Ethics in College Athletics:
How Far Does Winning Go
John Williams
27 September 2013

Abstract

Introduction Whether it is ultra-competitive collegiate athletes, the need for university programs for funding, or the drive for a championship, the perceived need to win is ever increasing in today’s collegiate sport programs. This perceived need plays a large role in the perceived successfulness of the program. In today’s collegiate world, more wins equates to more money for the program, more recognition for coaches and players, as well as increased awareness of the university as a whole. These benefits to winning are the drive behind many collegiate programs to get a step ahead of the competition, however, when does this drive and the pressure to win outweigh the coach’s and program’s code of ethics. The collegiate world has recently seen many different scenarios where the need to win has resulted in the poor decision to throw away one’s ethics for the benefit of personal gain or the win of single game. Each of these scenarios is a culmination of poor personal decisions, poor program management, and poor character development. These scenarios present themselves as learning experiences as well as opportunities to educate the future leaders of our sporting world.

Review of Literature The term ethics is defined as, “moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior” (Meriam-Webster, 2013). By this definition, there is a code of conduct that guide each and every action that humans perform either individually or as a group of people. As athletes, that means that every decision made both on the field and off the field is governed by this code of conduct. This code of conduct starts to develop the instant the athlete is old enough to understand his/her surroundings and continues development through each and every experience that he/she has. As young athletes learning their selected sport, the pressure to win is at a minimum. The focus is primarily on learning the fundamentals, the rules of the sport, and instilling the spirit of healthy competition. As the athlete progress in the levels of sport, the emphasis starts to switch from a learning based atmosphere into a performance based atmosphere. The goal of winning starts to be integrated into the goals of the athlete, the coaches, and the program. The need to reach this goal becomes the focus rather than the need for healthy competition. This is especially true at the collegiate level, with winning having a direct relationship on the funding of the program, the recruitment of athletes, as well as the perception of the school’s athletic program. One of the largest problems is plaguing the collegiate sporting world is the business that runs the sporting world. Scott Ketchmar,, who serves on the NCAA Scholarly Colloquium on Intercollegiate Athletics and teaches ethics in sports management at Penn State tells us, “The problem with college sports is the big business behind it,” he said. “The book we’re using (in his current class), ‘Fair Play’ by Robert Simon, talks about the power behind sports, powerful coaches and the necessity to win, make money and get on TV, at any cost” (Ketchmar, 2011). Ketchmar is reffering to the large amounts of money that is dumped into collegiate programs that have large public followings and the business that results from marketing high profile competitions. When winning brings in more money, more recognition, higher skilled players, and more national attention, it only makes sense that the support that these programs receive from outside sources are the driving force behind the win at all cost philosophy that dominates the face of college athletics. There are two realms of ethical dilemmas that all collegiate athlete and coaches face. The first of these two realms is the on field decisions that impact game or season performances. These decisions affect athletes at many different levels from amateur to professional. Athletes are faced with decisions such as whether to take performance enhancing drugs, whether to wear improper equipment during the game, or to intentionally break rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. Kirk O. Hanson, from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, says that to understand the role ethics plays in sports one must understand the difference between gamesmanship and sportsmanship(Hanson, 2012). He goes on to further say, “The goal in sportsmanship is not simply to win, but to pursue victory with honor by giving one's best effort” (Hanson, 2012). Violations of these ethical decisions are primarily the result of an overemphasis placed on the outcome of the game rather than the manner in which the game is played. Gamesmanship puts the focus on breaking or bending the rules to gain a competitive advantage and that there are no other objectives in the game other than to win. Sportsmanship on the other hand shifts the focus on trust and respect between competitors and cultivating personal honor, virtue, and character. These moral decisions from athletes and coaches are on a decline in the collegiate world. The main ethical problem from this realm of ethical dilemmas is the subject of performance enhancing drugs. As science and technology enhances, the field of human enhancement has exploded in the last decade. The pressure of society to win at all costs has been seen and documented throughout the collegiate world. There are also factors that are inherent to college level athletes. Most college athletes are attempting to move to the next level. This drive for the next level can also result in poor decisions in terms of ethics. Athletes may also use PEDs to help their financial situation. For example, if an athlete needs to gain scholarship to pay for college they may be more likely to use PEDs (Albrecht, Anderson & McKeag, 1992). Coaches are also involved in the athlete’s decision to use a PED. A coach can ultimately be the proverbial “straw that breaks the camel’s back.” The coaches overall coaching emphasis plays a large role in what decisions athletes make and what type of rationale is used to make these decisions. If the coach is continuously asking an injured start player to get back on the field as soon as possible and not shifting the focus of the athlete to safety. The athlete could make a decision to use PED’s to speed up recovery time. A coach from Cornell University is quoted by Dr. Robert Scott while he is talking about compliance and ethical decisions in collegiate sports. He says, “Lessons are learned, even when not spelled out in the syllabus or playbook. We learn that “hero worship” can start early; some people are “above the law”; and winning is paramount. I remember the football coach at Cornell University who called me about a marginally qualified applicant for admission. When I would not give an affirmative answer to his plea to have the student admitted, he said, “Dr. Scott, you have to understand. My job is on the line every Saturday, and this young man can “help us win.” To this coach, winning was more important than the integrity of the admissions process and the prospects for the young man to succeed as a student” (Scott, 2012). The second realm of ethical dilemmas is far more reaching that the outcome of a single game. This realm deals with the athletes and coaches and the moral decisions off the field. These decisions are what dominate the scene of modern college athletics. Some of these decisions are based on winning as a program while others based on personal gain. These complete breach of ethics are more prevalent today than in recent time and many times these decisions are based simply on money. The Ohio State scandal saw athletes selling school property for personal gain, the Miami University scandal saw athletes being paid by collegiate boosters. All of these scenarios violate the rules set forth by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). These decisions indirectly affect the winning atmosphere of a program as a whole. The result of making poor ethical decision off the field affect programs by sanctions imposed on them by the ruling body of the NCAA. It undermines the life lesson that coaches are supposed to be teaching young developing athletes and only adds to the detrimental effects that occur from focusing the goals of a program to win at all costs. When a breach of ethics occurs, this leaves the university and the athletic program with questions of direction, questions of integrity, and questions of responsibility. How does the program shift focus from gamesmanship to sportsmanship with the ever increasing pressure to win from the sources that are the lifeblood of a program’s success. The “win at all cost” mindset will only get the program so far. In the current atmosphere, where the NCAA has shown that there is no leniency for poor ethical decisions, the repercussions of making those decision affects the long term plan of the program more than ever. The shift from a winning at all costs atmosphere to an student first/athlete second is a process. Despite the apparent pressure of winning at the collegiate level, coaches and athletic program staff must ensure that they are fostering a ethical environment within their program. Hanson gives us four key virtues that are required when relating to sport: Fairness, Integrity, Responsibility, and Respect (Hanson, 2012). A program must make these the primary focus in the development of their athletes. Each program must incorporate the moral ideas of fair competition between teams and the integrity of coaches and athletes to do what’s right both on and off the field. The programs must also show that all athletes and coaches are going to be held responsible for their own actions as well as the actions of their subordinates as we see in the case of coaches. The final aspect that is important to a moral and ethical program is instilling respect for opponents and teammates while engaged in competition. These values are an integral part of changing the atmosphere of “win at all costs” that is running affluent in collegiate sports. Incorporating these key steps is essential when building a program to act morally and ethically. This shift to student first/athlete second does not come without its own set of negative aspects. Charles Clotfeller, a professor at Duke Universtiy and noted NCAA critic says, “it would be suicidal for university leaders to say that academics need to come first,” he says, “at the core, the universities want to be competitive” Clotfeller, 2012). Universities rely on the revenue that television deals