Distributive Justice in Intercollegiate Athletics: The Views of NCAA Coaches and Administrators

Abstract

This study examined the principles of distributive justice held by male and female coaches and athletic administrators from all three NCAA divisions in allocating resources within athletic departments. A total of 328 subjects from Divisions I, II, and III responded to the instrument, which contained 12 scenarios describing situations of either distribution or retribution of three different resources-—money, facilities, or support services. The eight allocation principles listed under each scenario were (a) equality of treatment, (b) equality of results, and (c) equality of opportunity; contributions based on (d) productivity, (e) spectator appeal, (f) effort, and (g) ability; and (h) need. In each distributive situation, subjects were asked to rate the justness of each allocation principle and to choose one of the eight principles for implementation. All subgroups rated equality of treatment, need, and equality of results as the most just and the other principles as relatively unjust. These principles were also the principles most frequently chosen by subjects for implementation.

Perspectives of Title IX Pioneers: Equity, Equality and Need

“…The participant's perceptions regarding resource support convey that only the contribution of male athletic programs was deemed valuable to decision makers, which reflects a skewed version of the equity principle in distributive justice. Hums and Chelladurai (1994) found that administrators and coaches view the principles of equality and need as more just than the principle of equity. However, Mahony and Pastore (1998) determined that this preference is "inconsistent with actual distributions" (p. 148).…”

“…Previously authors (e.g., Hums & Chelladurai, 1994;Patrick, Mahony & Petrosko, 2008) determined that females favor the equality principle over the equity principle, whereas men favor the equity principle over the equality principle. Equality has been identified as an objective principle whereas need is subjective (Mahony, Hums, & Reimer, 2002).…”

“…It has been defined as the principles underlying the distribution of resources and the payoffs (outcomes or rewards) to different parties in a system (Hums & Chelladurai, 1994). Distributive justice is PERSPECTIVES OF TITLE IX 3 also described as the "distribution of the conditions and goods which affect individual wellbeing" (Deutsch, 1975, p. 137).…”

Perceptions of organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in intercollegiate athletics : a study of NCAA men's sport coaches.

“…Prior studies on the perceptions of intercollegiate coaches has focused only on the perceptions of head coaches (Chelladurai & Ogasawara, 2003;Hums & Chelladurai, 1994b;Jordan et al 2004;Raedeke, Granzyk, & Warren, 2000;Whisenant & Jordan, 2006). The present study examined differences of both head and assistant coaches as assistant coaches may have different perceptions that affect both their overall job satisfaction and organizational commitment differently.…”

“…The purpose of the Dittmore NGBs as participants in the study (N = 72). A scenario based survey was designed based on prior studies on distributive justice (Hums & Chelladurai, 1994a' 1994bMahony, Hums, & Riemer, 2002;Mahony, Riemer, Breeding & Hums, 2006;Patrick, Mahony, & Petrosko, 2008). The survey consisted of three distribution scenarios where each participant was asked to rate the perceived fairness of the seven distribution principles on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = "very unfair", 7 = "very fair").…”