Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach

Discussion and Conclusion

It is clear from these data that the majority of varsity athletes has an understanding of what is and what is not appropriate behaviour in sport and do not cross that line. However, some admit to crossing the line and feel they have justification for doing so. What is not clear is whether such athletes are consciously challenging moral standards or are under the assumption that doing so is acceptable practice within the culture of sport.

When one's motivation for being involved with sport, either as a coach or athlete, centers solely on winning, engagement in questionable behaviour sometimes occurs. When one side in a competition tilts the playing field to suit itself, for whatever reason and using whatever justification, the bottom line is that a level playing field no longer exists. Some will argue that for a myriad of reasons, a level playing field has never existed, be it because of the socio-economic status of the participants, genetic predisposition to certain abilities, or geographic location of their home and training area. The bottom line is that when athletes train to the best of their ability using whatever support is available to them, when they follow the rules that exist for their sport during competitions, they have the right to expect their competitors to have done the same and that the playing field is as level as possible in fairness to all.

As Morgan (2002) suggested, a degree of communicative action does exist in sport as most athletes play by the agreed-upon rules. Therefore, those who do not are acting in an unethical manner and are not so much leveling the field as tilting it to their advantage. This study looks not at the amount of unethical behaviour that occurs, but rather how athletes justify such acts, because until understanding of these justifications is realized, little can be done to lessen the amount of cheating that is taking place in sport today.

Justifications for Unethical Behaviour
Although it was encouraging that the majority of athletes in this study felt that unethical behaviour in sport could not be justified, certain athletes were able to justify such behaviour under specific circumstances. The coaches' influence was the primary justification under investigation in this study. Although it was not the most frequently reported justification, there were athletes, particularly the males, who indicated a willingness to engage in all forms of unethical behaviour if the coach suggested it.

The coach's influence.
As noted earlier, coaches are positioned to have a great deal of power and control over athletes. By the nature of the relationship, coaches are able to greatly influence the lives of high performance athletes. For some varsity athletes, their academic continuance depends upon their athletic success, making them even more reliant upon their coaches. In Western society, females are socialized as caregivers and often learn at an early age to place the needs of others before their own and to value the opinions of others, which frequently causes them to undervalue themselves. This leaves them particularly vulnerable to potential manipulation by those they perceive to hold power over them, including coaches.

It is perhaps surprising as well as encouraging that greater numbers of females in this study did not respond more positively to a coach suggesting certain behaviours. When females did bow to the requests of their coaches, it was generally on rule infractions. Males reported greater willingness to engage in unethical behaviours on the suggestion of their coaches, particularly with bending rules and using performance-enhancing drugs. Similar to the justification of others doing the same thing, certain male athletes seem willing to engage in very serious unethical behaviours that are clearly in violation of basic principles of fairness based upon the suggestions of their coaches.

What is not known from these data is the motivation for winning. At the present time, there certainly exists far greater opportunities for male athletes to continue to pursue high performance sport careers beyond the varsity level than is the case for females, making the stakes for winning much higher. Could this possibly explain the more frequent reporting of unethical behaviours being justified by males? If so, this should be a concern as high performance opportunities for females increase. A related issue to be considered is, that as high performance opportunities for women increase, so will the interest by males coaches to work with these athletes.

A recent study (Drewe, 2003) reported that male coaches apply a set of core beliefs to ethical issues based upon their own past experiences while female coaches treat ethical issues as situational, that is, by addressing the specific factors related to each particular ethical situation. The study reported that female coaches believe in giving athletes a high degree of autonomy in ethical decision making while male coaches expressed a desire to limit athlete's autonomy and exert greater control over athletes in this regard.

The Coaching Code of Ethics, published by the Canadian Professional Coaches' Association, acknowledges the power that is inherent in the position of coach and the related influence coaches have. Coaches have a vested interest in how their athletes perform; many times the win/loss record affects coaching status, from the lowest level of minor sport to the pros. Although they are role models and parental substitutes in many situations, coaches themselves justify their unethical instruction to athletes in a variety of ways.

Athletes choose the path they take depending on the desired outcome, and coaches do the same. With the influence the coach potentially has over the athletes, perhaps there is potential for coaches to use that power in a positive and nurturing way so that sport can be the vehicle for positive character development. No matter what the justification noted, whether it be the influence of the coach or the fact that if others are doing the same thing, then they somehow feel vindicated, it is imperative that coaches realize that athletes admit to justifications for unethical behaviour in sport.

If others are doing the same thing.
This justification was cited by both males and females more frequently than any other, including winning. This seems to indicate that athletes may value fairness, yet are willing to act unfairly if they perceive that others are doing so. It is a cause for concern that a quarter of the male athletes and slightly more than 10 percent of the female athletes feel justified in engaging in unethical behaviour if others are doing so. Although athletes may perceive that engaging in unethical behaviours themselves because others are doing so is an issue of fairness and as such is justifiable, this attitude of an eye for an eye feeds the growth of unethical behaviour in sport. Athletes perceive that if their opponents are doing something unethical, they are simply "levelling the playing field" by doing the same thing. In this way, they can perhaps justify their actions in their own minds because what they are doing is not wrong, it is simply doing what someone else is doing, or, if everyone does the same thing, then no one has an unfair advantage.

Athletes do not want to be at a disadvantage, so if they perceive that their opponents are doing something to get ahead of them, they have to do the same things in order to be competitive. Athletes should be able to trust that the sport system functions in such a way that unethical behaviours that give certain participants an advantage are not tolerated. They will then not feel themselves "forced" to engage in unethical behaviours in order for competition to be "fair".

continue >>>

le Journal en français

MAY 2004
Vol. 4, No. 4
Front Page
CONTENTS

Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach

Discussion and Conclusion

References

Download a PDF of this article click here
174 KB, 17 pages

Print version of this article click here