport could stand on its own as an independent entity outside the rodeo format.
Each year more than 104 million viewers tune in to the PBR on NBC, Versus, FOX, and a host of other networks across the globe (Wheatley, 2006). More than 1.5 million fans annually attend the PBR’s multitiered events, which include the marquee Built Ford Tough Series (presented by Wrangler), the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company Challenger Tour, the Enterprise Rent-A-Car Tour, and the Discovery Tour, which is designed specifically for entry-level competitors (Wheatley, 2006).
In 2006, the 13-year-old PBR conducted events in over 70 cities, offering successful riders a total purse of over $6.2 million. To collect a check, a 150-lb rider must stay on a bull weighing as much as 2,000 lb for a time of 8 seconds. The PBR today is a $46 million business, revenue having grown 150% over the past 5 years. From 2003 to 2005, the tour’s adult fan base soared 48%, to 18 million, far outpacing the growth of NASCAR or any other major sport, according to Scarborough Research (Gregory, 2006).
PBR Demographics and Sponsors
When the PBR’s leadership looks to the future, what they see in terms of growth and sponsorship is, clearly, NASCAR. “If you lay the NASCAR demos [demographics] over our demos, they’re almost identical,” said Randy Bernard, the tour’s CEO. “We look at everything they do. What NASCAR has done, most obviously, is to turn a sport perceived as having only regional appeal into the country’s second-biggest sport on television, now just behind the NFL” (Halpern, 2006). The Bud Light brand is one of the PBR’s sponsors. A typical Bud Light drinker is male, white, 25 to 34 years old, married, with a high school or college diploma, and earns $20,000–$70,000 annually in one of a wide variety of occupations. This demographic profile echoes that of the PBR fan. Official sponsors of the PBR in addition to Bud Light have included the following:
| B&W Trailer Hitches Big Texas Trailer BowTech Archery Branson Tractors Bud Light Cabela’s Cripple Creek Daisy Dickies |
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Express Personnel Svcs Ford Trucks Frito-Lay Jack Daniels Johnsonville Brats Mandalay Bay Mossy Oak Oberto Beef Jerky |
Pennington Seed Priefert Rocky Outdoor Gear Stetson City of Las Vegas U.S. Army U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Wrangler Jeans Yamaha |
Marketing the PBR
“A niche sport trying to go mainstream” is how Josh Peter described professional bull riding in his book Fried Twinkies, Buckle Bunnies and Bull Riders: A Year Inside the Professional Bull Riders Tour (2006). After splitting from the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association, the Professional Bull Riders Tour set out to make bull riding the next must-watch sport. The PBR is not alone in trying to move from a niche to the larger sporting world. Organizations with similar aims include World Wrestling Entertainment, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, the Professional Bowlers Association, and the Pro Bass Fishing Tour, to name only a few. All have in common a desire to use the niche markets they occupy to develop and grow their brands. The PBR uses its core demographic—rodeo fans, specifically those interested in bull riding—to pursue this. Its marketing challenge resembles, according to Josh Peter, a political candidate’s task:
In effect, much of the PBR’s sophisticated marketing resembles a political campaign; it needs to make sure to energize its base while at the same time trying to attract new voters without alienating either group. It’s a careful balance. . . . In order to expand without losing its core fans, the PBR provides both the glitz of big market sports and a dedicated attention to heartland values. (Peter, 2006)
Numerous competitive outlets are available to the modern-day cowboy: There are saddle bronc riding, bareback riding, steer wrestling, tie-down roping, team roping, and barrel racing along with bull riding. But the PBR is a true phenomenon, of which Richard H. Patterson, chairman of the PBR, has said, “This is media in the new age. It’s a large audience that’s very passionate about this content that they can receive in a whole variety of fashions. They can go to events, they can see it on television, online and in print, and that’s what we’re looking for” (Bortstein, 2007).
An hour or two of viewing a PBR event on television’s new Versus network, or perhaps in person, suggests how perfectly the PBR promotes its sponsors’ products to bull riding fans. The rodeo ring is surrounded by sponsor advertising; so are the pens from which the bulls emerge—fronts and backs of the pen gates as well as tops of railings, angles picked up clearly by various overhead cameras. The riders themselves are walking billboards, and in this they resemble tennis professionals of the 1970s. Björn Borg was called the “bouncing billboard” by tennis announcer Bud Collins, remarking on the variety of advertising messages Borg displayed on his clothing. (Eventually, the professional tennis tour would limit the number and size of endorsement patches players could wear on their clothing.) Today’s golfers are not much different, with sponsors’ names on their golf bags, shirts, and caps, and NASCAR racers cover their own and their cars’ bodies with sponsorship messages. Bull riders wear protective vests covered with sponsor names and logos. Their protective chaps and even their cowboy hats are similarly trimmed. The PBR well understands who constitutes its core market and has proven its ability to land sponsors suited to the PBR demographic.
The PBR Magazine, 8 Seconds!
Like many sports, bull riding has a dedicated magazine, published under license with the PBR each November, February, and June by FanCorp Publishing of Costa Mesa, California. Its title is 8 Seconds! reflecting how long the bull rider must ride the bull in order to receive points. The magazine presents a great deal of pictorial content, along with feature articles, PBR event schedules, standings and biographies of the top bull riders, information on top bulls, cowboy apparel guides, and automotive showcases. The magazine has a 3-month shelf life; 20,000 copies are supplied to PBR World Finals events, with an additional 13,000 copies sent to newsstand displays in the United States and Canada. It is distributed at all events of the PBR Built Ford Tough Series in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia. Reader surveys and newsstand polls have indicated that, on average, about 3 people read each copy of 8 Seconds! Thus there are some 99,000 total readers per issue. Moreover, issues of 8 Seconds! remain in a reader’s possession for an average of 3 years.
The magazine sells advertising to 28 official PBR sponsors, 14 of whom maintain full-page ads. Some represent national brands with broad consumer bases, for instance Ford Trucks, Wrangler, Bud Light, and the U.S. Army. Others suggest a fairly rural demographic: Mossy Oak, BowTech Archery, Cabela’s, Cripple Creek, B&W Trailer Hitches, Branson Tractors, Stetson, and Priefert. Sponsors who are not official PBR sponsors can participate in the PBR bonus programs, including the Bud Light Short Go Top Qualifier Award, Cabela’s World’s Foremost Ride, Dickies American Worker of the Year award, Enterprise Rent-A-Car “Ride With The Best” sweepstakes, Ford Super Duty Challenge, Ford Truck Moment of Truth, Mossy Oak Shoot Out, Salem NationaLease Invitational, and Built Ford Tough Battle for the Bull. Each of these programs provides advertisers with further opportunities to present brands to PBR fans.
FanCorp Publishing also delivers over 9,000 copies of the official program to the PBR Built Ford Tough World Finals, held annually in Las Vegas, Nevada. PBR fans use the program during the 5-day competition; an additional 1,000 programs are distributed through direct mail, television, and website sales during the October–November distribution period. Reader surveys indicate that, on average, 4 people read each copy of the program, for a total readership of 40,000.
PBR-Themed Games, Action Figures, and Fantasy League
Ancillary products like PBR-themed games and video games, action figures, and even a fantasy league are serving the PBR’s effort to build its brand. Among games licensed by the PBR are a board game called “8 Second Madness”; a game that is a takeoff on traditional bluffing games, named “Bull Spit”; two dice games, “Bull Craps” and “Bullies”; as well as bull-riding-themed dominoes and PBR checkers that feature 24 bull-shaped markers and 12 bull riders taking the place of the traditional king.
Video Games
What a niche sport needs as much as anything is a representative whom viewers identify with and who boosts the sport by sheer force of personality. The PBR found such a representative in Ty Murray, first in rodeo history to win the world all-around championship and over $1 million in prize money. Murray figures prominently in “Professional Bull Rider,” the PBR-licensed video game introduced by Sierra Sports in 1999, for example joining fellow bull riding great Tuff Hedeman to produce tutorial narration for the video game. The game features 44 top cowboys from around the world (and 20 ranked bulls) and allows each player to “become” a bull rider. Action sequences are startlingly realistic, capturing even the snorts of the bull in the pen. “Professional Bull Rider” includes commentary from the PBR’s television announcer Justin McKee, as well as advertising to target rodeo fans generally and PBR fans specifically. “Professional Bull Rider 2” was introduced in 2000, updating the original version.
Licensed Action Figures
The PBR has licensed a line of action figures that includes not only popular bull riders but the bulls they have ridden. The figures are produced by Sota Toys of Los Angeles. Among the first were Adriano Moraes and the bull called Hotel California; Justin McBride and Mudslinger; and PBR founder Michael Gaffney and Little Yellow Jacket, one of the most popular bulls in the United States today (Wheatley, 2004).
PBR Fantasy League
Fantasy football and baseball leagues and similar offerings have been extremely successful, and now fans of bull riding have joined the fun with PBR Fantasy.com. Participating “team owners” select favorite riders and even favorite bulls each week, competing in four different games that offer $25,000 in cash prizes.
International Expansion
As the PBR continues to grow, international expansion of the brand will become an essential component of its marketing mix. Today the PBR hosts events in Mexico as well as the United States, an approach to international growth similar to that taken by World Wrestling Entertainment (Shuart & Maresco, 2006). PBR’s television audiences outside the United States have swelled to over 320 million households, quite a change from its initial 1994 telecasts (on the old TNN) to some 80 million homes (Santos, 2000, p. 147). Today PBR fans in Brazil, China, Russia, Norway, Poland, Germany, and France can view PBR broadcasts; in the United States, fans who speak Spanish can watch televised PBR events on Telemundo, the Spanish-language network, as well as on FOX, NBC, and Versus.
The PBR’s international strategy also extends to including bull riders from around the world in PBR competition. To date, international riders of note include 1998 PBR world champion Troy Dunn, of Mackay in New South Wales, Australia, and Bud Light–sponsored Brendon Clark, also from New South Wales (hometown: Morpeth). Among the best known of the international contestants is Adriano Moraes, one of six Brazilian riders on the tour and twice a PBR world champion. The first PBR event in Mexico took place in August 2006 in Chihuahua, where the top 45 riders and bulls competed. (The event had been formally announced in a press conference during the 2005 PBR World Finals in Las Vegas.) Its success required that certain logistical problems be surmounted, not least of which was transporting the bulls across the border, working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Mexican counterpart.
The Chihuahua event marked the start of the PBR’s strategic expansion worldwide. The tour is planning future international events in the home countries of its riders from abroad. The past several months have seen the appointments of several directors of new PBR offices in a number of countries. For example, José Longoria will direct a PBR office in Chihuahua and lead expansion into Mexico, while Troy Dunn has been named the PBR’s director in Australia and Flavio Junquiera has been named the PBR’s director in Brazil. In Canada, former bull rider Austin Beasley has recently been appointed to direct PBR operations there.
References
Bortstein, L. (2007, September). Rodeo ropes ‘em in. Sports Travel. 8(11).
Bull riding action figures to be produced by Los-Angeles based Soto Toys. (2004, July 8). Retrieved from http://www.pbrnow.com/release/?id=662&CFID=20527555&CFTOKEN=49005092
Galayda, J. (2007, April 29). Cowboys of the Constitution State. Connecticut Post. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.connpost.com//ci_4646880?IADID
Gregory, S. (2006, September 25). Bring on the bulls. Time, 168(13). Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/searchresults?from_month=09&from_day=25&from_year=2006&to_month=09&to_day=25&to_year=2006&search_date_range=range&query=bulls&x=38&y=7
Halpern, D. (2006, February 12). Bull marketing. The New York Times Magazine, p. 56.
Peter, J. (2005). Fried twinkies, buckle bunnies and bull riders: A year inside the Professional Bull Riders Tour. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Peter, J. (2006, February 12). New York Times’ magazine spotlights PBR, rise of tour. Retrieved from www.friedtwinkies.com/blog/?p=97
The Professional Bull Riders add instant replay system. (2006, October 10). Retrieved from http://www.pbrnow.com/release/?id=3037&CFID=20527555&CFTOKEN=49005092
Santos, K. (2000). Ring of fire: The guts and glory of the Professional Bull Riders Tour. New York: Triumph Books.
Shuart, J., & Maresco, P. (2006). World Wrestling Entertainment: Achieving continued growth and market penetration through international expansion. The Sport Journal, 9(4). Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/world-wrestling-entertainment-achieving-continued-growth-and-market-penetration-through-inte
Stratton, W. K. (2005). Chasing the rodeo: Wild rides and big dreams, broken hearts and broken bones, and one man’s search for the West. New York: Harcourt.
Trends in Collegiate Recreational Sports Facilities
Abstract
This paper discusses trends in the construction and design of recreational sports facilities. Beginning in 1928, the Intramural Sports Building on the campus of the University of Michigan set the stage as a facility that was dedicated solely to recreational sports. While the number of gymnasia and physical education facilities grew following World War II and into the 1960s, social and cultural influences in the 1970s significantly shaped the landscape for recreational sports on college campuses. In the past 25 years, innovation and demand have driven the size and character of these facilities. Many new and renovated facilities have integrated important campus functions such as academics, health, wellness, and sport. These recreational sports facilities also contain unique features such as climbing walls, rooftop playing fields, food service, counseling centers, convenience stores, and campus police stations.
Trends in Collegiate Recreational Sports Facilities
Ever since Amherst College defeated Williams College in the first intercollegiate baseball game, in 1859, sports facilities on college campuses have been an integral part of the campus landscape (Greenberg, 2004). Ten years later, in 1869, the first intercollegiate football game was played between Rutgers and Princeton universities, on the Rutgers campus in New Brunswick, New Jersey (U. S. Census Bureau, 2006); 22 years later, in 1891, Dr. James Naismith invented the game of basketball, at the YMCA Training School (now Springfield College) in Springfield, Massachusetts (Cohn, 1991).
The earliest example of a facility dedicated to recreational sports is the construction of the Intramural Sports Building on the campus of the University of Michigan. The facility was completed in 1928 at a cost of $743,000, the brainchild of Elmer Mitchell, the “father of intramurals.” The original facility contained 13 squash courts and 14 handball courts. Arguably, Mitchell set the tone for the first trend in recreational sports facilities with such features as a moveable wall separating the swimming pool from the gymnastics area. It was Mitchell’s dream that the facility be one “where a thousand students can enter daily to congregate, and to mix their exercise with sociability” (Stevenson, Reznick, & Pitcher, 1978). Little did Mitchell know that his dream would come true, not only on the Michigan campus but on almost every other campus in the United States.
While the number of gymnasia and physical education facilities continued to grow following World War II and into the 1960s, social and cultural influences in the 1970s significantly impacted the landscape for recreational sports on college campuses. With the advent of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, commonly referred to as Title IX, many more women were participating in college recreation and using recreational sports facilities. On many college campuses, furthermore, physical education was no longer a required part of the curriculum. As a result, many physical education facilities were being used for recreation and intramural sports. As the demand grew for recreation, the trend on college campuses was to build centers that were primarily designated for recreation, with little space being given to intercollegiate athletics. The model for operation was similar to that of a business model, where full-time staff trained in recreation management were hired to direct facilities. Under this new model, memberships were sold not only to faculty and staff, but also to the outside community, according to the director of one university recreational sports division (W. Canning, personal communication, March 4, 2008).
Today, growth of recreational sports facilities continues. The average project expenditure to build such a facility is currently $19.4 million, an increase of $5.2 million from 2004. During the next 5 years, it is estimated that 400 indoor and over 300 outdoor recreational facilities will be built or renovated, representing an estimated $4.9 billion investment (Goldman, 2007a). Over the past decade, colleges across the country have spent billions of dollars constructing recreation facilities to maintain their competitiveness in the higher education marketplace. In fact, the 2002 Kerr Downs Research Report found that institutions that were members of the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) had invested $11.69 billion from 1995 to 2000 and $7.12 billion since 2000 in new and renovated recreation facilities. This represents 91 million sq ft of indoor space (Turman et al., 2005).
Trend: Renovation of Older Facilities
The 1928 University of Michigan Intramural Sports Building has undergone a significant renovation, as have a number of older facilities on established campuses. In the original facility on the Michigan campus, there were two floors of lockers, each having 1,500 lockers. These days most of the school’s recreation participants change clothes in their residence halls and don’t use locker rooms: In recent times, the highest number of lockers actually rented was 300 men’s and 150 women’s (most locker usage was by runners). The University of Michigan decided to renovate both locker rooms and keep only 400 lockers for men and 200 lockers for women. Today the former locker area is a two-story fitness facility (W. Canning, personal communication, March 4, 2008).
The University of Pennsylvania encountered a dilemma when the institution decided to add new recreational facilities. It had to decide whether to renovate Gimble Gym (built in 1962 and containing three basketball courts, a weight room, a swimming pool, and locker rooms) or to demolish it and start over. The former option was chosen and the result was a $21 million, 102,000 sq ft project known as the David Pottruck Health and Fitness Center. The net result was 67,000 sq ft of new recreation and fitness space as well as a juice bar. An urban location prompted designers of the center to maximize vertical space, employing five levels. The facility’s exterior utilizes German-manufactured terra-cotta, a first in the United States, which has resulted in better insulation and lower maintenance costs (Suttell, 2003).
Recreation Hall at Pennsylvania State University served for decades as the home of many indoor varsity sports programs. Penn State was awarded the grand prize in the 2007 Education Design Showcase Awards for a renovation that transformed the hall into the Recreation Hall Wrestling and Student Fitness Center. The new facility covers 48,000 sq ft and was constructed at a cost of $17 million. It has been cited for its club-like atmosphere and at the same time is a high-caliber competitive wrestling facility (“2007 Education Design Showcase,” 2007, p. E1–E3).
Renovating sports facilities can be a political challenge. When Harvard University proposed renovating Hemenway Gymnasium into a state-of the-art fitness facility, the institution encountered unexpected opposition from the Cambridge Historical Commission. During the design phase the architect, Sasaki and Associates, rendered over 20 renovation schemes and there were four visits by the historical commission before approval was received. The major point of contention was the building’s windows. Sasaki was required to add three windows to the gymnasium’s facade but only after supplying details such as the number of glass panes per window and the size of the window’s mullions (Cohen, 2007a).
Similarly, the University of Texas planned to renovate Gregory Gym, a 1930s-era facility. The plan was to create an interior “street” between the original facility and an addition built in the 1960s. The project was eventually approved, but not until the Texas Historical Commission’s wish for larger entry areas and the replication of the original steel-casement crank windows was granted (Cohen, 2007a).
Trend: Innovations
It appears that eating establishments such as juice bars and cafés within collegiate recreational facilities are a trend that has emerged in recent years. A 1,700-sq-ft bistro and juice bar was incorporated in a $54 million recreation center opened in 2006 on the campus of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV). Other features are a spa, two swimming pools, and a 5,000-sq-ft fitness area. The total square footage of the facility is 184,000 (Illia, 2006). Rider University, located in New Jersey, opened its Student Recreation Center in 2005. Similar to UNLV’s facility, the Student Recreation Center building includes a café, and it also features a formal lobby with seating and a flat-screen television wall. There are in addition a fitness center, an elevated running track, a game room, and three multiuse courts. The new facility, which is connected to an older alumni gymnasium, was constructed in two phases and provides 63,000 sq ft of new and updated space. The Student Recreation Center was named a Project of Distinction in the 2007 Education Showcase Awards and cost $10.8 million to build (“2007 Education Design Showcase,” 2007, p. E20).
Another new collegiate recreation facility that includes food service is Fairmont State University’s Student Activities Center. Located in West Virginia, this 145,000-sq-ft facility opened in December 2004 at a cost of $22 million. Food service comprises a student dining hall with a market-style food court that accommodates 600 students. In addition to serving as a recreation center, the facility is the institution’s student union. Included are a conference center, computer labs and classrooms, a convenience store, a photocopy and mail center, the campus bookstore, a student lounge, a coffee shop, and the campus police department. The Student Activities Center is attached to the university’s renovated main arena, which now houses the department of student life (“Architectural Showcase,” 2007, p. 96).
At the University of Connecticut, undergraduate enrollment has soared from 11,365 in 1995 to 16,347 today, consigning students in search of recreation to an overcrowded gymnasium built in 1951. Yet it appears that anticipated new recreational facilities for students are falling victim to other campus needs. For instance, while the $2.3 billion UConn 2000 construction program set aside $31 million for “intramural, recreational and intercollegiate facilities” (Goldman, 2007b, p. 18), the university spent that money toward the $48 million Burton Family Football Complex and the Shenkman Training Center. The university’s president said that, while he supported the proposed recreational facility, his priorities were academics and the hiring of nearly 200 more faculty members. If and when the recreation facility is built, plans call for it to include not only basketball courts and cardiovascular training facilities but a juice bar, bowling alley, and aquatic center with a kayak wave pool and water slides (Goldman, 2007).
Trend: Climbing Walls
Climbing walls are a popular trend in recreational sport facilities today. Increasingly at universities there are climbing clubs, competitive intercollegiate climbing leagues, and elective classes that incorporate the sport of rock climbing (“Universities: The Changing Look,” 2008). At the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) last year a $12 million, 52,280-sq-ft facility was opened, built with funds from student fees. In addition to the unique offering of a pottery studio, the UCSB facility includes a 15-ft climbing wall (Cohen, 2007b, p. 61). In Michigan, Alma College’s Stone Recreation Center has a 30-ft tall, 600-sq-ft climbing wall where, for an annual fee of $10, students and members of the facility may train and, once certified, may climb whenever the wall is open. The wall features 10 belay stations and lead climbing routes. The Alma College Climbing Club conducts children’s climbing classes as a way to raise money for the club (“Climbing Wall and Club,” n.d.). In 2006 Hamilton College, in New York, opened its climbing wall at the Charlene and Wayland Blood Fitness Center. Hamilton’s wall is 3,000 sq ft and offers top rope and lead climbing, as well as a bouldering area. The wall is open to students and community members; children 8 and older are allowed to climb (“Climbing Wall,” n.d.).
Oberlin College in Ohio dedicated a climbing wall and bouldering cave in 2003, housed in Phillips Physical Education Center. The wall—a pillar with four sides—is 25 ft tall and has seven anchors for top roping. On the steepest side are quick-draws for two or more lead climbing routes. The wall is described as having “over 1,000 holds of all shapes and sizes” with routes “set often to challenge both rookies and experienced climbers alike” (“Climbing Wall,” n.d., ¶4). Oberlin College students are not charged to use the wall; other climbers pay $10 per year, the funds used to purchase replacement ropes, climbing shoes, harnesses, holds, and other gear (“Climbing Wall,” n.d., ¶8).
The $25.5 million RecPlex at the University of Dayton was named a Project of Distinction in the 2007 Educational Showcase Awards (“2007 Education Design Showcase,” 2007, p. E25). The facility includes 130,000 sq ft and is being paid for through a student fee, approved in a fee referendum. The RecPlex replaced a 30-year-old recreational facility that comprised only 5,000 sq ft. It contains a suspended running track, climbing wall, lounge and juice bar, classrooms, and outdoor sand-volleyball area (“2007 Education Design Showcase,” 2007, p. E25).
Trend: Rooftop Facilities
Another trend in collegiate recreational facilities is the placement of playing fields on top of structures. In 1981, Brown University in Rhode Island built the first rooftop field found on a college campus. Named Warner Roof, the site was designed as a field hockey pitch atop Olney Athletic Center. More recently the University of California, Berkeley developed Underhill Field on top of a four-story, seismically safe parking garage at the center of the campus. Underhill Field has an infill turf system, and 25-ft nets and a chain link fence enclose the perimeter. Also included are spectator areas, restrooms, equipment storage rooms, and a sidewalk plaza (Cohen, 2007a). Rhode Island’s Providence College constructed a field that is partially on grade and partially below grade. The facility, which primarily houses the college’s lacrosse and field hockey programs, has won engineering awards for overcoming the drainage challenges that occurred in matching the two elevations. In Canada, the University of Alberta renovated a 20-year-old playing field placing 80% of the turf on the roof of a parking structure, the remaining 20% on grade. The old field had featured a glued-down carpet, which eventually wrinkled and presented problems as the building settled. The new surface is a sand-filled, loose-laid turf installed over a premanufactured pad (Cohen, 2007a).
Trend: Integrating Academics and Sport
There is also a trend to combine in single facilities both academics and sport; the combination has been both theoretical and pragmatic. At Haverford College in Pennsylvania, for example, President Thomas Tritton envisioned integrating athletics with the arts. The facility proposed to house the integrative program became one of the first recreational buildings to meet standards of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. The multipurpose facility has space for the college’s programs in squash, basketball, martial arts, and dance. In addition, it includes displays of athletics-related paintings by students (Ezarik, 2006). Kenyon College in Ohio recently completed a $60 million facility covering 265,000 sq ft. Both varsity athletic teams and recreational participants use the facility. While the building is equipped with a 50-m swimming pool, weight room, field house, and racquet courts, a theater, film library, and study lounges were also part of its design (“Architectural Showcase,” 2007, p. 55).
The Ohio State University Recreation and Physical Activity Center, opened in 2007, consists of 568,380 sq ft and cost $117.6 million. The facility is funded by a combination of state funds and student fees. Because of the immensity of the project, it was designed to look like several smaller structures so that it would fit the scale of surrounding campus structures. The facility has numerous gymnasia, two swimming pools, racquet courts, and a fitness area. Serving the University’s student, faculty, and staff population of over 75,000, the facility contains some unique features such as a child care room, wellness center, juice bar, game room, and café (“Architectural Showcase,” 2007, p. 58).
Trend: Integrating Health and Wellness
Another trend—evidenced, for example, at the Joseph E. Gallo Recreation and Wellness Center on the campus of the University of California, Merced—is to combine sport and health care. The facility is located between the academic core of the campus and the residential area. On the second floor of the facility, the H. Rajender Reddy Student Health Center can be found. The health center’s philosophy is that “wellness encompasses an individual’s social, physical, emotional, career, intellectual, environmental, and spiritual health” (Student Health Services, 2008). Its serves as the physical “home” of wellness and works with other campus departments and faculty to offer a range of wellness activities, from peer health counseling for students, to nutrition programs, to massage therapy, to whitewater rafting excursions (Student Health Services, 2008). Butler University, in Indiana, also integrates sport with the concept of wellness. Its Health and Recreation Complex, which opened in September 2006, cost $14.5 million and contains 83,000 sq ft of space. In a unique fashion, both student health services and counseling services are housed in the facility. Another unique feature is a multipurpose room adjoining the swimming pool and having a synthetic floor, to allow for a wet classroom or a party room (“Architectural Showcase,” 2007, p. 70).
Long Island University in New York opened its Wellness, Recreation and Athletic Center in February 2008. This facility uses rooftop space to provide two all-weather tennis courts and a running track. The 100,000-sq-ft facility, which cost $28 million, has a number of other unique features. Among them are a 15,000-sq-ft wellness center integrated with the university’s health science program. The wellness center includes rehabilitation areas for treatment of asthma, cardiorespiratory conditions, and sickle-cell anemia, along with a hydrotherapy pool. All of these play a role in the institution’s teaching practicum with a major New York City hospital (“Architectural Showcase,” 2007, p. 132). Cleveland State University’s Recreation Center, opened in August 2006, cost slightly more, at $29.8 million, than did the Long Island University facility. It consists of 130,000 sq ft of space. In the design of the facility, the institution sought to achieve LEED certification. As a result, a number of unique features were included, such as storm water management to reduce runoff, use of native plant materials, and waterless urinals and other water-saving devices. Specifications for construction of the facility also included locally manufactured materials with recycled content (“Architectural Showcase,” 2007, p. 79).
Conclusion
Many changes have influenced college recreational facilities over the past few decades. Changes in demographics, curriculum, and cultural attitudes towards fitness have significantly affected recreational sports facilities. For example, on college campuses today, almost 60% of students are female (Marklein, 2005). This factor has significantly impacted recreational programming, facility design, and facility renovation. No longer are there weight rooms; rather, there are fitness areas with an emphasis on cardio equipment and a limited amount of free weights. Also, there are fewer traditional gyms providing little except courts used primarily for basketball. Large spaces are now dedicated to wide-open social areas that are used for general fitness. For example, in the University of Texas recreation center, a three-story atrium was built with “spines” filled with cardio equipment geared for females (W. Canning, personal communication, March 4, 2008). Because the college population has become increasingly female, collegiate recreational facilities will increasingly cater to the programming needs of women.
As described earlier, Pennsylvania State University was recognized for establishing a club-like atmosphere. This is just one expectation of today’s students. Students also expect that technology will be a part of their fitness experience on the college campus, just like the fitness experience that they might enjoy at health clubs. For instance, many institutions make available (across their full line of cardio equipment) customized entertainment options, such as personal viewing screens for treadmills, bikes, and ellipticals (“Take Your School’s Fitness Center,” 2006).
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, certification is a trend that will continue, given the popularity of “green” building. Institutions are discovering the cost benefit of environmentally friendly features: how such features can be attractive, help the environment, and save money as well.
It appears that wellness is a strong trend, with a number of new facilities incorporating health services and counseling services, as well as rehabilitation services. The comprehensive offerings of traditional student unions, such as food service, post offices, and convenience stores, also have begun to be regular features of campus recreational facilities.
It is also evident that institutions are strongly considering renovation of existing facilities, especially in urban areas where property is at a premium. Efficiently using space by, for instance, placing playing areas on rooftops is a trend that this author expects will continue. In addition, funding of recreational facilities will continue to be supported by student fees. At private institutions, student fees have been an integral part of funding facilities for many years; today, even state institutions have begun to assess student fees for recreational and fitness facilities.
References
Architectural showcase. (2007, June). Athletic Business, 31(6), 46–223.
Climbing wall. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.hamilton.edu/adventure/climbing
Climbing wall. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.oberlin.edu/athletic/reccentr/climbing_wall
Climbing wall and club. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.alma.edu/student_life/stone_center/the_climbing_wall
Cohen, A. (2007a, November). Remaking history. Athletic Business, 31(11), 34–42.
Cohen, A. (2007b, December). 27th Annual Facilities of Merit 2007 Winners. Athletic Business, 31(12), 50–66.
Cohn, L. (1991, October). “Boxball”—History of a near miss. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 62, 8.
Ezarik, M. (2006, June). Sense of place: Haverford College (Pa.) Gardner Integrated Athletic Center [Electronic version]. University Business: Solutions for Higher Education Management, 9(6), 28. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=51
Goldman, S. (2007a, April). NIRSA releases survey on construction [Electronic version]. Fitness Business Pro. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://fitnessbusinesspro.com/mag/fitness_nirsa_releases_survey/
Goldman, S. (2007b, May). UConn discusses plans for new rec center. Fitness Business Pro, 23(5), 18.
Greenberg, A. (2004, May 19). Baseball’s rebirthplace?: Mass. town hopes to capitalize. The Hartford Courant, p. 1. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7059853_ITM
Illia, T. (2006, August). Thinking big. Southwest Contractor, 10, 67.
Marklein, M. B. (2005, October 19). College gender gap widens: 57% are women [Electronic version]. USA Today. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www. usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
Stevenson, M. J., Reznick, J. W., & Pitcher, R. W. (1978). First intramural-recreation facility celebrates 50th year. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from University of Michigan, Department of Recreational Sports Web site: http://www.recsports.umich.edu/facilities/imsbhistory.html
Student Health Services. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from University of California, Merced Web site: http://health.ucmerced.edu/
Suttell, R. (2003, October). Getting fit. Buildings, 97, 34.
Take your school’s fitness center to the next level with fitness entertainment products from True Fitness. (2006, January). College Planning and Management, 9, 56.
Turman, J., Brown, T., Helgeson, S., McComber, M., Peterson, R., & Swenson, D. (2005). Planning principles for college and university recreation facilities: A report to the Board of Regents. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from
http://www.umcrookston.edu/planning/athletic/documents/exhibit/Exhibit%20D%20-%20Regents’%20Rec%20Sports%20docket%20March%202005. pdf
2007 Education Design Showcase Awards. (2007, June). College Planning and Management, 10(6), 1–36.
Universities: The changing look of sports and exercise. (2008). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.rockwerxclimbing.com/3797.xml
U. S. Census Bureau daily feature for Nov. 6: First college football game. (2006, November 5). BNET U. S. Newswire. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5554/is_200611/ai_n21882604?tag=artBody;col1
Motives for Sport Participation as Predictors of Motivation Outcomes in Track and Field: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective
Abstract
The extent to which motives for sport participation predict motivation outcomes was investigated in a study embracing self-determination theory and couched in Vallerand’s hierarchical model of motivation at the contextual level. Data were collected from 159 collegiate athletes. Motives for sport participation were assessed using the Sport Motivation Scale. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral measures were used to assess contextual motivation outcomes. Linear regression analyses examined the extent to which sport motives predicted motivation outcomes (satisfaction, concentration, and persistence). Amotivation emerged as a strong negative predictor of the outcome measures. External and introjected regulations and three intrinsic motives did not predict any of the motivation outcomes. The results do not support previous findings and offer only limited support of Vallerand’s model.
Motives for Sport Participation as Predictors of Motivation Outcomes in Track and Field: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective
Two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, have been of particular interest to researchers in the field of sport psychology (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008; Vallerand, 1997, 2001). Intrinsic motivation entails participation in an activity for the feelings of fun, pleasure, excitement, and satisfaction associated with it, while extrinsic motivation involves participation for the attainment of such rewards as money, trophies, and social approval or to avoid punishment. One of the most widely applied theoretical approaches to these types of motivation is self-determination theory, or SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT also involves the concept of amotivation, or having no sense of purpose and lacking intent to engage in a particular behavior. SDT posits that the different types of motivation range on a continuum from high to low self-determination: intrinsic motivation–extrinsic motivation–amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).
Vallerand (1997, 2001) embraced elements of SDT and integrated them within a hierarchical theory of motivation. His model asserts that social factors, mediators (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), motivations, and consequences (affect, cognition, and behavior) exist at three levels, the global level, contextual level, and situational level. A number of studies have indicated that behavioral regulations spanning the SDT continuum would lead to a corresponding pattern of consequences (Ratelle, Vallerand, Chantal, & Provencher, 2004; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003; Standage & Vallerand, 2008; Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Standage, 2008; Vlachopoulos, Karageorghis, & Terry, 2000; Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, & Murray, 2004). That is, autonomous regulations and intrinsic motivation are expected to correspond with more positive outcomes, whereas less self-determined forms of regulation (external and introjected regulations) correspond with more negative outcomes, such as poor focus, burnout, and dropout. Vallerand’s proposals have found broad support in a range of sport and physical activity contexts (Standage et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2004; Ntoumanis, 2001, 2005; Spray, Wang, Biddle, & Chatzisarantis, 2006); however, to date no study has examined these proposals in the context of a single sport.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which motives for sport participation predicted motivation outcomes at the contextual level of motivation, thus affording a direct test of Vallerand’s (1997, 2001) model. On the basis of previous work (Ntoumanis, 2001; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995; Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006), it was hypothesized that identified regulation and the dimensions of intrinsic motivation would be significant positive predictors of motivation outcomes, while amotivation would be a significant negative predictor.
Method
Participants
A sample of 159 volunteer track and field athletes was tested at eight athletics clubs in the London, United Kingdom, area (66 women and 93 men). Their mean age was 19.7 years (SD = 2.8). English was the first language of all participants. Full details of the ethnicity and level of participation of participants can be requested from the second author. Eighty-five athletes participated in sprint events (53.5%), 30 in middle distance events (18.9%), 33 in throwing events (20.7%), 4 in long-distance events (2.5%), and 7 in multievents (4.4%). Their years of experience in track and field ranged from 1 to 18 (M = 5.8 years, SD = 3.5).
Measures
Sport Motivation Scale. The 28-item Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) was based on SDT and designed to assess contextual intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Athletes respond to the item “Why do you practice your sport?” with responses from a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly). The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) consists of seven subscales with four items attached to each. The participation motives operationalized by the SMS, ranging from the most to the least self-determined, are as follows: intrinsic motivation to know (“for the pleasure of discovering new training techniques”); intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment (“for the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities”); intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (“for the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity”); identified regulation (“because in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet people”); introjected regulation (“because I must do sports regularly”); external regulation (“to show others how good I am at my sport”); and amotivation (“it is not clear to me anymore; I really don’t think my place is in sport”). The SMS has strong psychometric properties (Pelletier et al.; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to support the factor structure, while correlations between subscales and criterion measures were consistent with theoretical predictions. Further, internal consistency estimates were acceptable for all subscales (α = .74– .80) with the exception of identified regulation (.63).
Affective outcome measure. Satisfaction was used as an affective outcome and was assessed using a single item: “I am satisfied with my participation in the sport I currently practice” (Vlachopoulos et al., 2000). Participants responded on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I do not at all feel satisfied) to 7 (I feel extremely satisfied).
Cognitive outcome measure. Concentration was used as a cognitive outcome and was assessed using the dimension of concentration on task at hand from the Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (Jackson & Eklund, 2002). This dimension consists of four items (e.g., “I have total concentration”) and participants provided responses on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Behavioral outcome measure. The behavioral outcome of persistence was assessed using the mean of three items: “I intend/I will try/I am determined to continue participation in the sport I currently practice during this year” (Vlachopoulos et al., 2000). Responses were provided on a semantic differential scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely).
Procedure
The study was approved in accordance with the published procedures of the Brunel University Ethics Committee. Coaches and team managers were approached by both authors, in order to obtain permission to administer questionnaires to athletes. The general purpose of the study was explained, and, subsequently, written informed consent was sought from participants. Only two athletes did not provide informed consent and thus did not participate in the study.
Prior to a training session, participants provided demographic details, then completed the SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995). Following a gap of 1 week, the contextual motivational outcomes were assessed prior to the corresponding training session. The time gap was used to reduce the possibility of any extraneous environmental factors impacting upon the relationship between motives for sport participation and motivation outcomes (Kelly, 1988).
Data Analysis
Data screening was undertaken to check for missing data and to ensure that values were within expected ranges. Univariate outliers were identified using z scores > ±3.29 and multivariate outliers using the Mahalanobis distance method (p < .001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Cases that had multiple univariate outliers or were multivariate outliers were deleted from the data file, while additional univariate outliers were reduced by modifying their raw score toward the mean, to a unit below the next least extreme raw score (Tabachnick & Fidell, p. 77). Checks were conducted for the parametric assumptions underlying standard linear regression, specifically normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals. Standard linear regression analyses were used to predict the three outcome
measures from the seven SMS subscales.
Results
Following data screening, three cases that had multiple univariate outliers and one case that was a multivariate outlier were identified and deleted. Also, 11 univariate outliers were identified and transformed to ensure that the corresponding z score fell within the accepted range (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The mean Sport Motivation Scale scores were highest for the self-determined motives (see table 1), indicating that the present sample participated in sport predominantly for intrinsic and identified reasons rather than external and introjected reasons.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Sport Motivation Scale and Outcome Measures
VariableMSDRangeSkewnessKurtosis
| Sport Motivation Scale | |||||
| Amotivation | 7.46 | 4.24 | 4.00-2.00 | 1.24 | 0.97 |
| External regulation | 15.35 | 4.68 | 4.00-27.00 | 0.14 | -0.45 |
| Introjected regulation | 15.90 | 5.53 | 4.00-28.00 | 0.25 | -0.67 |
| Identified regulation | 15.98 | 4.74 | 4.00-28.00 | 0.10 | -0.42 |
| Intrinsic motivation to know | 19.88 | 4.34 | 9.00-28.00 | -0.19 | -0.57 |
| Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishments | 21.50 | 3.92 | 10.00-28.00 | -0.56 | -0.38 |
| Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation | 20.68 | 3.72 | 11.00-28.00 | -0.26 | -0.35 |
| Outcome measures | |||||
| Satisfaction | 5.40 | 1.25 | 1.00-7.00 | -1.25 | 1.42 |
| Concentration | 15.26 | 2.18 | 9.00-20.00 | 0.19 | -0.15 |
| Persistence | 6.89 | 0.27 | 6.00-7.00 | -2.46 | 4.92 |
Normality checks of skewness and kurtosis values indicated that the only problematic variable among the 10 examined was persistence (see table 1). This is indicative of the fact that participants generally indicated strong intentions to persist in track and field. Given that this was the only problematic variable, a decision was taken not to apply logarithmic transformation.
Thereafter, three separate linear regression analyses were conducted to predict each outcome measure from the SMS subscales (see table 2). Collectively, independent variables revealed a significant (p < .01) overall prediction within each regression equation. Amotivation emerged as a strong negative predictor of each of the three motivation outcomes. Contrary to expectations, the intrinsic motives did not predict the outcome measures in any of the equations. The predictor variables accounted for the highest degree of percentage variance in the outcome of satisfaction (16%), followed by concentration (9%), and persistence (6%).
Table 2
Standard Linear Regression to Predict Motivation Outcomes from Motives for Sport Participation
Dependent variablePredictor variableStandardized beta (β)
| Satisfaction | Amotivation | -0.40* |
| External regulation | 0.18 | |
| Introjected regulation | -0.06 | |
| Identified regulation | -0.02 | |
| Intrinsic motivation to know | 0.05 | |
| Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment | 0.02 | |
| Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation | 0.09 | |
| R = 0.45 | ||
| R2 = 0.16 | ||
| Concentration | Amotivation | -0.24* |
| External regulation | 0.19 | |
| Introjected regulation | -0.02 | |
| Identified regulation | -0.06 | |
| Intrinsic motivation to know | -0.16 |
Note. The analysis of variance corresponding with each linear regression analysis was significant (p < .01).
* p < .01.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which motives for sport participation predicted motivation outcomes at the contextual level of motivation in a single sport. More specifically, this study examined the proposition that more self-determined forms of motivation are positively associated with motivation outcomes than either their controlling counterparts or amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Results indicated that amotivation negatively predicted the contextual motivation outcomes, which corroborates recent findings pertaining to this dimension (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Wilson et al., 2004). However, neither intrinsic motives nor external or introjected regulations predicted any of the outcome measures. Collectively, the present results appear to offer only very limited support for the research hypothesis; autonomous regulations and intrinsic motivation were not positive predictors of the motivation outcomes.
Contrary to expectations, the present findings do not support those of previous studies which showed that identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were positively associated with motivation outcomes at the contextual level of motivation (Wilson et al., 2004; Ntoumanis, 2001; Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006). It is plausible that the predictive efficacy of intrinsic motivation to know may be lower in track and field than in some other sports, because track and field is primarily a motoric sport involving relatively few tactics; athletes follow their coaches’ instructions closely and do not exhibit a particularly deep desire to explore new performance strategies. However, it is acknowledged that anecdotal evidence suggests this may not generalize to elite performers (Johnson, 1996; Lewis & Jeffrey, 1990). A further plausible cause for the anomalous findings is that coaches emphasize and strongly encourage peer or social comparison (competition) among athletes, which may well weaken the link between intrinsic motivation and outcomes (Spray et al., 2006; Whitehead, 1993).
The regression analyses predicted a relatively small percentage of the variance in the cognitive and behavioral outcomes but a considerable percentage of the affective outcome (16%). This indicates that behavioral regulations are strong predictors of how people feel about their participation in sport. Most notably, amotivation was found to be a strong antithetical marker of satisfaction, a finding that is entirely consistent with theoretical predictions (Ntoumanis, 2001; Wilson et al., 2004). This implies that if coaches are to address the potentially deleterious effects of amotivation, an effective strategy would be to apply mood- and emotion-regulation strategies and to demonstrate some sensitivity toward athletes’ affective states.
Another interesting aspect of track and field which may, to a degree, account for the somewhat anomalous findings, is its multidisciplinary nature. This means not only are psychological needs underlying intrinsic motivation being frustrated by the sport’s coactive nature and emphasis on social comparison, there is in addition a further level of competition between event groups, for example sprints versus throws or jumps versus distance running. Proponents of each event group vie for use of facilities, limited financial resources, and media attention. This fusion of conflicting forces makes track and field a very distinct sport, which may account for the present results’ lack of support for the propositions of SDT. This is indeed the first study in the sport literature to offer a voice of dissent by suggesting that SDT has very limited predictive efficacy in terms of motivation outcomes.
Limitations of the Present Study
Data for the present study were collected at the height of the summer track and field season, and participants were, consequently, immersed in their preparations for competition. A strong orientation toward performance outcomes may have served to undermine their intrinsic motivation to a degree. More specifically, the overt emphasis on competition at that time of year may have promoted an external locus of causality, given that competition is
inherently controlling in nature (Fortier, Vallerand, Briere, & Provencher, 1995; Vansteenkiste & Deci, 2003).
The varying participation levels of athletes in the present sample could also have accounted for unexpected findings pertaining to the predictive efficacy of self-determined forms of motivation. Essentially, it is conceivable that different combinations of motives may be relevant to athletes competing at different levels. For example, the external regulation score of international athletes (M = 16.37) indicated that their sport participation was less self-determined than was the participation of their recreational counterparts (M = 14.71), albeit this difference did not reach statistical significance (p < .05).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The present findings provide very limited support for Vallerand’s (1997, 2001) hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and, indeed, for posits of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Contrary to expectations, results indicated that amotivation was the only predictor of the contextual motivational outcomes.
The practical implications of the present findings lie in promoting factors that underpin intrinsic motivation in track and field. Perceptions of autonomy and individual mastery will nurture intrinsic motivation and ultimately improve sport performance (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006; Whitehead, 1993; Wilson & Rodgers, 2004). Coaches should emphasize positive sensations such as fun and excitement that result from participation, while tempering their emphasis on peer comparison (Taylor et al., 2008; Whitehead, 1993). Further, coaches should be trained in the principles underlying emotional intelligence, given that the present findings suggest that sensitivity to athletes’ affective states is likely to buffer the potentially negative consequences of amotivation.
A promising direction for further research would be to investigate the psychological need for relatedness, given that much past sport motivation research has focused on the need for autonomy and the need for competence (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2008; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). It appears likely that the need for relatedness may be frustrated in track and field, owing to the track and field sports’ potential for conflict and coaches’ overt emphasis on peer comparison.
Future research should explore additional motivation outcomes, for example cognitive outcomes such as attention span and level of learning (Ntoumanis, 2001). Moreover, additional research is warranted into the antecedents of amotivation, in order to minimize negative consequences such as burnout and dropout. Finally, replication of the present study during the off-season would yield insightful comparative data, since participation in track and field is orientated more toward self-development than it is toward peer or social comparison. The predictive efficacy of sport motives may well vary from competitive periods to noncompetitive periods, and this would hold important implications for theory development.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-68.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). A test of self-determination theory in the exercise domain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 2240-2265.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., & Provencher, P. (1995). Competitive and recreational sport structures and gender: A test of their relationship with sport motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 24-39.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 133-50.
Johnson, M. (1996). Slaying the dragon. New York: HarperCollins.
Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1988). On time and method. London: Sage.
Lewis, C., & Jeffrey, M. (1991). Inside track: My professional life in amateur track and field. London: Sphere Books.
Ntoumani, C. T., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). The role of self-determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and physical self-evaluation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 393-404.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-42.
Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444-453.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.
Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Chantal, Y., & Provencher, P. (2004). Cognitive adaptation and mental health: A motivational analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 459-76.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397-428.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.
Spray, C. M., Wang, C. K. J., Biddle, S. J. H., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2006). Understanding motivation in sport: An experiment test of achievement goal and self determination theories. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 43-51.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 97-110.
Standage, M., & Vallerand, R. J. (2008). Self-determined motivation in sport and exercise groups. In M. R. Beauchamp & M. A. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics advances in sport and exercise psychology: Contemporary themes (pp.179-199). New York: Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 75-94.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 29 (pp. 271-360). New York: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263-320). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620.
Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142-69.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Competitively contingent rewards and intrinsic motivation: Can losers remain motivated? Motivation and Emotion, 27, 273-99.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Motivation profiles in sport: A Self-determination Theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 387-97.
Whitehead, J. R. (1993). Physical activity and intrinsic motivation. Physical Activity and Fitness Research Digest, 1, 1-8.
Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2004). The relationship between perceived autonomy support, exercise regulations and behavioral intentions in women. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 229-242.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Fraser, S. N., & Murray, T. C. (2004). Relationships between exercise regulations and motivational consequences in university students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 81-92.