Ethics in Coaching Literature Review

Running head: COACHING ETHICS: CONCEPTS AND EDUCATION 1
Ethics in Athletic Coaching: Concepts and Education
Keenan North
Western Oregon University
ED 633
August 3, 2018

ETHICS IN ATHLETIC COACHING: CONCEPTS AND EDUCATION 2
Introduction
From early primary schooling through college, sports today are are an integral part of the
educational experience across North America. Many students grow up playing one or multiple
sports, often affiliated with or sponsored by the school they attend. The coaches that they work
with can have a significant influence upon their lives (Hardman et al., 2010; Jordan et al., 2004).
Because of the prevalence and importance of sports in the developmental process for youth
across the continent, the coaches who organize and run athletic teams and events have an
extremely important societal role. Like teachers, academic staff, researchers, and other pivotal
academic positions with the potential for abuses of power, it is important that coaches operate
with a clear set of ethical guidelines. Unlike these professions, athletic coaching does not
maintain a well established ethical guidelines that are universally accepted or widely practiced
(Stoll, 2011; Partington, 2017).
Within the past decade, a multitude of incidents across amaetur and professional sports
have elicited a closer examination upon the ethical responsibilities of coaches across different
sports, age groups, and genders. Even when limiting the scope of these incidents to one school -
such as Baylor University in Waco, TX - there are a multitude of ethical problems. Title IX
abuse, concealment of criminal behavior by players, and sexual scandals are just some of the
numerous issues reported at Baylor in the past several years, ultimately resulting in the firing of
several coaches and staff members (Kirk, 2016). Other institutions and coaches have faced
similar problems. In public discourse coaches and coaching decisions are often blamed for some
of these problems, yet relatively little empirical research exists that supports or refutes this

hypothesis. The rise in visible ethical violations attributed to coaches has coincided with the
increasing professionalization and popularity of athletic coaching (Taylor & Garratt, 2010).
Within this professional climate, the main purpose of this literature review is to identify
prevalent definitions and topics regarding ethics in the academic framework of athletic coaching.
Although a shortfall currently exists in contemporary academic literature pertaining to ethics in
coaching, the identification of common themes and points of contention within the existing
literature is the first step towards solidifying a universal set of guidelines similar to those in
research, medicine, or law enforcement (Jenkins, 2014; Taylor & Garratt, 2010). With clear and
empirical understanding of the current ethical climate, research and action can be undertaken to
better understand and address the way coaching is related to some of the issues discussed in the
previous paragraph.
The literature review will begin by exploring the prevalent views one of the core issues
found throughout contemporary coaching scholarship: coach-athlete relationships. The following
sections will synthesize how these ethical values fit within a legal, and performance driven
framework. Finally, a section on ethics education will present the system of formalizae ethical
training for coaches presented by several scholars, and criticism to a codified approach. The
conclusion will consider the implications of the important themes and gaps in the current
understanding of ethics in coaching, proposing that current research has limited utility, but could
be a solid as starting point for further research that can improve the coaching profession.
Literature Sample & Gaps
The professionalization of athletic coaching, and the popularity of sports in general, have
accelerated immensely in the past two decades (Taylor & Garratt, 2010). Because of this drastic

transformation, the literature surveyed in this review are limited to those written in the 21st
century, in order to limit the scope of study to contemporary coaching and its problems. This
approach revealed a paucity of scholarship on coaching ethics in the past decade, a fact that is
acknowledged in most of the existing literature (Taylor & Garratt, 2010). Additionally, few
quantitative or experimental studies on coaching ethics exist, making it difficult to unequivocally
substantiate collective conclusions with empirical evidence. Articles were found using the
Western Oregon University Library, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and the Simon Fraser University
Library. The articles came from several journals, including the International Journal of Sports
& Coaching and Sports Coaching Review. It is possible that the sample of literature in this
review is skewed because of limited journal access. Several articles focus on coaching in Europe,
or were written by European authors, which may be a result of using a Canadian university
library search engine.
Relationships
Most of the contemporary literature on ethics in coaching is based upon interviews and
surveys sampling the views of coaches across sports, backgrounds, and gender. Thus it is
valuable because it reveals the current values and approaches of coaches in the field, even though
the true effectiveness of these approaches remain unknown. The relationship between coaching
professionals and the athletes that they coach is one of the core issues in the current discussion of
ethics. Gearity & Denison go so far as to claim the coach-athlete relationship is one of the largest
contributing factors affecting the athlete experience (2012). A relatively wide array of
relationship subtopics exist - including interaction style, autonomy, and boundaries - but most

clearly fall into the category of relationships between coach and athlete. In this framework, it is
important to identify what constitutes ethical and unethical relationships in current research.
Athletes and teams reflect the character and personality of their coaches (Jordan et al.,
2004). Empirical studies that provide evidence for this anecdote do not exist in the contemporary
coaching literature, but the perception is almost universally agreed upon (Jordan et al., 2004;
Kim et al., 2018; Hardman et al., 2010). The influential nature of coaches underlies the belief
that it is responsibility of coaches to monitor, care for, and nurture the behavior of the athletes
they coach (Kim et al., 2018; Fisher et al. 2016). Higher level administrators also hold some
level of perceived responsibility, but ultimately coaches have the highest level of responsibility
(Jordan et al., 2004). A true consensus on the best way for coaches to address this relationship
does not exist, but several theories.
Altruism, servant leadership, and introspective wisdom based approach are several of the
methods discuss which can accomplish this (Gerdin et al., 2018; Drewe, 2000). Foucault and his
writings on power structure and self creation were cited by several articles. Although these
approaches have some slight differences in their conceptualization of an ethical relationship with
student athletes, it is clear that none of them remotely resemble older authoritarian style coaching
- which does not coincide with today’s conception of an ethical power relation between coach
and player. Coaches who do hold this attitude are expected to disclose and provide alternatives
styles to their athletes (Drewe, 2000, p. 161). Servant leadership and altruism are two
relationship approaches which have gained popularity in the past decade. Despite the approaches
lacking a clear definition, their defining characteristics are built upon the concepts of integrity,
service, and trust (Kim et al., 2018). This service based approach also centers upon the individual

athlete, rather than the team as a whole (Passmore, 2009; Hardman et al., 2010). The perceived
importance of the individual athlete in the coach athlete relationship, which elicited the question
from several researchers whether this ideal is adhered to by today’s coaches.
Ethics of Winning
This paragraph aims to explain the two ways contemporary scholarship situates winning
in relation to ethical behavior. Once again, studies focused upon the perceptions of ethics by
active coaches, so there are no large-sample observational or experimental studies providing
empirical evidence which describes the relationship between performance and ethical
coach-athlete relationships.
Especially in athletics, ethics and and organizational rules do not always occupy the same
space. With some variance, the most common point of view presented sees performance based
coaching as a speed bump to ethical behavior, which can be overcome through changes in rules,
education, and administration.. However, some critics argue that the professionalization of the
coaching industry is the fundamental cause of unethical coaching behavior, and that this gap is
mostly irreconcilble (Gearity & Denison, 2012; Taylor & Garratt, 2010). One extreme example
of such behavior is presented is the Penn State child abuse case. The case involved Penn State
football coaches who witnessed and failed to report a senior coaching staff member sexual
abusing young children in the school facilities, believing that reporting it would have a negative
impact on the football programs publicity; and thus, its ability to win games (Gearity & Denison,
2012)
Although rules handbooks such as the NCAA compliance manual exist and inform the
decision making of coaches, these are not always built upon an ethical foundation of other

disciplines. Greenwell et al. found in their study that coaches believed in the rules and
encouraged other to follow them, but that rule violations were still commonplace (2004). When
combined with a zero-sum objective such as winning, coaches are encouraged to take advantage
of loopholes within the rules instead of operating under an ethical framework that might inform
the spirit of some of these rules (Kvalnes & Hemmestad, 2010; ) Others who share this point of
view write under the assumption that a performance based coach can still operate ethically, and
an adjustment of the rules to a more common sense wisdom approach, or education in coaching
ethics can help to bridge this gap (McNamee, 2010; Kvalnes & Hemmestad, 2010; Drewe, 2000)
Several scholars argue that the ‘professionalization’ of coaching alters the relationship
structures and power dynamics between coaches, athletes, and administration, creating a
performance based system which values winning and profit over ethical behavior (Gearity &
Denison, 2012; Taylor & Garrett, 2010). This is not to say that athletics should be devoid of
competition and score keeping. Gearity & Denison make it clear: coaches should focus more on
ethical relationships and character development, and the high stakes environments across several
sports and levels prevent this from taking place (2012) . Relationships and athlete autonomy
serve at the ethical core of the ethical structures in these views, with coaches’ ethical
responsibilities going well beyond the strategic aspects of sports; their first duty is to the
individuals they coach (Hardman et al., 2010).
Ethics and the Law
Coaches have an ethical responsibility to the athletes they coach from an altruistic and
servant perspective that stands up on its own. However, Partington, Mitten, Johansson et al., and
others point out that some of these ethical norms are accompanied by legal code. Mitten explores

this in high-school sports this, writing, “consistent with their ethical obligation, the law generally
requires...coaches to exercise reasonable care to protect athletes’ health and safety with liability
for negligence if this duty is breached” (2012, p. 3). Partington echoes this sentiment, claiming it
is the coaches legal and ethical duty to manage the athletes exposure to certain level of risks
(2016). By this standard, a coach is required to act in the best interest of the player from a
ethical and legal perspective, even if it is not in the best interests of the team or the coach
personally. The law and ethics both place the onus on the coach to serve the individual, keeping
their best interests in mind (Mitten, 2012; Partington,). Claiming coaches can be held legally
accountable if these ethical foundations are not upheld makes sense; but some argue the law and
ethics are not always so clearly aligned.
Because of the close nature of many coach-athlete relationships, the ethics and legality of
intimate relationships were discussed by several authors. Interviews with coaches generally
revealed subjects that found these relations problematic, and illegal in many cases (Fasting etal.,
2018). However, Johansson et al. raises questions about a black and white ethical perspective,
suggesting that a more nuanced ethical approach encouraging participants to be transparent and
open to discussion would be more appropriate (2016). Others acknowledge that coach-athlete
relationships are often close and unique in nature, lending credence to the Johannson approach
(Fasting et al., 2018). More transparency and openness to discuss ethical grey areas would also
be beneficial for further study on the matter, as the survey approaches which compromise most
of the literature on intimate relationships are prone to social desirability bias - something that
goes unacknowledged in most of the sampled work.

Athlete safety and intimate athlete-coach relationship demonstrate two different ethical
standards prevalent in coaching scholarship, consequentialist and deontological. Deontological is
based upon behavior being right or wrong; consequentialist (Passmore, 2009, p. 8; McNamee,
2010). Without training or experience it is difficult to determine which is appropriate, and
codified rules aren’t always context relevant (Passmore, 2009; Kvalnes & Hemmestad, 2010 ).
Thus, ethical education is important to consider, and is a frequent topic discussed in the sampled
articles.
Ethics Education
Coaching professionals may collectively hold some agreement on the values that should
inform the actions of other coaches, but the lack of a formalized system of ethical education
stands between athletic coaching and the the ethical training required in other professional
systems (Stoll, 2011; Gearity & Denison, 2012). Stoll illustrates this point when (he/she) writes,
“... athletics is probably the only place on campus where a highly competitive environment exists
and ethics are never taught as subject matter” (Stoll, 2011, p. 4). There are several negative
outcomes which result from the current climate described by Stoll, including but not limited to: a
lack of academic legitimacy for athletic departments and the coaches that lead them, poor ethical
decision making by inexperienced coaches, negative experiences for coaches and athletes (Duffy
& Passmore, 2010; Passmore, 2009). Both academic researchers and the coaching professionals
who participated in multiple surveys hold the consensus that ethical codes are important, and that
steps should be taken to improve the adherence of an agreed upon set of ethical guidelines; there
were several common threads on how this could be accomplished.

Especially at the college level of competition in the United States, salaries and pressure
continue to mount up, yet the adherence to systems of ethics and values do not match other
professions of similar magnitude (Stoll, 2011). Jenkins argues that the term professionalism and
the concept forms its basis should encompasses a moral framework, and suggests that the
creation of a Masters Degree in coaching could help further professionalism in golf, and other
individual and team sports (2014). This program would entail ‘holistic’ professional training in
both the physical processes, and the philosophical underpinnings of the coaching process. in the
sport of choice, and Similar approaches are offered to varying degrees by (Stoll, 2011; Gerdin et
al., 2018).
There is a clear lack of relevant academic material that focuses upon ethics in athletic
coaching, and this sentiment is echoed across a significant portion of the literature that does
exist. Furthermore, several authors argue that this does not simply indicate a lack in
documentation, as a ethics seems to be work in progress both coaching and coaching academic
material (Stoll, 2011;Taylor & Garrett, 2010). In response to this, a portion of published
academia on coaching advocate for a formalized system of ethics education for coaches.
Without material that coaches can access to learn about ethics, and simulate potential dilemmas,
athletes, coaches, and organizations are putting themselves at risk (Jenkins, 2014; Passmore,
2009)
Conclusion
The review has provided insight on the ways which ethics are conceptualized by modern
coaches, the importance of the athlete to the current views of ethics, and solutions which aim to

correct the current problems faced within athletic coaching. It also demonstrated the belief that
athletic coaching is limited in both its professional reputation and goals by unethical behavior by
coaches, and a lack of appropriate ethical guidelines (Stoll, 2011; Gearity & Denison, 2010). The
available scholarship mostly consists of qualitative studies such as surveys and interviews,
literature reviews, and conceptual analysis, allowing readers to understand the field as current
see it. Although valuable, this type of information has limited value as measurement tool for best
ethical practices. This creates an adequate spring board for further research and action which
could positively influence the outcomes and public reception of athletic coaching as a profession.
Coaches and the authors who surveyed them generally agreed upon an altruistic service
based approach to coaching, with some variation as in the execution of these ideals. But, the
effectiveness of this approach remains largely untested. Further study upon coaching styles and
relationship formation between coaches and athletes in necessary to understand whether it can be
considered truly ethical. There are a range of outcome categories that coaches could measure to
gauge success, but it may turn out that servant leadership towards individual athletes may do
more harm than good. This is not a hypothesis by any means, but without empirical research it is
difficult to know. These prospective studies should take the form of observational and
experimental studies, to ensure that participants do not skew their results towards the social
norms.
Ethics education for coaches, and more study upon how this education affects the
behavior and practice of coaches is needed as well (Passmore, 2009; Duffy & Passmore, 2010;
Stoll, 2011). Whether it is holistic undergraduate and graduate coaching programs, a widely
accepted set of conduct standards, or situation ethics training; best practices need to be identified

and implemented, and empirical research is the best way to start. The potential outcomes of such
research could be beneficial to nearly everyone who is involved in athletics. Common ethical
standards and protocols that result from these suggested streams of research could help
institutions and coaches to stop the ethical and legal violations such as those that happened at
Baylor University.

References
Drewe, S.B. (2000). Coaches, Ethics and Autonomy. Sport, Education and Society, 5(2),
147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696030
Duffy, M., & Passmore, J. (2010). Ethics in coaching: An ethical decision making framework for
coaching psychologists International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 140-151.
Fasting, K., Sand, T.S., & Sisjord, M.K. (2018). Coach-athlete sexual relationships: Coaches’
opinions. International Journal of Sports & Coaching, 13(4), 463-470. DOI:
10.1177/1747954117753807
Fisher, A.L., Bejar, M.P., Larsen, L.K.., Fyers, J.M., & Gearity, B.T. (2016). Caring in U.S.
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Sport: The perspectives of 18 female
and male head coaches. International Journal of Sports & Coaching, 12(1), 75-91.
Retrieved from https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1177%2F1747954116684388
Gearity, B.T., & Denison, J. (2012). Educator-Coach as Stranger. Cultural Studies <-> Critical
Methodologies, 12(4), 352-356. DOI: 10.1177/1532708612446437
Gerdin, G., Pringe, R., & Crocket, H. (2018). Coach and ethical self-creation: problematizing the
“efficient tennis machine”. Sports Coaching Review.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2018.1429114
Hardman, A., Jones, C., & Jones, R. (2010). Sports coaching, virtue ethics and emulation.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(4), 345-359.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980903535784

Jenkins, S. (2014). Professionalism, Golf Coaching and a Master of Science Degree.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(4), 693-715.
https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.4.693
Johansson, S., Kentta, G., & Andersen, M.B. (2016). Desires and taboos: Sexual relationships
between coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sports & Coaching, 11(4),
589-598. DOI: 10.1177/1747954116654777
Jordan, J. S., Greenwell, T. C., Geist, A. L., Pastore, D. L., & Mahony, D. F. (2004). Coaches'
Perceptions of Conference Code of Ethics. Physical Educator, 61(3), 131-145. Retrieved
from
http://ezproxy.wou.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=aph&AN=15082686&site=ehost-live
Kim, M., Kim, Y., & Won, D. (2018). From commanding to serving athletes: Nurturing the
coach-athlete relationship. International Journal of Sports & Coaching, 0(0), 1-11. DOI:
10.1177/1747954118790810
Kirk, Jason (2016). We finally know more about why Baylor fired Art Briles. SB Nation.
Retrieved from
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/10/28/13460830/art-briles-fired-baylor-
coach-report
Kvalnes, O., & Hemmestad, L. (2010). Loophole ethics in sports. Nordic Journal of Applied
Ethics, 4(1), 57-67.

Mitten, M.J (2012). The Coach and the Safety of Athletes: Ethical and Legal Issues. In R.L
Simon. (Ed.), Ethics and Coaching. Westview. Retrieved from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2088091
Partington, N. (2017). Sports coaching and the law of negligence: implications for coaching
practice. Sports Coaching Review, 6(1), 36-56.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2016.1180860
Passmore, J. (2009). Coaching ethics: Making ethical decisions - novices and experts. The
Coaching Psychologist, 5(1), 6-10.
Stoll, S.K. (2011). The Problem of Ethics and Athletics: An Illegitimate Stepsister. Journal of
College and Character, 12(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1817
Taylor, B., & Garratt, D. (2010). The professionalisation of sports coaching: relations of power,
resistance and compliance. Sport, Education and Society, 15(1), 121-139.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320903461103

Ethics in Coaching Literature Review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ethics in Coaching Literature Review

Similar to Ethics in Coaching Literature Review (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ethics in Coaching Literature Review