Executive
Abstract
There is conflict
between the head coach of the girls’ basketball team and the university’s
decision to offer her a contracted salary that is not equal in revenue to the
male coach of the boys’ basketball team.
This presents an ethical dilemma as to the subject of equality, freedom
to offer market value, the equality of responsibility and demands, as well as
the importance of an individual to an athletic program. A close analysis at the total structure of an
athletic program should shed light on the real problem that may not have
equality as an issue for ethical discussion.
Apparent
Problem
The apparent problem is
Marianne Stanley is unhappy with the pay discrepancy between the female
coaching job and the male coaching job for the University of Southern
California’s basketball teams. The
University does not support paying the female coach the same as the male coach
due to discrepancy in the economic contributions between both teams.
Analysis
What worked well for
the University of Southern California is that it had an athletic program that
worked as a well-oiled machine. The
girls’ basketball team won three consecutive national championships. As it is common knowledge, an athletic
program of a university is composed of an athletic director, compliance staff,
scouts, head coaches and assistant coaches.
In order for it to run successfully, there must be a talented group of
athletes, a supportive administration composed of the university president and staff
as well as student support and the support of spectators. When all of these elements are cohesive, the
machine, known here as the athletic program, works successfully. What failed to work well with USC is that the
cohesiveness has been damaged from the dissatisfaction of Stanley over the
offer of $88,000 that would cap out at $100,000.
In order for to determine if the choice to offer Stanley
less than her counterpart, George Raveling, was an ethical decision, attention
should be drawn to the coaches’ roles as it relates to the support that the
program gives in order to produce the desired result and the coaches’
successful reciprocation. According to a
study by McGill University, successful coaches have common components to their
leadership. These are Individual growth,
organizational skills, coach’s attributes, and vision (Vallee & Bloom, 2005
). Individual growth occurs from a combination of life skills and empowerment
both are awarded to the coach from the school and the opportunity these skills
are developed through trial and error, coaching clinics, interviews and advice
from other coaches and athletic department staff. In other words, the compliance department
shares knowledge with the coach on NCAA rules so that the coach can
strategically recruit without violation of rules. This knowledge and experience causes personal
growth that makes the coach a better coach. The coach possesses organizational
skills that are enhanced with contributions of other coaches as space and time
must be negotiated between teams.
Assistant coaches have various levels of expertise to plan and organize.
The attributes are analyzed by the athletic director during the interview
process and the coach is accepted as a member of the system if his or her
attributes and vision are cohesive with the whole. It is then safe to conclude that the coach
does not make the athletic program, but is only a part of it.
The coach reciprocates
to the athletic program by accomplishing tasks that supports the vision of the
program. According to Dasheil Bennet and ESPN insider, college women basketball
does not make money. In 2011 the Auburn
University’s entire women sports program earned $64,000 total for the year
while producing a 3 million dollar lost.
It is assumable that this knowledge is well known and understood by
university administrators who potentially offer more to one female coach than
what the entire female athletic body earns for the school. In college, the big revenue sports are men
basketball and football. These two sports
create enough revenue to support the female sports. This being the case, the
question of obligation and responsibility exists. Does the male coach of these two sports have a
similar task to the female coach when it comes to recruiting the best athletes,
managing those athletes in the face of possible NCAA violations due to the off
court temptations, and the threat of losing athletes to the NBA. We can
conclude that the job requirements for the boys basketball team and the girls’
basketball team are not completely the same and do not reciprocate to the
overall athletic department in the same way.
Therefore; the job demands are different and the pay is justifiably
different.
The
Real Problem
The real problem is
there is a lack of understanding and written descriptions underlining the
difference in the two jobs. Being that
the job demands are not the same, the jobs are different. As we are in fact comparing apples to apples,
we are more like Granny Smith Apples to Washington Apples which coincidentally
are not the same price in the grocery store.
In 2009, Epiphammy Prince was the first female college athlete to forego
her senior year to turn pro in Europe (Bishop, 2009). This was news in 2009 because the amount of
women who did not stay in college to complete their eligibility is very
few. In fact, the draft rules for the
WNBA are very stringent requiring players to be at least 22 years old, complete
their college eligibility, graduated from a four-year college or to be four
years removed from high school (Bishop, 2009). This compares to the NBA in that
men are eligible after one year of their high school class graduation (Bishop,
20009). With this as the case, it is
noted that players like Brandon Jennings and Jeremy Tyler are guilty of leaving
high school to play professionally in Europe with hopes of making their game
NBA ready. This suggests that the coach
of a boys’ basketball program has to recruit more players over a course of four
years than a females coach. This also
suggests that the male coach has more possible NCAA violations at his
doorstep. The responsibility and the
consequences of violating these NCAA rules are much higher for the boys coach
as any NCAA sanction would cause significant financial lost for the university
as a whole. With the competition for
funds, the boys basketball program must be competitive against other
universities when it comes to recruiting five star high school athletes. The prestige of the program and the coach as
the face of the program is important.
The likelihood that Raveling could be enticed by another program is
higher than the likelihood that Stanley would be drawn away. In fact, after Stanley’s contract expired,
she had no other job offers. Her market
value was not as high as Ravelings because the demand for a female team coach
is less than that of a male team coach.
This suggests that Raveling is responsible for maintain a particular
public image as he is the face of the team.
All of these demands have a reciprocal effect on the athletic program.
Being that these are not equally reciprocated, it is plausible that another
coach with the same type of administrative support would have the same results
as Stanley. These things being considered,
the real problem is that Stanley sees the female coaching job as a comparative
equal to the male coaching job and the differences should be noted.
Alternatives
Determining and evaluating the alternatives can best be
done using the Seven-Stage Process of Ethical Decision Making. This involves 1) recognizing the ethical
dilemma or cause. In this situation, the
ethical dilemma is fairness and equality.
On the face of this dilemma, it appears that there is unfairness in that
both coaches coach basketball at the same university and one was offered a
contract at less pay. 2) Generating
alternatives. Paying both coaches the same amount of money is a possible
alternative. Decreasing the male coach’s
salary due to the fact that his team’s won / loss record is poor in comparison
to the girls’ team seems to be another possible alternative. Then there are the possibilities of hiring
another coach, promoting an assistant who knows the system and who has a report
with the current players, creating a contract for more pay with clear
definitions of responsibilities that equal the stressful demands of the male
team coach.
The third step involves an evaluation of the
alternatives. From a deontological point
of view, there is no law mandating equal pay in this situation and as we
recognize that the demands are different for the male coach, the totality of
equal pay is in serious question. From a
teleological point of view, if equal pay was given, the male coach would more than
likely become insulted and demand more money.
Furthermore, the female assistant coaches would justifiably demand an
increase and the athletic program machine will become ineffective. From an existential point of view, giving
equal pay goes has the potential to limit choices as it sets a precedence that
must be maintained in the conversation of equal pay from other female coaches
i.e, baseball versus softball. 4)
Selection of the ideal solution. In this
situation, the ideal solution is for Stanley to accept the $88,000 and make it
grow to the cap of $100,000 as her coaching vision undoubtedly is to earn high
salaries over helping children grow into successful adults. 5) Intention.
It is difficult to know Stanley’s intention; however we can use her body
of work to make inferences. She is a
competitor and she wants to win at all cost.
As for the administrators, their intent is to follow their mission
statement and their vision while at the same time, support the revenue sports
without damaging their contributions to the university. It appears that the University of Southern
California intends to protect its freedom to offer market value to a coach for
the contributions to the university without setting any precedence that would
lead to future legal issues.
Recommendations
Using stage six and
seven, it is advantageous to recommend that the University stick with its guns
and protect its right to offer market value to the head coach of the girls’
basketball team. This is ethical in that
the two jobs are not completely the same as defined by their demands. These demands come from outside forces as
well as inside forces. The demands may
create higher stress levels for the Raveling than for Stanley. In doing so, USC should offer the position of
head coach to an assistant as such a choice benefits all involved. An assistant coach has report with the
players as well as the athletic program support structures. It is plausible that another coach receiving
identical support from the athletic program baring similarities to the former
coach would be equally successful in won / lose percentages. The coaching job should be well explained in
writing and it should discuss various demands and define terms so that the real
problem would not exist at the end of the new coach’s contract.
Work
Cited
Bennett, D. (April 5, 2011). Business Insider. There Isn’t A Single Women’s College Basketball
Program
That Makes Money.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-05/sports/30039309_1_program-revenue-national-championship-game
Bishop, G. (June
17, 2009). New York Times. Rutgers Basketball Star to Turn Pro In
Europe.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sports/ncaabasketball/17ncaa.html?
_r=1
Malloy,D., Ross, S., Zakus, D. (2003). Sport Ethics.
Thompson Educational Publishing Inc.
p.107 - 112
Vallee, C., Bloom, A. (September, 1, 2005) Journal
of Applied Sports Psychology. Building a
Successful University Sports
Program: key and common elements of expert coaches http://sportpsych.mcgill.ca/pdf/publications/Building_a_Successful_Program_2005.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment