The All-Sports Ministry of PA NJ & DE - Executive Summary Start-Up Budget & Prospectus

The e-Advocate 

Executive Summary, Start-Up Budget 

& Prospectus 

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 

The All-Sports Ministry 

of Pennsylvania, New Jersey 

& Delaware 

Turning the Improbable 

Into the Exceptional 

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities 

Achieve Their Full Potential”

Table of Contents 

Biblical Authority 

Statement of Need ……………………………………………………………………………………… 7 

Juvenile Crime Statistics……………………………………………………………………………… 10 

Truancy in Philadelphia…………………………………………………………............................... 12 

Funding Needed for Our Sports Programs………………………………………………………….. 15 

Short-Term Program Objectives……………………………………………………………………… 15 

Staff and Salaries…………………………………………………………………………………….... 15 

Program Budget………………………………………………………………………………………... 16 

Organization Summary………………………………………………………………………………... 17 

Sports Activities………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 

Strategy and Implementation Summary…………………………………………………………….. 17 

Fundraising Strategy………………………………………………………………………………..... 19 

Fundraising Plan……………………………………………………………….............................. .. 21 

Individual Gift Solicitations…………………………………………………………………………… 23 

Special Fundraising Events………………………………………………………………………….. 27 

Local Government…………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 

Courts, Law Firms, and Local Businesses…………………………………………………………. 31 

Transformative Social Impact ROI………………………………………………………………….. 33 

________ 

Attachments 

A. Parent & Family Guide 

B. Player Conduct Agreement 

C. Sports, Youth and Character: A Critical Survey 

Copyright © 2003-2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 4 of 45

Biblical Authority 

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (NIV) 

The Need for Self-Discipline 

24 

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in 

such a way as to get the prize. 

25 

Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a 

crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 

26 

Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer 

beating the air. 

27 

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to 

others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. 

1 Corinthians 9:24-27(NIV) 

The Need for Self-Discipline 

24 

Do you not know that in a race 

all the runners run, but only one 

gets the prize? Run in such a way 

as to get the prize. 25 Everyone 

who competes in the games goes 

into strict training. They do it to 

get a crown that will not last, but 

we do it to get a crown that will 

last forever. 26 Therefore I do not 

run like someone running 

aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer 

beating the air. 27 No, I strike a 

blow to my body and make it my 

slave so that after I have preached 

to others, I myself will not be 

disqualified for the prize. 



The All-Sports Ministry of Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey & Delaware 

Statement of Need - In The Nation 

According to ESPN Magazine, nationwide, more than 60% of age-eligible kids do not 

get to participate in Youth Sports programming in the new millennium. 1 Inner-city riskfactors, 

we believe, significantly exacerbate these discrepancies. 

Never-the-less, communities across the country continually seek safe, accessible, and 

affordable venues for young people within their communities to exercise and play. 

Public schools have a variety of recreational facilities—gymnasiums, playgrounds, 

fields, courts, and tracks—where people can engage in physical activity. In low-income 

communities, however, these schools are unavailable, even through they often appear 

to be the only place to find safe and inexpensive recreation facilities. 

Unfortunately, these spaces are often locked and inaccessible to the community during 

non-school hours due to concerns about resources, maintenance, security, and liability. 

The good news is that [other community stakeholders are beginning to embrace] 

shared-use as a strategy to create more opportunities for physical activity. 

“Shared-use” – also called “joint-use” or “community-use” – occurs when local entities, 

or sometimes private, nonprofit organizations, agree to open or broaden access to their 

facilities for community use. Shared-use can take place on a formal basis (based on a 

written, legal document) or on an informal basis (based on historical practice). 

Many community and faith-based entities are increasingly recognizing that providing 

access to existing recreational facilities is one of the most promising strategies for 

building more opportunities for physical activity. In an era of budget shortfalls, 

maximizing access to existing facilities – rather than developing new ones – can be an 

efficient and economical use of local resources. 

Advancing Social Equity 

Now when it comes to recreational space, not all neighborhoods are created equal. 

Low-income communities and communities of color consistently have the fewest parks 

and recreational facilities in any given metropolitan venue. In some communities, the 

recreational facilities that do exist may seem unsafe, may be hard to get to by foot, bike, 

or bus, and may be poorly maintained due to insufficient funding. This means that 

residents of these neighborhoods often have very few, or inadequate, opportunities for 

physical activity. This is reflected in disparities in health outcomes. 

1 

http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/9469252/hidden-demographics-youth-sports-espn-magazine 


Shared-use can be an effective strategy for reducing these race- and income-based 

health disparities by increasing opportunities for physical activity. Because it makes use 

of existing facilities, shared-use is a particularly potent tool in under-resourced 

neighborhoods, where a lack of funding, and/or lack of open spaces, prevents the 

development of new recreational venues. 

Although shared-use is most often used as a strategy to increase physical activity, 

opportunities on school grounds, other government agencies, community- and faithbased 

organizations are successfully implementing other types of shared-use 

arrangements. Examples include creating recreational opportunities with non-traditional 

partners such as Churches, Municipalities, School Districts, etc. 

Addressing Liability Concerns 

One of the most common reasons given when schools or community organizations 

don’t move forward with a shared-use relationship is the fear that they will be liable 

(legally responsible) in the event that someone is injured or property is damaged. 

Sometimes this fear of liability is a very real hurdle and complicates potential shareduse 

opportunities. Other times it is merely a perception of fear that can be easily 

overcome with the right tools. Regardless, liability is a complex legal issue and should 

be addressed in any shared-use agreement. 

All 50 states have their own laws governing liability, and all offer some legal protections 

(sometimes called “immunity”) for public entities like schools in the event of an injury or 

property damage that occurs on public property. Some states have strong protections 

for public entities while other states have more limited protections. 

[Moreover], using prudent risk management strategies, such as regularly inspecting and 

maintaining property, carrying the proper insurances, and distributing legal risk through 

shared use agreements, parties can often overcome any liability concerns that 

potentially stand in the way of achieving a successful shared use partnership. 

Our Program 

[A recent] analysis, compiled by the [Philadelphia]'s Sports-based Youth Development 

task force, concluded that youth who participate in sports and physical activity 

have better grades, a better attitude toward school work, better attendance, and are 

more likely to complete school. They are also less likely to take drugs, drink alcohol, 

engage in risky sex, smoke cigarettes, and commit or fall victim to violence. 

"Healthier children are more likely to complete school, which in turn increases opportunities in 

adulthood and positively impacts social mobility," it said. 

The report came after nine months of work by the task force, led by Otis Hackney, the 

city's chief education officer; Michael DiBerardinis, its managing director; and David 

Montgomery, chairman of the Phillies. 


"We need everyone that has had their life changed by a coach, who saw the difference that 

sports made in their child, or who even just cares about the future of this city, to engage in this 

effort," it said. 

In some cities like ours, only an estimated twenty-five percent (25%) of metro youth participate in 

organized sports for reasons other than ability, (rendering them ineligible for participation in 

school programs), whereas the suburban rate of participation is [nearly] 85% to 90%. 

In contrast to the metro area, suburbs generally have a full array of youth sports with 

strong financial support. This disparity robs urban youth of opportunities for physical 

activity, coaching, being part of a team, learning skills, and substantial time away from 

“negative” neighborhood influences (i.e. drugs, violence, or sexual activities). 

Clinical studies also show that sports and recreation programs can help young people 

establish lifelong healthy, physical activity patterns. 2 Regular physical activity can wardoff 

life-threatening diseases, reduce feelings of depression and anxiety, help control 

weight and obesity, and build and maintain healthy bones, muscles, and joints, 

according to the President’s Council on Physical Fitness. 

Perhaps more than anyplace else, the children in the city’s core must have the 

opportunity for a successful start in education and sports, regardless of age, race, 

gender, family composition, income or community. 

In response to this significant disparity, The All-Sports Ministry was established to 

provide the sports programming necessary for our neighborhood children to have equal 

opportunity to participate in organized sports. This project is also intended to “marry” the 

academic excellence created through The Transformative Justice Project of 

Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Delaware by offering each TJP participant the chance to 

participate in a sports activity of their own choosing. 

Our ultimate objective will always be to dramatically reduce the personal, social, and 

economic harm caused by substance abuse, tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, street crime 

and recidivism. We work with local Faith and Community-Based groups, Schools, 

Courts, Police, Universities, and other additional interested Stakeholders in developing 

and sustaining these programs and projects. 

We turn the improbable into the exceptional! 

2 

https://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP44Fullinwider.pdf 


Juvenile Crime Statistics 

Percent of all arrests involving persons under age 18 in Philadelphia County, PA 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Coverage Indicator 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Total Arrests 32.4% 31.5% 26.9% 22.6% 24.0% 24.7% 26.1% 

Violent Crime Index 19.9% 17.9% 18.3% 17.8% 15.5% n/a n/a 

Murder/nonneg. mans. 10.0% 7.7% 8.9% 6.1% 3.5% 2.9% 1.9% 

Rape 17.6% 15.8% 16.0% 13.1% 11.6% n/a n/a 

Robbery 28.9% 26.6% 26.8% 28.2% 23.5% 23.9% 23.7% 

Aggravated assault 14.5% 12.5% 13.1% 11.7% 11.2% 9.7% 7.5% 

Property Crime Index 18.5% 16.2% 16.3% 16.4% 13.6% 12.8% 10.8% 

Burglary 17.1% 14.9% 13.2% 14.4% 12.7% 11.2% 12.4% 

Larceny-theft 17.9% 15.5% 16.7% 16.7% 13.8% 12.6% 10.1% 

Motor vehicle theft 21.2% 19.3% 18.4% 16.8% 12.2% 15.9% 12.3% 

Arson 37.1% 37.5% 21.4% 23.3% 23.9% 19.5% 19.4% 

Nonindex 

Other assaults 24.9% 21.2% 19.6% 16.3% 15.1% 15.9% 14.5% 

Forgery and counterfeiting 0.6% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 

Fraud 4.0% 1.1% 1.3% 1.6% 2.4% 2.7% 0.7% 

Embezzlement 4.2% 2.0% 5.6% 0.6% 1.7% 1.8% 0.0% 

Stolen property 8.3% 4.3% 9.8% 12.6% 10.1% 6.7% 10.5% 

Vandalism 37.1% 31.6% 28.2% 23.3% 13.1% 16.6% 20.7% 

Weapons 28.3% 25.9% 27.4% 26.4% 22.7% 26.7% 21.2% 

Prostitution/ 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

commercialized vice 

Sex offenses (other) 23.2% 24.8% 24.6% 24.2% 21.8% n/a n/a 

Drug abuse violations 9.2% 8.0% 7.1% 6.7% 6.5% 6.3% 5.4% 

Gambling 11.1% 5.5% 3.3% 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 

Offenses against family 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 2.2% 2.3% 

Driving under influence 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 

Liquor laws 27.9% 35.0% 16.4% 17.1% 13.2% 10.7% 15.8% 

Drunkenness 0.8% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.5% 

Disorderly conduct 27.9% 22.0% 19.3% 20.4% 16.3% 19.6% 15.8% 

Vagrancy 7.8% 11.0% 5.5% 3.0% 1.4% 0.9% 3.7% 

All other offenses 5.6% 5.0% 3.9% 4.6% 1.8% 3.0% 9.2% 

Curfew and loitering 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Runaways 0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 100.0% 

Population Ages 10 to 17 152,019 157,635 151,398 148,191 145,988 147,335 147,896 

n/a: Beginning in 2013, the FBI broadened the definition of rape, removing the phrase "forcible" from the 

offense name and description. The new definition of rape is: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the 

vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without 

the consent of the victim. The new definition includes the NIBRS offenses of rape, sodomy, and sexual 

assault with an object. 

Law enforcement agencies may submit data on rape arrests based on either the new or legacy definition 

of rape. Due to differences in agency reporting practices, estimates for the offenses of "rape" and "sex 

offenses" are not available after 2012. Additionally, estimates for the Violent Crime Index (which included 

"forcible rape") are not shown after 2012 as this category is no longer compatible with prior years. 

These statistics are estimates that account for missing data and may differ from other published sources. 

The county-level files which are the source of this information are not official FBI releases and are being 

provided for research purposes. 

The Coverage Indicator refers to the relative size of the sample from which these estimates are based. A 

coverage indicator of 90% means that data covering 10% of the jurisdiction's population are estimated 

and that data from 90% of the jurisdiction's population are based on actual reports. Only jurisdictions with 


a coverage indicator at or above 90% are displayed in this application. Click on the Data Coverage tab to 

find out what years are available for your jurisdiction of interest. 

Suggested Citation: Puzzanchera, C. and Kang, W. (2017). "Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994- 

2014" Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/ 

________ 

Truancy in Philadelphia 

Wait, How Many Public School Students Are Truant? 

The D.A.'s Office and the School District of Philadelphia 

Aren't Playing Well Together. 

by DAVID GAMBACORTA 3/29/2016, 8:13 p.m. 

There was a moment during Monday’s marathon City Council hearing on youth gun 

violence that could have been punctuated with the jarring sound of an old record being 

scratched. 

First Assistant District Attorney George Mosee told City Councilman Kenyatta Johnson 

and other members of Council’s Committee on Public Safety that on any given day, 

almost 50 percent of Philadelphia public school kids aren’t in school. 

The district has roughly 134,000 students. If that number were accurate, the city’s 

truancy problem would be indescribably bad, even by Hunger Games standards. 

Karyn Lynch, Chief Student Support Officer for the School District of Philadelphia, 

testified that Mosee’s estimate was wrong — like, dramatically wrong. The council 

members repeatedly quizzed both Mosee and Lynch about truancy, exposing a 

simmering tension between the School District and the D.A.’s Office over how to drive 

down the number of kids who skip school. 

We tried to sort things out today. 

Let’s start out with that almost 50 percent figure. Lynch told Philadelphia magazine this 

morning that the average daily attendance for the district is actually 91.5 percent. Thus 

far this year, 77 percent of the district’s students have missed five days or fewer, she 

said. 

“The overwhelming majority of our children are attending school on an ongoing basis,” 

she said. 

OK, so Mosee’s math was off. Lynch said he told her he’d just heard that 50 percent 

figure from somewhere else. But in a series of tweets yesterday and during an interview 

Tuesday afternoon, District Attorney Seth Williams said the high school dropout rate is 

actually the figure that’s hovering near 50 percent. (Mosee, he said, might have made a 

misstatement.) 


Williams said former School District Superintendent Arlene Ackerman and former 

deputy superintendent Leroy Nunnery gave him that information firsthand, and also 

discussed with him the district’s truancy woes. 

But School District spokesman Fernando Gallard said the dropout rate for the class of 

2014 was just 26 percent. 

Beyond the numbers, there’s a bigger disagreement here between the two entities. 

Williams wants to partner with the School District on a D.A.’s Office initiative that at least 

54 local charter schools participate in. The district says it’s prohibited by federal law 

from playing along. 

Sounds weird, right? Hang on. 

The initiative works like this: If a student is absent 10 or more times in a marking period, 

their personal information is shared with the D.A.’s Office, which in turn sends a letter to 

the child’s parent. 

Williams said the parent has 14 days to contact the child’s school and hash out the 

problem. If the parent doesn’t respond, the D.A.’s Office sends out another letter, with a 

warning to contact the school within 14 days, or face the possibility of being charged 

with reckless endangerment. 

If the parent still doesn’t respond, a third letter arrives, breaking the news that reckless 

endangerment charges are indeed being filed. 

“It’s the worst case scenario,” Williams said. “But if a parent thumbs their nose three 

times, and the child remains chronically truant, then we’d have them arrested.” 

The goal, he said, isn’t to fill up an entire prison wing with parents of truant students. 

Ideally, the parents would end up in front of a judge in Family Court who could get them 

the help and services they need. If all goes well, the charges are dropped, and the 

parent’s record is wiped clean. 

“People say you catch more bees with honey than vinegar,” Williams said. “But some 

people need the vinegar. We have to say, ‘Look, your kid’s not going to school, we 

might charge you.'” 

But Lynch said the school district can’t participate in the D.A.’s initiative because of the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a federal law that protects student 

education records. 

“FERPA identifies what data can and cannot be shared,” she said. “Basically, we can 

share directory information. We can tell [the D.A.’s Office] a student’s address and 


phone number, but we cannot share student-specific data. We can’t say, ‘John Smith 

has six unexcused absences, and 10 religious absences, and 25 excused absences.'” 

Lynch said the district has turned to the U.S. Department of Education and a Family 

Court judge for permission to give Williams the information he’d need, but were turned 

down both times. 

Williams argued that there’s another option. FERPA, he said, has a provision that allows 

for school districts to share additional student information with a law enforcement 

agency if they obtain a memorandum of understanding. 

Lost in all of the back-and-forth is the fact that the school district already has a similar 

policy in place. Lynch said the district refers chronically truant students and their 

families to the Department of Human Services. 

“I don’t know what people think we do here,” she said. “Attendance is an electronic 

process, especially in our high schools. We’re accurately keeping track of who’s there 

and who’s not there … it’s not something we do haphazardly.” 

Williams said he’s not trying to antagonize the district or Superintendent William Hite. 

There’s a worrisome connection between kids who drop out of school, or don’t bother 

going regularly, and then end up committing a violent crime, or becoming the victim of 

one. 

“I’m just saying, clearly what we’re doing now isn’t enough,” he said. We have a 

dysfunctional system, and I want to be part of the solution.” 

Read more at https://www.phillymag.com/citified/2016/03/29/truant-philadelphia-publicschools/#KzpPUlyMIPEYZY31.99 

________ 

Attendance - Elementary and Secondary Public School 

Attendance Rates (2001-2009) 

Location 

Education 

Data 

Type 

2001 - 

02 

2002 - 

03 

2003 - 

04 

2004 - 

05 

2005 - 

06 

2006 - 

07 

2007 - 

08 

2008 - 

09 

Philadelphia-- 

Philadelphia City 

(Urban) 

Elementary Percent 91.2% 90.8% 91.4% 91.2% 91.3% 91.6% 92.1% 96.7% 

Secondary Percent 83.1% 83.6% 83.4% 83.8% 84.4% 85.7% 85.9% 95.3% 

Kids Count Data Center 


Average Annual Costs 

for Youth Sports Program Participation 

Parents spend an average of $671 per year on youth sports, according to the National 

Council on Youth Sports, and more than 20% of parents spend more than $1,000 or 

more on sports every year — for each child. Parents surveyed ranked football, baseball, 

and hockey as the most expensive youth sports, although basketball, soccer, 

gymnastics, and golf weren’t far behind. 

Kids Play USA Foundation notes that other less popular sports cost exorbitant amounts 

of money as well. For example, they note that ice hockey “can cost as much as $10,000 

per year per child due to equipment, facility costs, enrollment fees, and coaches.” It may 

sound hard to believe, but it’s true. 

Funding Needed for Our Sports Programs 

Formula: 

250 (eligible kids) x $37.92/student/week 

= $9,480 x 48 weeks 

= $455,040.00 3 

Short-Term Program Objectives 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

50% reduction in juvenile arrests for program participants 

Additional 10% reduction in juvenile arrests for program participants 

Additional 10% reduction in juvenile arrests for program participants 

Staff and Salaries 4 

The program will have, but not be limited to, the following positions: 

Athletic Director 

Administrative Assistant 

Volunteer Coordinator 

Fundraising/ Sponsorship Manager 

Facility Coordinator 

Game Officials/Coordinator 

Area Supervisors (3) 

Coaches & Coaching Staff (5) 

3 

Per 250 participants 

4 

Calculated by using a percentage of total program funding. 


Program Budget 

Position 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

Athletic Director $ 9,226.25 $ 9,226.25 $ 9,226.25 

Admin. Assistant $ 7,548.75 $ 7,548.75 $ 7,548.75 

Volunteer Coordinator $ 7,045.50 $19,111.68 $19,111.68 

Fundraiser $ 8,387.50 $ 8,387.50 $ 8,387.50 

Facility Coordinator $ 7,045.50 $ 7,045.50 $ 7,045.50 

Game Officials/Coordinator $18,452.50 $18,452.50 $18,452.50 

Area Supervisors $ 6,542.25 $ 6,542.25 $ 6,542.25 

Coaches/Staff $16,607.25 $16,607.25 $16,607.25 

Facilities $ 6,542.25 $ 6,542.25 $ 6,542.25 

Food 6 $55,189.75 $55,189.75 $55,189.75 

Transportation/ Driver(s) 7 $10,065.00 $ 1,006.50 $ 1,006.50 

Uniforms 8 $ 8,387.50 $ 838.75 $ 838.75 

Discretionary $ 6,710.00 $ 6,710.00 $ 6,710.00 

Totals $167,750.00 $167,750.00 $167,750.00 

Objectives 

To increase participation in Youth Sports and Recreation in the Nicetown/Tioga region 

of North Philadelphia; 

To increase Youth access to Alternatives to negative recreation (i.e. drugs, gang 

activity, violence, etc.); 

To create a Youth Sports Program that will dramatically increase both Sports 

participation rates and healthy development of the area’s young people. 

Mission 

To offer Alternative Youth Sports programming for those who are ineligible to participate 

in their home school sports programs for academic and/or other eligibility issues. 

Keys to Success 

Stakeholder and Community education and partnerships; 

Juvenile Court partnership 

Police and Local Business partnerships 

Family education, support and partnerships 

5 

Year 1 48.2% of $167,750 = $80,855.50 

6 

Food: $2.50/ student/ day x 250 students x 48 weeks 

7 

$125/trip x 2 trips/mo. X 12 mos. 

8 

$33.55/student x 250 students 


Organization Summary 

The All-Sports Ministry will be an evidence-based program initially designed and 

implemented by The Advocacy Foundation, but subsequently owned in partnership with 

local communities. Moreover, the Ministry will serve as a Catalyst initiative with the 

overarching objective of reinforcing and augmenting pre-existing and newly developed 

& incubated Community-Based neighborhood Youth programs, state and local JDAI 

initiatives, Faith-Based initiatives, and Restorative & Transformative Justice initiatives 

from all sources. (did I miss anything or anyone in the Support structure?) 

Sports Activities 

The All-Sports Ministry will offer, but by no means be limited to, the following Sports 

throughout the year: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aerobics and Physical Conditioning 

Basketball 

Volleyball 

Golf 

Boxing 

Nutrition Counseling 

Other activities per periodic Needs and Community Developmental Assessments 

Strategy and Implementation Summary 9 

It is critical that The All-Sports Ministry takes a proactive role in promoting the Sports 

programming in the community as well as creating a strong fundraising program. To 

accomplish its goals, The All-Sports Ministry will have two groups overseeing to 

program’s growth and development. The first will be a 12-member Program Services 

Group, consisting of community members. (I forget the name Acelero assigns to this 

group) This group will provide oversight of the program’s service delivery to the 

community and will also be responsible for building community support. The second 

group will be a ten (10) Member Finance Group that will have significant ties to the local 

Business community. The Finance Group will have oversight over the program’s fiscal 

operations and Fundraising activities. 

The next step will be to recruit the coaching staff and Facility Supervisors for each 

season and use this group to promote the program at local schools, churches, etc. 

9 

Our strategy is grounded in the following in-kind contributions from our Public/Private partnerships, as well as 

cash donation solicitations set forth on the pages that follow: 

1. Equipment: Faith-Based organizations (Churches); 

2. Facilities: City & County School Districts, Recreation Facilities, etc. 

3. Personnel: Police, Fire, Teachers, Community Leaders, etc. 


Coaches and Facility Supervisors will be recruited by using the community Churches 

and Civic organizations. 

In addition, the local Police Department will be asked to recruit volunteer Youth 

Coaches from their own ranks. The All-Sports Ministry will also work with local University 

Community Service programs to recruit college students as coaches and mentors. 

Upon approval, they will receive university credit hours for their participation with The All- 

Sports Ministry program. 

Mobilizing a coaching/supervision base will provide The All-Sports Ministry with the 

people necessary to disseminate its message out to the entire community. 

Sign-up for the program will be simplified by providing participation forms throughout 

community schools, churches, supermarkets, etc. at each location there will be a 

collection kiosk where the forms can be filled-out and submitted. 

Competitive Edge 

The All-Sports Ministry’s competitive edge is twofold: First is the support of the 

community’s public resources to build a successful Sports program that will have a 

positive impact on the attitude and health of the area’s youth. In addition, the School 

District will be asked to strongly endorse the Sports program. 

Each of the area’s Elementary, Middle, and High Schools will choose a school team 

name. the name will then be used by the school teams. Sports participation will be 

promoted in the classrooms and volunteer coaches will be asked to visit classrooms 

and speak to the children. 

The city and county Recreation departments will also play a pivotal role in obtaining 

Sports equipment for the program at discounted rates, saving the program great 

expense. 

The program’s second advantage is the support of local businesses to have a real 

impact on the youth. The revitalization of the city’s northern urban renaissance can only 

be built upon the improved quality of life of its residents. 

The current demographics, with the majority of metro children under the age of six (6), 

provides a unique opportunity to have a dynamic impact on the area’s youth. 

Philadelphia businesses are expected to line-up to become Sport sponsors and school 

team sponsors. 


Locations of Child-Related and Social Welfare Organizations by Percentage 

Living in Poverty in Philadelphia 

Upper North Philadelphia 

Lower North Philadelphia 

Type of Organization 

Center City 

Children and Social Welfare 

Percent Below Poverty 

in census tracts in 1990 

More than 30 

10 to 30 

Less than 10 

Waterways 

Parks 

Naval Base 

Major Roads 

Select Downtown 

Neighborhoods 



Fundraising Strategy 

The All-Sports Ministry will be directing its fundraising efforts at two groups: One will be 

the area parents, and the other will be the business community. Being successful with 

both groups is key to the program’s sustainability. 

Formula: 

250 (eligible kids) x $37.92/student/week 

= $9,480 x 48 weeks 

= $455,040.00 10 

Area Parents: The program’s expectation is that sign-up fees will pay for only around 

5% of operating costs, but the fee is crucial for several reasons: First, without a sense 

of ownership in the program, the community will not support it over time. Second, a 

monetary commitment to the program creates an expectation of services that will push 

the program to become more responsive to the community needs. Third, and perhaps 

most important, is that the fee is an organizing tool to recruit volunteers who will commit 

to work a number of hours for the program as part of a child-scholarship agreement. 

Area Businesses: Local businesses can become sponsors of The All-Sports Ministry 

(i.e. Fresh Grocer can sponsor a Flag Football season), school teams, or Sports 

Tournaments. With the sponsorship will come the opportunity to have the company 

name on banners, uniforms, and The All-Sports Ministry mailings, website, flyers, etc. The 

All-Sports Ministry will also host four (4) high-profile fundraising events each year.… 

10 

Per 250 participants per jurisdiction. 



Fundraising Plan 11 

Stakeholder Solicitation 

Goal: To increase contributions by fifty-percent (50%) in each of the first three (3) 

years. 

Plan & Rationale: Our Advisory Board will be pushing hard to support the plan over 

the next five (5) years. In addition, each Stakeholder will be asked to contribute. 

Strategy: (1) Interest Assessment; (2) Script Development; (3) “Ask” Cultivation 

Staff Time: Athletic Director 

Admin Assistant 

Prospect Research 

Prospect Research 

Advisory Board Chair Stakeholder Prospects 

Advisory Board Members Stakeholder Prospects 

Direct Costs: Minimal 

Timetable: 30 – 60 days 

Revenue Targets: Year 1: $35,000 Year 2: $50,000 Year 3: $75,000 

11 

Advisory Board 10% 

Individual Donations 10% 

Special Events 20% 

Local Government 10% 

Courts/Firms/Businesses 20% 

Grants & Foundations 30% 



Individual Gift Solicitations 

Plan and Rationale: Our board and staff do not have a lot of experience raising 

money from individuals. The plan is to start small and build on 

a strong base. 

Strategy: 

Develop a membership program where individual donors 

receive special privileges or benefits at different levels of 

giving. Memberships will range from $35 to 2,500 annually. 

Patron Fundraising: Start personal solicitation of gifts from individuals. Establish a 

7-8 member Individual Gifts Committee. The committee 

chair calls each board member and receives 15 names of 

individuals whom the board members feel are capable of gifts 

of $100 a year or more. Staff compiles the 270 names in an 

alphabetical list and eliminates duplicates. The committee 

rates and screens the list to focus on the 80 most-likely 

prospects (the others are put on the mailing list). The 

committee determines who is best to cultivate and then to 

solicit these prospects. Utilize board members as much as 

possible. The prospects are personally invited by the "best" 

person to attend a performance and private reception 

afterwards. The following week, prospects are solicited (gift 

range of $100 - $1,000) to become high level members. 

Each year, personally solicit 80-100 new prospects to be 

high level members. 

e-Mail Campaign: All potential donors who are not part of the Patronage effort will 

be solicited by e-mail to become members. The Individual Gifts 

Committee arranges for Patrons not personally solicited to 

receive letters with hand-written notes from people they know 

asking them for a high- level gift ("Please join me as a Patronlevel 

member ..."). The committee identifies an additional 90-100 

prospects to receive personal notes. 

Solicit all mailing list prospects for membership in the spring. 

Solicit them again in the fall if they have not signed up. Ask 

everyone to give a Christmas gift to the organization in 

December, and ask everyone to help sponsor a child in 

March. That way, each prospective donor will receive at last 

3 direct solicitations a year. (This does not include special event 

solicitations.) 


prospects. 

Each year, send personal notes to additional 125-150 new 

Phone Follow Up: The committee will organize telephone follow up for all 

prospects who received personal notes but who did not 

respond. Timing will be the first week of the month 

following the month of the mailing. 

Note: to encourage a better response, ask the volunteer 

callers to start calls with a "thank you" for past support 

and/or participation, if applicable. 

Staff Time: 

Board Time: 

Executive Director 

Development Associate 

Secretary 

Individual Gifts Committee 

Members (each) 

10 Days to work with 

volunteers. 

60 Days of coordinating, 

motivating, following 

up, & record keeping. 

15 Days of list & letter 

preparation. 

Attend 5 Sports events with 

guests. 

4 Hours for personal 

solicitations. 2 Evenings 

for telephoning. 

Chair (in addition to above) 10 Hours for calls to board 

members to create 

Patronage fundraising 

list. 

Other Board Members (each) Attend 2 sporting events with 

guests. 2 Evenings for 

telephoning. Solicitation calls as 

appropriate. 

Direct Costs: 

Office Supplies & Mailings $3,800 

Receptions $1,850 

160 Complimentary Tickets 


2016/19 2017/20 2018/21 

Patronage $37,700 $56,550 $72,000 

Mail & Phone $75,400 $113,100 $144,000 

(The goal is to have nearly 400 high-level donors by 2019-2020, assuming we keep 

cultivating current donors as we add more.) 



Special Fundraising Events 

Plan: 

Strategy: 

Establish a Gala performance and dinner as the Signature annual 

Social Event. 

We will recruit to the board specifically to establish this event as an 

important community affair. S/he will set up a Committee 

recruited from interested persons on the subscription list. 

Staff Time: 

Volunteer Time: 



Secretary 

Part-time Help 

Chair 

2 Weeks - first year 

1 Week each year 

thereafter 

2 Months 

3 Weeks 

3 Months 

1 Day a week - 1st year 

5 Hours a week 

thereafter 

Committee Members 

4 Hours a week each (9 couples) 

Direct Cost: 

Timetable: 

Includes fees, food, office supplies, publicist, 

decorations, part-time help, printing, etc. 

Establish Committee in twelve (12) months ahead of the Annual 

event, so each new Committee can analyze the event prior to the 

one for which they are responsible. 

Revenue Targets 

2016/19 2017/20 2018/21 

$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 



Local Government 

Plan and Rationale: Our ever-increasing programming of local groups will 

strengthen our image with local politicians. We will recruit a new 

board member who was formerly a popular County 

Commissioner to lead a lobbying effort to solicit the County 

Commissioners and City Government for County funding. 

Strategy: Ask County to match City support. Form ad-hoc board committee of 6 

members to lead effort to solicit County Commissioners and City 

Council. Screen subscribers to see if any political types endorse our 

programs - involve them in the lobbying effort. 

Staff Time: 



7 Days 

10 Days 

Board Time: 

6 Board members 12 Hours each for meetings, 

reception, phone calls, 

visits. 

Committee Chair 1 Day a week (6 weeks) + 12 

Hours. 

Volunteer Time: 15 Volunteers to coordinate letter-writing campaigns. 


2016/19 2017/20 2018/21 

$37,700 $56,550 $72,000 



Courts, Law Firms, and Local Businesses 

Plan and Rationale: Our programs will provide to be quality presentations, and the 

comments of Council staff are expected to change in tone from 

skeptical to enthusiastic. However, because decreased funding 

is making less money available for grants, we project 

anincrease in support from the Courts, Law Firms, and local 

Businesses. 

Strategy: 

invitations 

Continue to invite staff to sporting events with personal 

followed up by phone calls. Continue to offer complimentary 

tickets to judges, lawyers and local business owners. Inviting all 

stakeholders and board to special cultivation events. Submit 

grant requests to stakeholders on a timely basis. 

Staff Time: 


Development Associate 

3 Days 

8 Days 

Volunteer Time: Board Chair 6 Hours 

Direct Costs: 

Minimal - complimentary tickets 


2016/19 2017/20 2018/21 

$75,400 $113,100 $144,000 

… 



Transformative Social Impact ROI 

Short-Term Impact Analysis 

TJP Program Cost 12 

$328,769.85 ÷ 600 kids = $547.95/ youth 

÷ 12 mos. = $45.65./mo./youth 

Family Spending per Youth $4,931,547.75 ÷ 8,219.25/kid1 ÷ 600 kids = 

not incarcerated (ROI) 13 

÷ 12 mos. = $137./mo./youth 

Spending per youth not incarcerated = $ 137./month/youth 

Cost of Program(s) per youth not incarcerated = - $ 46./month/youth 

$ 91./month/youth 

Short-Term ROI 14 = $ 91. in family spending/month/youth x 600 kids x 60 months = $3,276,000.00 11 

________ 

Annual Confinement Costs Would Have Been: 

Pennsylvania 

Not Reported 

New Jersey $196,133.00 per youth (x 600 youth = $117,679,800) 

Georgia $91,126.00 per youth (x 600 youth = $54,675,600) 

Delaware 

Not Reported 

Washington DC $277,765.00 per youth (x 600 youth = $166,659,000) 

________ 

5-Year Social Impact of Each Program 15 

New Jersey $117,679,800/year x 5 years = $588,399,000 + $3,276,000 = $591,675,000 

Georgia $54,675,600/year x 5 years = $273,378,000 + $3,276,000 = $276,654,000 

Wash DC $166,659,000/year x 5 years = $833,295,000 + $3,276,000 = $836,571,000 

________ 

Note: These figures do not account for the long-term Social benefits 

arising out of college, military service, and/or workforce development. 

Advocacy Foundation Impact-Driven Logic Model 

12 

5-Year Analysis (2007 - 2011) 

13 

$15/$1 ROI Multiplier 

14 

= Slightly under a 10/1 ROI (Benefit to Society, local business spending, social event spending, etc.) 

15 

Calculated for an est. 600 youth served btw 2007 - 2011 



References 

1. http://changelabsolutions.org/unlocking-possibilities 

2. http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/philadelphia-youth-sports-campaigngameonphilly-task-force-report-20180627.html 

3. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/asp/ucr_display.asp 

4. https://www.phillymag.com/citified/2016/03/29/truant-philadelphia-public-schools/ 

5. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/2677-attendance--elementary-and- 

secondary-public-school-attendance-rates-2001- 

2009?loc=40&loct=10#detailed/10/5813/false/712,517,516,515,514,513,512,511/ 

1150,1151/10218 

6. https://www.thesimpledollar.com/how-to-deal-with-the-high-cost-of-childrenssports/ 

7. https://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP44Fullinwider.pdf 

8. https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/55955/PDF/1/play/ 



Attachment A 

Parent & Family Guide 


ZION BAPTIST CHURCH 

YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE 

† 

Rules & Regulations 

3600 North Broad Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140 

(215) 223-5460 | (215) 223-7833 (fax) 

www.ZionBaptPhilly.org 


OBJECTIVE 

Zion Baptist Youth Basketball Rules 

Number of Games: 8 to 10 games per season 

Tournament Games League Contact: Terrence Fleming 

Head Coach 

sports@zionbaptphilly.org 

To provide the youth of Zion Baptist Church with opportunities to play 

organized recreational basketball in an environment conducive to learning 

the fundamentals of the game of basketball while enjoying the fellowship of 

young people of similar age and gender. 

General Rules and Regulations (All Leagues) will follow the local State 

High School Associations Basketball Rules, except when as amended 

herein. 

Games: 

- Games shall consist of four (4) quarters, Seven (7) minutes in length, 

with one (1) minute between quarters and five (5) minutes between 

halves. 

o The running clock will only stop for time outs and injuries. 

- Home team will sit to the left of the scorer’s table. 

o The Home Team shall warm up in the opposite court of their 

bench in pre-game warm-up and in front of their bench during 

half time warm-ups. 

o Time allowed between games is five (5) minutes. 

- Only one designated coach is allowed to stand and direct players during 

a game. 

o All players and other bench personnel must remain seated. 


o A coach can receive a direct technical because of his/her 

attitude, language, behavior, and/or team spectator’s behavior. 

- The coach or a team representative is to provide the scorekeeper with 

the first and last name and the number of each team member who may 

participate and designate the five (5) starting players at least five (5) 

minutes before the scheduled starting time of the game. 

- No player, parent or spectator is allowed, at any time, to converse (no 

matter what manner) with any game official or staff member. Any 

parent or spectator may request a meeting with the ZBC Athletic 

Director to discuss matter. 

- Coaches may request to converse with the officials during a timeout or 

dead ball only. If a team is out of timeouts, the coach must wait until a 

dead ball to request permission. 

Practice: 

- We encourage all parents to accompany players to practice. Practice 

is where your child will learn the basic fundamentals of the game. 

- Practice nights are only for individual(s) who have practice on their 

assigned night, during this time the gym is CLOSED. Any child that 

is not scheduled to practice will not be allowed in the gym without 

parental supervision; furthermore other areas of the Family Enrichment 

center and the parking lot are off limits unless accompanied by a parent. 

This is for the safety of your youth. Practice times are for coaches to 

devote all their attention to their teams and not to supervise 

unattended or misbehaving children. 

Free Throws: 

- There will be double bonus. If there are more than 7 personal fouls, we 

will shoot 1 and 1 after 10 personal fouls we will shoot two (2) shots. 

The 8 and under age groups will shoot from 12’ line, all others will shoot 

from the 15’ line. 


Press Rule: 

- Once the ball crosses the middle line, the defense may approach and 

guard the ball and other offensive players. Only the ball has to cross 

half court; not ball and player. This eliminates any confusion with 

passing the ball over the half court line. 

- Situations when PRESS RULE is used include: 

a. Ages 11 and under must use the 12-point differential rule. When 

Team A has a twelve-point or more lead on Team B, Team A 

must abide by the PRESS RULE. The referee must inform the 

coach and the players of Team A that press rule is in effect. 

COACHES MUST ABIDE BY THE 12-POINT 

DIFFERENTIAL RULE. NO OFFENSIVE PLAYER MAY 

BE GUARDED IN THE BACK COURT EVEN ON FAST 

BREAK ATTEMPTS. First offense - warning, Second offense – 

technical foul. 

b. Ages 12-18: may press the entire game. 

Timeouts: 

- 4 one (1) minute timeouts will be awarded for the game; Coaches have 

two timeouts per half. A one (1) minute timeouts will be allowed for 

overtime. (No carry over time outs) 

Overtime: 

- A three (3) minute over time will be played in each division. 

o If no winner after the Second overtime game, then game results in 

a tie. 

Teams/Players: 

- All those on High School and Junior Varsity teams in their respective 

states are prohibited from participation in the league. That includes 

any player while trying out for a team. If a player quits their High 


School or Junior varsity team they can participate in the ZBC Youth 

league providing a written statement from the school. 

- Team rosters must be turned in before the beginning of the Second 

game. 

- A player must play in at least 3 regular season games to be eligible for the 

playoffs. 

- A player waiting list is available for teams who drop below the seven 

(7) person roster limits. Then and only then may a coach request to 

add an additional player to his roster from this waiting list. No coach 

will be allowed to recruit and add any particular player unless deemed 

appropriate and necessary by the Zion Baptist Sports Ministry. 

Game Conduct (Technical Fouls): 

- The Zion Baptist Sports Ministry will not tolerate any outburst (verbal or 

physical) from any coach, player or spectator at any time during the 

game. 

o Any physical or verbal abuse by a coach, player or fan will call for 

a Direct Technical Foul and possible ejection from the game 

and dismissal from the facility before play can begin. IF 

DISMISSAL OF COACH, PLAYER OR FAN CLOCK WILL 

CONTINUE TO RUN UNTIL REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUAL 

FROM THE FACILITY. 

o Zion Sports Ministry reserves the right to not allow a person to 

coach in this program for any reason which would be detrimental 

to the program. 

o Any coach, fan or player faces further suspension from any event 

sponsored by Brown Baptist Sports Ministry and its facilities as 

deemed worthy by the Sports Division. 

- Fighting, profanity, arguing/abusive language towards players, coaches, 

officials or staff, and refusal to obey or cooperate with coaches, the 

officials or a staff member are strictly prohibited. 


- Any coach/player who receives two (2) technical fouls in one game will 

result in eject from game and automatic one game suspension. 

- Any person ejected from a game for fighting will serve an automatic 

three (3) game suspension and must meet with the Sports 

Coordinators, Facility Manager and Pastor before being reinstated. 

- Dunking is allowed; but hanging on the rim will result in a Technical 

Foul. 

- A written Technical Foul Report will be completed for all Technical 

Fouls. 

- Any Unsportsmanlike Conduct Technical Foul will require 

investigation by the ZBC Sports Ministry Coordinators, Facility 

Manager and Pastor and could result in additional suspension. 

- Coaches are responsible for spectators, parents and players. 

o Any coach that is warned about verbal or physical abuse from 

spectators, parents and players towards anyone has the 

opportunity to restore order. If the coach is unable to control a 

situation, a technical foul will be given to its team. If the situation 

continues, a second technical will occur and the Head Coach is 

ejected from the game. However, the Head Coach may be given 

the opportunity to request that one of the Sports Coordinators 

assist in controlling the situation. Any further matters will be 

handled between the spectator, parent or player and the Zion 

Sports Ministry. 

Ages 8 and Under 

SPECIAL GAME RULES BY AGE 

 

The defense must remain behind the three pt. line until the ball crosses 

half court. Once ball crosses half court, the defense may approach the 

ball. 


Coin toss to start the game. Possession arrow will take over for all jump 

balls and ball possession. 

Running clock. Four – seven (7) minute quarters will be played. 

Ages 9 - 11 

 

 

 

 

 

The defense must remain behind the half-court line until the ball 

crosses half court. Once ball crosses half court, the defense may 

approach the ball. 

There will be a five (5) second violation in the lane. 

Jump balls will start the game. Possession arrow will take over 

afterward for all jump balls and ball possession. 

The twelve (12) point differential rule remains is in effect. 

Running clock. Four (4) quarters, Seven (7) minutes in length, with one 

(1) minute between quarters and five (5) minutes between halves. 

Ages 12 - 14 

 

 

Full Court Press Second half only. 

Running clock will be used. Four (4) quarters, Seven (7) minutes 

in length, with one (1) minute between quarters and five (5) 

minutes between halves. 

Ages 15 and 18 

 

 

No Special rules 

Running clock will be used. Four (4) quarters, Seven (7) minutes in 

length, with one (1) minute between quarters and five (5) minutes 

between halves. 


Age Group Time 

(Quarter 

*8 and 7 min. s) 

under running. 

9-11 7 min. 

running. 

12 - 14 7 min. 

running. 

15 and Up 7 min. 

running. 

*START SMART 

SPECIAL GAME RULES BY AGE 

BBC YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE 

Jump Goal 

Ball Height Ball Size Three Three Free 

Press 

Seconds Pointers Throws 

Coin 8.5' 28.5 N/A No 12' No Press 

Toss 

5 

Yes 10’ 28.5 

Yes 15' No Press 

Seconds 

Yes 10' 

Regulati 

on 

Yes 10' Regulati 

on 

Yes Yes 15' 

2nd Half 

Only 

Yes Yes 15' Entire 

Game 

8 and Under Division will participate in a new program, 

“FUNDAMENTALS”. The program was created by Zion for youth 

sports, it was created to help kids get ready for sports and succeed in life. 

It is an innovative step-by-step approach that builds confidence and selfesteem 

in a fun and safe sports environment. Its a general skill 

development program that teaches children the basic motor skills 

necessary to play organized basketball, the program focuses skills in 

dribbling/ball handling, passing/catching, shooting and running/agility 

without the threat of competition or the fear of getting hurt. This 

program will be done in the first half of the season. The second half of the 

season, children will be divide into teams. 

**DEVOTION 

Each youth (ages 5 – 18) is responsible for memorizing the week’s scripture 

assignment given by our Sunday School department. This will be given out 

at practice each week. Youth should go home and memorize scripture and 

on Saturday will be asked to recite the scripture. The goal is for each 

youth to learn and apply this to their everyday life. 


Acknowledgement Form 

I acknowledge that I have read and understand the Zion Youth 

Basket League rules and regulations. I pledge to comply with all 

the by-laws, guidelines, rules and regulations. I acknowledge that I 

am not a member of any High School or Middle School varsity or 

junior varsity basketball team. I understand that the purpose of the 

program is to provide the youth of Zion Baptist Church with an 

opportunity to play organized recreational basketball in a Christian 

environment. I will behave in a Christian manner, maintain selfcontrol 

and refrain from using profanity or profane gestures. I will 

show respect in defeat and modesty in victory. I will also show 

courtesy to all sports officials, authorities and teammates. 

Signature of Participant 

Date 

Print Name 

Signature of Parent 

Date 

Print Name 





Attachment B 

Player Conduct Agreement 


Hoops For Youth Player Conduct Agreement 

Player’s Name: ____________________ Date: ____________ 

I hereby pledge to be positive about my Hoops For Youth experience and accept responsibility 

for my participation by following this Players' Code of Conduct: 

I will participate in Hoops For Youth because I want to, not because others want me to. 

I will remember that basketball is an opportunity to learn and have fun. 

I will encourage good sportsmanship from fellow players, coaches, officials and parents at all 

times. If I have a problem with something, I will discuss it with my coach at the earliest 

opportunity, rather than let it grow into a bigger problem later on. 

I will remember that winning isn’t everything that having fun, playing fair, improving my skills, 

making friends, and giving my best efforts are the most important aspects of youth basketball. 

I will conduct myself with honor and dignity. I will treat every coach, referee, player, and 

spectator with respect at all times; regardless of race, sex, creed, or abilities, and I will expect to 

be treated accordingly. I know that at all times, I represent Hoops For Youth, my team and my 

town. 

I deserve to play in an environment that is free of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol; and expect 

everyone to refrain from the use of these substances at all games. 

Player Signature _________________________

Hoops For Parent/Guardian Conduct Agreement 

Date: ____________ 

I hereby pledge to provide positive support, care, and encouragement for my child participating 

in Hoops For Youth by following this Parents’ Code of Conduct: 

I will encourage good sportsmanship by demonstrating positive support for all players, coaches, 

and officials at every game, practice or other youth sports event. 

I will support coaches and officials working with my child, in order to encourage a positive and 

enjoyable experience for all. 

I will ask my child to treat other players, coaches, fans and officials with respect regardless of 

race, sex, creed or ability. 

I will place the emotional and physical well being of my child ahead of my personal desire to 

win. I will remember that the game is for youth not adults. I will do my very best to make youth 

sports fun for my child. 

I will insist that my child play in a safe and healthy environment that is free from drugs, tobacco 

and alcohol and will refrain from the use of these substances at all HFY events. 

Parent/Guardian Signature _________________________ 

Parent/Guardian Signature:_________________________


Attachment C 

Sports, Youth and Character: 

A Critical Survey 


Sports, Youth and Character: 

A Critical Survey 

Robert K. Fullinwider* 

Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy 

University of Maryland 

* rkf@umd.edu 

CIRCLE WORKING PAPER 44 

FEBRUARY 2006

CIRCLE Working Paper 44: February 2006 

Sports, Youth and Character: A Critical Survey 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION....................................... 3 

a. methodological limitations..................... 4 

b. conceptual and theoretical infelicities...... 5 

II. THE LESSONS OF SPORT......................... 5 

III. BASICS................................................ 6 

a. too much too early?.............................. 8 

b. competition’s role understood ............... 11 

c. competition, participation, and fun......... 12 

d. not enough?........................................ 14 

IV. WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE?.................... 15 

V. THE MICROWORLD OF PARTICIPATION...... 17 

VI. APPENDIX A......................................... 19 

a. Shields and Bredemeier...................... 19 

a.1. moral maturity: what are 

psychologists looking for?............ 22 

a.2. game thinking............................. 24 

a.3. moral confusion........................... 25 

b. Stoll, Lumpkin, Beller, and Hahm.............. 27 

It has been recognized for centuries that sport 

can contribute to education values that make for 

the development of character and right social 

relations . . . . [Within this contribution] there 

are many intertwined and interwoven threads 

of influences, subtle and not always easy to 

analyze. But sportsmen who year by year have 

contact with the playing of amateur games do 

not need to be convinced by argument of the 

validity of . . . [sport’s contribution]. 

Kennedy, 1931 1 

Sport studies scholars . . . [present sports as 

a] major source of . . . [social] problems . . . . 

[But most] athletes, coaches, parents, youth 

sports organizers, and spectators know from 

experience that sports participation has offered 

them numerous moments of pleasure, healthy 

exercise, friendships . . . and lessons about 

achievement, cooperation and competition 

that spill over into nonsport contexts. The 

critical sports studies perspective rarely rings 

‘true’ as a complete story in the case of sports 

participants. 

Gatz, Messner, and 

Ball-Rokeach, 2000 2 

VI. APPENDIX B......................................... 27 

a. Kohlberg............................................. 27 

b. Neo-Kohlbergianism............................. 30 

NOTES...................................................... 31 

www.civicyouth.org 2



I. INTRODUCTION 

Sport builds character. Mens sana in corpore sano. 

Physical, mental, and moral health go together. 

These are foundational beliefs in modern society. 

For example, they undergird the European Union’s 

nomination of 2004 as the “Year of Education 

through Sport,” an intensification of the Union’s 

decades-long “sports for all” policy. 3 Vivian Reding, 

European Commissioner for Education and Culture, 

observes: 

One in every three Europeans regularly 

practices a sport. Yet more needs to be 

done to make sports an integral part of 

people’s education and life. . . . Next to 

the active support of appropriate projects, 

and school sport in particular, we intend 

[in 2004] to sensitize the awareness of 

European citizens for the values which 

sport effortlessly and naturally conveys 

and that are indispensable for a happy 

and fulfilling life in our community. 4 

Likewise, here in the United States these 

foundational beliefs are officially endorsed by the 

President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 

which views itself as a “catalyst to promote, 

encourage and motivate Americans of all ages to 

become physically active and participate in sports.” 

The Council declares: 

We place a special emphasis on programs 

to help our nation’s youth lay the 

foundation for active and fit lives. The 

. . . [Council] believes that physical 

activity and fitness offer important 

health benefits. And, just as important, 

we recognize the fact that sports and 

participating in sport activities help 

individuals develop character, discipline, 

confidence, self-esteem, and a sense of 

well-being. 5 

While these foundational propositions seem 

transparent to the “sports participant” and to all 

“sportsmen who year by year have contact with 

the playing of amateur sports,” the operation of 

the “intertwined” and “subtle” influences that make 

these propositions true is another matter. That 

the influences are not “easy to analyze” points to a 

need for the tools of the social scientist. What does 

the use of these tools reveal about the mechanisms 

that make sports participation a valuable adjunct 

to character development? Indeed, what does the 

use of these tools prompt social scientists to say 

about the foundational propositions themselves? 

In an extensive survey in 1975 of previous 

research, Christopher L. Stevenson concluded that 

“there is no valid evidence that participation in 

sport causes any verifiable socialization effects.” 6 

Even earlier, two researchers, Bruce Ogilvie and 

Thomas Tutko, had announced in the popular 

forum, Psychology Today, that they “found no 

empirical support for the tradition that sport builds 

character.” 7 Contemporary scholars echo these 

contentions. Andrew Miracle and Roger Rees in 

their recent study of high school sports conclude 

that “there is no evidence to support the claim that 

sport builds character in high school or anywhere 

else.” If anything, sports participation among 

younger kids, they suggest, may yield negative 

effects – making the participants more rather than 

less prone to unsportsmanlike conduct. 8 When two 

leading contemporary scholars, David Shields and 

Brenda Bredemeier, note that sport’s characterbuilding 

propensity is “no longer so widely shared” 

as an article of faith, they understate the broad 

skepticism among researchers. 9 

Not only does social science scholarship fail 

to present a unified picture of the subtle and 

intertwined influences that promote character 

development through sport, much of it appears 

actually to undermine the foundational beliefs all 

“sportsmen” know without need of argument. Why 

is social science scholarship so at odds with what 

seemingly needs no proof? 

There are two reasons. First, studies of sport 

and character seldom overcome a threshold 

requirement of scientific methodology itself. 

Second, many investigators labor under several 




self-inflicted wounds, conceptual and theoretical. I 

say a brief word about each. 

A. METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS 

In his 1975 survey, Christopher Stevenson did 

not fail to find studies that established positive 

correlations between sports participation and 

valued outcomes. To take two examples, many 

studies he examined showed participants to 

be more self-disciplined, self-confident, and 

emotionally stable than non-participants, while 

other studies showed participation to be associated 

with better academic performance. 10 Since 1975, 

studies have continued to demonstrate positive 

correlations between students’ activity in sports 

or physical education and their less delinquent 

behavior, higher educational aspirations, and better 

grades. 11 These findings, however, do not support 

conclusions about causation. This is because 

these studies are not able to factor out “selection” 

effects. 

The “selection” problem is described by Stevenson 

with respect to studies that imply athletes are less 

likely to be delinquents. “It could be the case,” he 

observes, “that athletics simply do not attract boys 

who have been or are likely to become delinquent.” 

Thus, the correlation between sports participation 

and lack of delinquency may point not to the 

salubrious effect of athletics but to a prior character 

or personality trait in delinquency-prone youth 

– say, a dislike for conformity – that inclines them 

both to avoid organized sports and to run afoul 

of laws and rules. 12 If this aversive self-selection 

actually operates in sports participation, then we 

could not safely conclude from a simple inverse 

correlation between sports play and law-breaking 

that more sports is an antidote to delinquency. 

Many scholars since Stevenson have emphasized 

the “selection” problem as a reason to be skeptical 

about claims connecting sports to positive effects 

on character. 13 Indeed, one well-known student 

of sports attributes all the alleged influences of 

participation to the self-selection phenomenon: 

[S]ports participation does not build 

character, discipline, self-esteem, and 

other achievement-related qualities 

in young men and women. Rather, it 

provides an outlet for those already 

imbued with these positive traits. 14 

This confident assertion seems as unwarranted 

as its opposite counterparts. If most studies are 

unable successfully to disentangle selection and 

causation, then there is as little basis for denying 

the positive contribution of sports participation as 

there is for affirming it. This point is important to 

note because a substantial body of studies reported 

in the last two decades seems to show that sports 

participants are made worse by their experience. 

For example, a series of studies by David Shields 

and Brenda Jo Bredemeier paints an apparently 

disturbing picture. The two scholars conclude that 

when youth enter sport “they tend to shift their 

moral perspective in the direction of egocentric 

reasoning.” 15 Athletes show “less adequate moral 

reasoning than their nonathletic counterparts.” 16 

As children “move from the more unstructured play 

of elementary school to the more competitive and 

structured play of youth leagues,” they become 

more morally calloused and aggressive. 17 Indeed, 

“[t]here is ample support for the idea that an 

in-sport socialization process occurs that tends 

to legitimize illegal or extralegal aggression, 

particularly in contact sports.” 18 

Shields and Bredemeier are sometimes cautious 

in drawing conclusions from their findings, noting 

that selection effects may be at work rather than 

anything intrinsic to sports play itself. 19 However, 

in other instances their rhetoric takes on a strident, 

conclusory tone. They portray high school football 

games, for example, as places where “acts that 

would normally be considered felonious assaults 

are routinely carried out by budding young men 

to the applause of society.” They see “the present 

practice of sport” doing “more to foster militarism 

than peace,” 20 a characterization that comfortably 

rubs elbows with some of the more extravagant 

claims available in the literature: that sport inducts 

children into “sado-ascetic” structures producing 

“emotional and physical deprivation,” 21 “offers 




youth a pedagogy of racial and sexual exclusion, 

gender hierarchy, violence, and destructively 

competitive values,” 22 and teaches them “elitist, 

win-at-all-costs” ideals. 23 

B. CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL INFELICITIES 

A considerable segment of scholarship in the last 

two decades has taken a debunking approach to 

sports participation, aided in part by convenient 

straw men. It is not hard for debunkers to make 

headway against such targets as these: sports 

competition is an unalloyed good; 24 it leads 

automatically to good character traits; 25 these 

traits can’t be learned in other activities. 26 At 

the same time, it is not surprising that many 

of these debunkers nevertheless see in sports 

participation a potential for positive character 

formation. After all, sport is a human institution. 

Like religion, government, and formal education, 

surely its manifestations will exhibit the strengths 

and weaknesses of the people who establish and 

manage it. Well-organized by competent people 

who understand and prize sport’s true aims, 

athletic competition can be a training ground for 

virtue; 27 badly run by ill-trained people who distort 

or corrupt sport’s true aims, athletic competition 

can be a school for vice. 28 

More important than the straw men are the 

conceptual and theoretical problems that mar much 

recent scholarship. I touch on some of these here. 

They receive extended treatment in Appendix A 

and Appendix B. 

“Character,” of course, is a broad, sweeping notion 

and social scientists necessarily use a surrogate 

– some limited aspect or dimension of character 

– in framing their studies. In recent years, two 

of the prominent surrogates employed have been 

“aggression” and “moral reasoning.” Investigators 

have looked at whether athletes are more 

aggressive than their nonparticipating counterparts 

and whether they reason as well about moral 

quandaries. 29 Unfortunately, neither of these 

surrogates is used effectively. Individual studies 

of “aggression” are frequently marred by muddled 

definitions; 30 and the body of studies taken as a 

whole lacks a common denominator. 31 Likewise, 

the studies of “moral reasoning” in athletic contexts 

fail to supply findings in which we can have 

confidence. The main weakness of the “moral 

reasoning” literature lies in its devotion to theories 

of moral development that – though widely used 

– are badly flawed. The theories grow out of the 

original “stage” conception of moral development 

propounded by Lawrence Kohlberg. 32 Later 

followers and critics have modified the conception 

in different ways. 33 Nevertheless, whether as 

originally conceived or as subsequently amended, 

these theories fail to (i) map moral development 

credibly, (ii) offer an accurate account of moral 

reasoning, or (ii) avoid substituting commitment 

for description. 34 On the whole, studies of sports 

employing these theories – as plentiful as they are 

– have not shed much real light on participation 

and character. 35 

II. THE LESSONS OF SPORT 

What are sports supposed to teach? The list 

of values and experiences various writers have 

imputed to sports as the expected or desired effect 

of participation is long and miscellaneous. The 

participant purportedly learns – or can learn – to 

• cooperate with teammates; 36 

• display courage; 37 

• play fair; 38 

• be loyal to teammates; 39 

• develop self-discipline and practice selfcontrol; 

40 

• respect rules; 41 

• express compassion; 42 

• foster peace; 43 

• exhibit sportsmanship; 44 

• maintain integrity; 45 

• be honest and civil; 46 

• be aggressive; 47 

• become competitive; 48 

• persevere; 49 

• subordinate self to group; 50 

• show leadership; 51 

• engage in hegemonic resistance; 52 

• feel empathy; 53 




• understand ethcs; 54 

• respect the environment; 55 

• experience the team as moral community; 56 

• develop perspective-taking; 57 

• reason at a more mature level morally; 58 

• become caring and considerate; 59 

• exercise critical thinking; 60 

• feel self-esteem. 61 

Some of the items on this list seem intrinsic 

to sports participation – that is, they are the 

sorts of values and experiences sport conveys 

“effortlessly and naturally,” in the words of 

European Commissioner Vivian Reding. Of course, 

“effortlessly” is a bad choice of words, since an 

athlete’s embracing the basic values in her sport 

may require considerable effort on her part. 

Reding means rather that learning certain norms 

arises as a natural by-product of playing a sport, 

especially a team sport. To be good, an athlete 

needs to persevere, discipline herself to the rigors 

of training, and summon the pluck to go on even 

when her cause seems hopeless. All this is true 

whether the athlete runs track, competes in tennis, 

or plays soccer. In the last case, the athlete’s 

circumstance calls for more than perseverance, 

discipline, and pluck. Soccer is a game of positions 

and roles – a team cannot flourish unless the 

player subordinates herself to its demands and 

carries out her responsibilities. 

Also internal to a sport – whether it is track, tennis, 

or soccer – is the idea of sportsmanship. In a 

vigorous contest under fair conditions, the losers 

should be gracious and the winners magnanimous. 

Players should play within the rules and respect 

their opponents. 62 After all, what’s at stake is 

not victory sans qualification but victory within 

the limits imposed by the rules. The great NFL 

coach Vince Lombardi is famous for having insisted 

“winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing,” a 

quote many commentators offer up as example 

number #1 of the out-of-control competitiveness 

that mars American sports. But, of course, 

Lombardi didn’t mean what he said. His legacy 

includes five NFL championships and two Super 

Bowl victories in his nine seasons with the Green 

Bay Packers. Had those victories come through 

bribing opposition players or poisoning their food 

before title games, Lombardi would not now be 

remembered as a great coach and his “victories” 

would have counted for nothing. Quite obviously, 

Lombardi meant there is no substitute for victory 

within the rules established by the game; there 

is no substitute for victory fairly seized from a 

worthy opponent. Fair play against evenly matched 

opponents is the essence of sport. Internal to 

competition is an ideal that has always picked out 

the boasting victor, the surly loser, and the cheat 

as bad sports. The good sport learns passionately 

to want victory while knowing that defeat may 

crown his efforts. He learns how to keep both 

defeat and victory in perspective – to moderate his 

disappointment in defeat and check his elation of 

victory. 63 

While sportsmanship, courage, and perseverance 

may “naturally” emerge in the contexts of practice 

and play, several other items on the list above 

have no direct connection to sports. Why should 

we expect playing volleyball to improve a child’s 

critical thinking skills, or develop her understanding 

of ethics in general, or enhance her capacity 

for empathy? Why should playing baseball be 

burdened with fostering peace or inciting resistance 

to hegemony? 

There is no obvious reason that sport play should 

be freighted with “learning outcomes” so distant 

from its core. Organizing participation for youth so 

that it encourages self-discipline, pluck, teamwork, 

and a spirit of fair play would seem chore enough. 

Plenty of newsprint testifies to failings in youth 

sports – abusive coaches, violent spectators, overdemanding 

parents – that need attending to. What 

is wrong, then, with letting sport be sport? 64 

III. BASICS 

Roughly forty million boys and girls between 

the ages of 5 and 18 take part in organized 

athletic activities, most of which are not schoolbased. 

65 Boys and girls play in sports as varied 

as swimming, baseball, soccer, wrestling, and 




field hockey. The great majority participate in 

“recreational” leagues in which teams enroll allcomers, 

compete against local counterparts, and 

honor the norm “everyone gets to play.” These 

teams are coached by volunteer moms and 

dads with no prior coaching experience (or even 

substantial playing experience in the sport they 

coach). These recreational leagues are most 

heavily populated by kids in the age 5 to 11 range. 

By age eleven, many of the better players get 

siphoned off to selective “travel teams” formed 

through try-outs and playing a schedule that often 

requires considerable travel (hence the name 

“travel teams”). Other casual players drift away 

from sports to pursue different interests as they 

enter adolescence. The recreational teams fielding 

14-, 15-, and 16-year olds form the narrow top of a 

pyramid with its much wider base representing the 

younger entry-level ages. 

Alex Poinsett, relying on work by Martha Ewing 

and Vern Seefeldt, reports that ninety percent 

“of the nation’s 2.5 million volunteer coaches . . . 

lack formal preparation.” 66 For example, a coach 

of a team sponsored by a local Boys & Girls club 

may only be required to attend a half-Saturday 

seminar on proper behavior. What counts most is 

her willingness to organize once-a-week practice 

for her young charges and get them to games on 

the weekend, teaching them some basic skills and 

rudimentary tactics in the process. 

Registration fees for recreational teams typically 

fall in the $35-$45 range. Equipment and uniform 

costs vary by sport – for example, basketball, 

soccer, and baseball require modest outlays while 

football and ice hockey require somewhat more. 

The annual attrition rate in youth sports is 

estimated at 35 percent. Most youth who leave 

a team do so because their interests shift – to 

another sport or to a non-sport activity. A much 

smaller fraction leaves because of negative 

experience – dislike of coach, intolerance of 

pressure, burnout. 67 The negative experiences 

seem to contribute more to “younger athlete’s 

decisions to stop playing a sport than they do for 

older athletes.” 68 

If there are forty million kids in organized sports, 

there are at least this many concerned and involved 

parents. The lessons a child takes from his sports 

involvement – lessons about sportsmanship, 

fair play, and competition – are shaped in large 

measure by parental attitudes and behavior. A 

good deal of attention by sports organizers and 

scholars focuses on the effect of coaches on young 

players’ attitudes, and justifiably so, but evidence 

suggests that a player’s family has the greatest 

influence on his views, and within the family, 

parents are more influential than siblings. 69 

To see a contemporary model of youth sports in 

operation, look at the city of Colorado Springs, 

Colorado, population 360,000. The city’s 

Department of Youth and Recreation oversees six 

outdoor swimming facilities and two indoor pools; 

45 tennis courts; more than a hundred softball 

and baseball diamonds; 77 soccer fields; and 80 

basketball courts. It enrolls 12,000 children in 

recreational sports such as flag football (ages 7-9), 

soccer (ages 5-15), baseball and softball (beginning 

at age 5), and swimming. All of its volunteer 

coaches receive training through the American 

Sports Education Program, an on-line training 

curriculum run by Human Kinetics Publishers. In 

addition, the Colorado Springs Police Athletic 

League supports teams in several sports, as does 

the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Pikes Peak Region, 

and the YMCAs in the metropolitan area. Finally, 

several private sports clubs supply an extensive 

array of opportunities for youth at developmental, 

intermediate, and competitive levels. Consider the 

options for a boy or girl who wants to play baseball. 

The following organizations maintain teams: the 

city Parks & Recreation agency for kids between 

ages 5 and 17, the Colorado Springs Police Athletic 

League for kids between 7 and 15, the Boys & Girls 

Clubs for kids between 7 and 18, the Colorado 

Springs Youth Baseball Association for kids between 

5 and 14, the Academy Little League for kids 

between 5 and 12, the Tri-Lakes Little League for 

kids between 5 and 16, the West El Paso Baseball 

Club for kids between 5 and 15, the Southern 




Colorado Baseball Club for boys between 14 and 

18, the Fountain Valley Baseball Association for 

kids between 5 and 14, the Pikes Peak Competitive 

Baseball Association for kids between 10 and 14, 

and American Legion baseball for boys between 

15 and 18. The YMCAs of Colorado Springs offer 

T-ball and coach-pitch ball for kids between 3 

and 7. Within these options there is a niche for 

every ability level and aspiration – from merely 

recreational to highly competitive, from low-cost to 

high-outlay. 70 

To all of these options we must add, of course, the 

opportunities to play on varsity sports teams at 

Colorado Springs’ high schools. 

A. TOO MUCH TOO EARLY? 

Observers of youth sports express concern that 

widespread participation in organized athletics 

crowds out the informal, self-organized play 

essential to a healthy childhood. Children 

are subjected to the routines, structures, and 

limitations of games organized and managed by 

adults. 71 Moreover, clubs are pushing competition 

and intense skills-development downward to 

younger and younger ages. An anecdote recounted 

in the New York Times is iconic: 

Nancy Lazenby Blaser was a newcomer 

to the town of Morgan Hill, Calif., just 

south of San Jose, when she took her 

5-year-old daughter, Alexandra, to the 

local playground. By happenstance, 

Alexandra became involved in an informal 

game of softball with a group of other 

kindergartners. 

“One of the mothers was watching 

Alexandra and said: ‘Hey, she’s pretty 

good. What team does she play on?’” 

Lazenby Blaser said. “And I said: ‘She 

doesn’t play on any team. She’s 5 years 

old.’ And the other mother looked at me 

with this serious expression and said, ‘If 

she doesn’t start to play organized ball 

now, she won’t be able to play in high 

school.’ 

“And I laughed and said: ‘Do you know 

what I do for a living?’” 

Lazenby Blaser is the commissioner of 

athletics for the central-coast section of 

the California Interscholastic Federation. 

“The pressure to start that early, and 

most of it is peer pressure, gets to most 

people,” she said. “You start secondguessing 

yourself, saying, ‘Geez, am I 

selling my daughter short?’” 

Lazenby Blaser’s initial visit to the 

playground was four years ago. Since 

then, she has had another disquieting 

thought. “My daughter is 9, and you 

know what? They may have been right 

about her,” she said. “I’m afraid she may 

not be able to play in high school. Her 

skill level may be below those that have 

been playing year-round since they were 

really young.” 72 

The noted sports sociologist Jay Coakley 

recommends that children not begin seriously 

competitive play until about the age of 12, a 

recommendation others have endorsed. 73 Yet 

many clubs and sports associations maintain “travel 

teams” starting as young as age 8 or 9. 74 In 

warm-climate San Diego, for instance, ten-year-old 

baseball players play as many as 80 games a year 

(accompanied by twice-a-week practices). 75 

The “travel team” stratum of youth sports 

has exploded in the last twenty years. Travel 

teams grew out of recreational league play, as 

players, parents, and coaches sought more and 

better venues in which to compete. The teams 

mushroomed in popularity as new leagues were 

formed to promote their play, tournaments 

proliferated to match the best against the best, and 

large indoor facilities multiplied in suburban areas 

permitting year-round training and competition. 




Financial costs to parents can be substantial. A 

season’s registration fee includes not only league 

and club dues but often charges for coaches and 

trainers, who, especially in the older age brackets 

(U14 and up) in top competitive divisions, get paid 

for their services. Season fees of $2,500 and more 

are not rare and in a sport like soccer that plays 

both a spring and fall season, $5,000 can represent 

the bottom rung of the expense-ladder. 

A top soccer team may play one or two preseason 

tournaments in March and again in September 

– tournaments often a hundred miles or more 

distant, necessitating travel and lodging costs apart 

from tournament fees. It may play a mid-season 

or summer tournament as well, even traveling 

overseas. Major regional and national tournaments 

are big affairs. The Virginia Beach Columbus 

Day 2003 tournament – a mid-prestige event 

– attracted 800 teams from Connecticut, Ohio, 

Ontario, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Virginia. The Dallas Cup 2003 – a highprestige 

event – included 148 select teams from 

New Mexico, California, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, 

Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, 

Kansas, Georgia – and Mexico, Canada, England, 

Ireland, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Venezuela. 76 

Likewise, a select girls’ fastpitch softball team 

can spend the season barnstorming from one 

tournament to the next. To take a typical case, 

the Chesapeake Orions U12 team played six 

weekend tournaments in nearby Virginia Beach 

between February 14 and August 17, 2003 

– and tournaments in Orlando, Florida; Seaford, 

Delaware; Salem, Virginia; Williamsburg, Virginia; 

and Rock Hill, South Carolina. All except the 

Williamsburg tournament required overnight 

lodging. 77 

A family with two or three children on travel 

teams can find itself rapidly mounting the rungs 

of the expense-ladder. In sports requiring costly 

equipment or costly playing sites (for example, at 

skating rinks, ice time can go for $200 an hour), 

even higher rungs of the ladder beckon – especially 

so when the parents add to the list by reaching 

for the newest competitive edge for their children, 

namely personal trainers and private coaching. 78 

At first impression, the “travel team” phenomenon 

seems to bear out the contention that youth sports 

in the United States have become too competitive 

and too demanding. Children are channeled into 

single-sport specialization at an early age. If they 

try to play more than one sport, they run into 

sticky scheduling conflicts and, more importantly, 

over-tax their young bodies. 79 They face pressures 

to perform well and their games are always highstakes 

affairs. 80 The intensity of practice and 

play burns them out in a few years, so contend 

the critics. According to one sports psychologist, 

“about three fourths of children involved in 

organized sport drop out by age 13.” The travel 

team phenomenon has taken the “fun” out of youth 

sports. 81 

Indeed, one critic maintains that “we have a youth 

sports system that is wildly out of control.” 82 

His sentiment is echoed by a recent report that 

proclaims, “Youth sport has become a hotbed 

of chaos, violence, and mean-spiritedness.” 83 

Another critic, fed up with contemporary sports 

at all levels, recommends an alternative: music. 

Playing in a band or singing in a chorus requires of 

youth many of the same attributes as a team sport 

– perseverance, self-discipline, dedication, and 

the like. “When comparing music with our current 

elitist, win-at-all-costs youth, interscholastic, and 

intercollegiate sports programs,” he writes, the 

case for music wins hands down. 84 

No doubt the proliferation of competitive youth 

sports has brought with it a train of abuses, 85 

but the picture drawn by the critics is largely 

hyperbole. First of all, the striking figure offered 

above by the sports psychologist has to be put in 

context. That 75 percent of children drop out of 

organized sport by age 13 is not so astonishing 

if we recall the 35 percent annual attrition rate, 

and recall further that most of the sports-leavers 

quit because their interests have become focused 

on new endeavors, not because of negative 

experiences with sport. Moreover, the “75 percent” 




figure refers to all organized youth sports, the 

bulk of which remains recreational and low-key. 

Neighborhood kids who at six and seven years 

old join a baseball team for camaraderie and fun 

find in four or five years their interests as well as 

their physical development diverging. Some are 

well-coordinated and successful at throwing and 

hitting, and leave the practice field only when 

forced to by encroaching darkness. Others have 

put on weight or gotten gangly and find practice 

drills tedious and unrewarding. They don’t get to 

play very much anymore, and are just as happy 

not to because they don’t want the spotlight to 

shine on their failure to catch an easy grounder or 

throw accurately to first base. They leave baseball 

for something else – a martial arts class, piano 

lessons, scouting, or some other activity they find 

rewarding. The kids that remain go on to play a 

more serious level of recreational baseball or join 

a travel team. The normal physical and emotional 

development of kids from age 5 or 6 – when most 

start recreational sports – to age 12 or 13 provides 

a natural winnowing of participants even when 

coaches and parents are making sport the best it 

can be. 

Nor is win-at-all costs the dominant ethos in every 

sports club. Consider the McLean Youth Soccer 

(MYS), an association in one of the wealthiest 

Virginia suburbs of Washington, D. C. MYS 

provides three levels of competition: an in-house 

recreational program serving 3000 players; a 

travel team program serving 500 players; and 

at the pinnacle a “premier” program serving 

150 players. 86 The premier program has its 

own technical director, Curt Onalfo, the assistant 

coach of the United States national soccer team 

and the operator of a major training academy 

in the Washington metropolitan region. The 

older travel teams – regular and premier – often 

have professional coaches. In addition, they use 

professional trainers. The McLean Mambas, a U14 

girls team playing in the top girls league in the 

Washington area, employs Jacqui Little, a former 

player on the Washington Freedom in the WUSA, 

and Nick Romando, the current starting goalkeeper 

for DC United in the MLS. 

That MYS teams can afford professional assistance 

of this caliber speaks to the high disposable 

income of the average McLean resident. And this 

professional assistance makes the association’s 

travel teams very competitive. Nevertheless, the 

MYS travel team manual expresses a sporting 

philosophy that puts competition in its proper 

place. The association measures a team’s 

success not by its won-loss record but by how 

hard and well it performs on the field. Coaches 

are expected to put “having fun” high on the list 

of team achievements; maintain small rosters 

(so that some players are not languishing on the 

bench); remain calm and quiet during games; 

and avoid overburdening players with practice and 

fitness training. What MYS looks for in a coach is 

not the savvy of a master tactician or the severity 

of a hard taskmaster, but the ability to teach the 

fundamental skills of soccer to kids. 87 

Is the McLean association an exception to the winat-all 

cost ethos that “pervades sport at every 

level,” 88 an outlier to the “harsh competitive ethic 

of our contemporary culture”? 89 Then let’s look 

away from the Washington suburbs to the American 

heartland. The Dubuque Avalanche, a U13 girls’ 

team puts its basic value this way: “Win, lose, or 

tie, if you have given 100 percent when you walk 

off the field, you have nothing to be ashamed of 

and should not have any regrets.” 90 The Avalanche 

is part of the Dubuque Soccer Club, whose mission 

statement indicates two basic aims: to (i) provide 

developmental and competitive soccer play for 

youth and (ii) “build teamwork, confidence, good 

sportsmanship, self-discipline, self-development, 

and leadership in players, coaches, parents, and 

volunteers.” 91 Apart from its travel teams, the Club 

runs a developmental program involving 500 kids 

on short-sided teams (3v3, 5v5, 8v8, depending on 

the age bracket). As the Club’s director of coaching 

puts it, the short-sided game makes it “fun for the 

99% of us who will grow up [not to be top amateur 

or professional soccer players but] to be doctors, 

teachers, plumbers, truck drivers, and John Deere 

workers.” 92 




The Dubuque Club belongs to the Illowa Soccer 

League, along with the Cedar River Soccer 

Association in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (population 

110,000). The Cedar River Association 

is a “strong parent-directed organization 

committed to excellence” by using nationally 

licensed, professional coaches, developing and 

accommodating players at varied skill levels, 

assuring that all players have fun, and fostering a 

strong work ethic, sportsmanship, and teamwork 

in its participants. 93 Another Illowa member, 

the Cedar Valley Youth Soccer Association, 

centered in Cedar Falls (population 35,000), is a 

“recreationally-oriented association with a strong 

emphasis on participation and sportsmanship.” 

It has no professional coaching staff and it does 

not keep teams together from year to year but 

“reshuffles the deck” each year where feasible. 94 

By contrast, the Iowa City Alliance Soccer Club 

is a smaller organization fielding professionally 

coached travel teams. It aims to assure 

“opportunities for all interested youth to have safe 

fun in competitive soccer,” to develop in players 

“good learning habits,” and to foster “fair play and 

sportsmanship.” 95 The Moline Soccer Club, like 

the Cedar Valley association, supports high quality 

recreational soccer, emphasizing “sportsmanship 

and fair play” and the “value of participation 

over winning.” 96 The East Moline Silvis Soccer 

Club supports travel teams. It relies entirely on 

volunteer rather than professional coaches, and a 

$35 registration fee enrolls a player for the whole 

year. (A player enrolling in an Iowa City Alliance 

Soccer Club team, on the other hand, can expect 

to pay about $600 a year, apart from the cost of 

equipment.) FC America, another small club in the 

Moline area (Moline, East Moline, and Rock Island 

together have a population of about 100,000), 

fields competitive teams devoted to learning soccer 

“FUNdamentals.” 97 Finally, across the Mississippi 

River, in Davenport, Iowa (population 95,000), the 

Quad City Strikers Soccer Association believes “in 

fair play and sportsmanship” and that “sports is 

not about short-term winning or losing, but rather 

long-term goals.” It subscribes to the philosophy 

that “having fun is an important part of life and 

soccer in the right environment is fun.” 98 

B. COMPETITION’S ROLE UNDERSTOOD 

A cursory look at the nominal aims of youth sports 

clubs, leagues, national associations, and public 

recreation programs reveals a widespread belief 

by organizers, officials, coaches, and parents 

that competition should not get out of hand. 

Competition is a vehicle for youth development and 

enjoyment, thus subservient to broader goals. But 

how well are these nominal aims put into practice? 

How well do clubs, leagues, coaches, parents, 

and players adhere to the spirit of fair play and 

sportsmanship? How often do teams really act as if 

they believed the motto of the Dubuque Avalanche, 

that if you’ve played your best, you can leave the 

field with pride, win or lose? Stories in the popular 

media highlight incidents of cheating, 99 violence, 100 

and a missing sense of proportion, 101 but what 

they do not provide are reliable, data-based 

answers to the questions just posed. Nor does the 

academic literature. 102 

Some of those critical of youth sports view 

competition as inevitably corrosive of good values, 

pitting team against team and athlete against 

athlete in a zero-sum contest. To avoid “fostering 

conflict” – as competition does – and to teach 

“humanistic” and “caring” values, it is better, the 

critics argue, to involve children in “cooperative” 

games where they must help one another to 

succeed. 103 Yet the conclusion that sports 

competition is inevitably corrosive must be adduced 

from evidence, not deduced from the concept. 

Even the critics concede that athletic competition 

can be understood as a means – perhaps an 

indispensable means – to something else, namely 

what Craig Clifford and Randolph Feezell call a 

“mutual striving for excellence.” 104 

The idea is this. In some kinds of games, there is 

a very tight conceptual link between competition 

and performance, in other kinds a looser link. For 

example, the solitary high jumper could simply 

strive to jump higher and higher, letting the height 

of the bar itself fix her motivation; or the solitary 

bowler could measure his success entirely by 

the number of pins he can knock down in a fixed 




number of bowls (in which case bowling would be 

like mountain climbing, a striving to overcome a 

barrier that is “just there”). By contrast, a solitary 

tennis player can’t strive for anything. There is no 

game of tennis without a competitor. The same is 

true of team sports like baseball and basketball. 

More importantly, even when it is not built into the 

very idea of a particular performance, competition 

serves as a vital measure and spur. When a high 

jumper competes against another, the raising of 

the bar is not just a function of her own success. 

It depends on the success of her competitor as 

well. She can’t rest on a performance that’s her 

best ever, not if the other jumper has matched and 

exceeded it. She must either accept that her best 

is not good enough or summon up a perfection of 

technique and effort that she didn’t know she had. 

If she succeeds it is because she has been pushed 

to succeed. 

This phenomenon is especially clear in team sports. 

In a basketball game, for example, the other 

team can be thought of as the “barrier” that must 

“yield” to your team’s efforts (the way the bowling 

pins “yield” to the roll of your ball). However, in 

basketball’s case the “barrier” is not static, it is 

dynamic. Your team’s very effort to make the 

barrier yield can actually make it more resistant 

to yielding. That is to say, your team’s good play 

can make the other team “raise its game.” 105 Thus 

your team has got to respond with intensified play 

or fail to make the “barrier” yield. The competition 

creates a reciprocal feedback loop – your team’s 

best play strengthens rather than weakens the 

barrier by eliciting the other team’s best play, which 

forces your team to play yet better, which leads 

the other team to play yet better, which forces 

your team . . . and so on. Should your team win, 

it has been forced to levels of execution and effort 

it had not thought itself capable of; should it lose, 

it may still have exceeded its previous best play. 

That’s why the Dubuque Advantage U13 team has 

it right when it says that the point of sports is to 

leave your best game on the field. The elemental 

goal in sports is self-overcoming. Competition is 

what draws from the self – whether an individual 

or collective self – a level of performance better 

than its previous best. Since each team is lifting 

its level of play in response to the other, Clifford 

and Feezell are right to term competition a “mutual 

striving for excellence.” Each team is driving the 

other to perform better than it otherwise would 

– or could. 106 

Self-overcoming is the elemental end around which 

sport is ordered. Seen in this light, competition 

provides no incentive to cheat. Fair play is 

built into the process. Your team hasn’t really 

succeeded in its end if it wins not by raising its 

game to a new level but by cheating. No one 

surpasses her best by breaking the rules. However, 

incentives to break the rules can be supplied by 

other goals that intrude on, and even trump, the 

elemental organizing principle of sports – external 

goals as pedestrian as wanting the adulation of the 

crowd and as weighty as wanting wealth beyond 

measure. When two heavyweights are fighting 

a championship bout worth $30,000,000 to the 

winner, being acclaimed the winner becomes more 

important than actually being the winner. The 

boxing commission had better be on guard. 

Competition, then, is essential to athletics 

and when its proper role is fully appreciated it 

provides no incentives for bad sportsmanship. 

Nevertheless, not just the intrusion of external 

goals but commonplace emotional resistance to 

defeat can – and frequently does – lead players 

to forget sportsmanship and throw elbows, slide 

with cleats raised, make dangerous tackles, talk 

trash, and taunt injured opponents. The spirit 

of sportsmanship is easily eroded and coaches, 

parents, league officials, and other interested 

parties must be always vigilant to keep its spirit 

predominant. 

C. COMPETITION, PARTICIPATION, AND FUN 

Even when competition is understood properly, 

however, the question remains whether intense 

competition for young participants is consistent 

with “fun.” As we saw above, many clubs and 

organizations specify “having fun” as an important 




dimension of their programs. Likewise, writers 

about youth sports often float the worry that 

intense competition takes the “fun” out of sports 

participation. 107 These writers never formally 

define ‘fun,’ however, and this is not a harmless 

omission since so many things can travel under 

that title. Consider two scenarios. One: a 14- 

year-old at practice runs laps as part of fitness 

training. He does not enjoy the actual running 

but nevertheless finds gratification in completing 

an arduous routine that supports his success on 

the playing field Saturday or Sunday. Two: while 

warming up for the championship game, a player 

feels considerable anxiety; and playing the game 

itself is for her an unremittingly intense affair, a 

desperate struggle to hold her position or defend 

her man or make a play. If her team wins, her 

elation is unbounded; if it loses, her dejection 

is inconsolable (at least for a while). In either 

case, however, she will forever look back on the 

“thrill” of playing for the championship; and she 

will take pride in having performed well under 

such pressure. These two scenarios show that a 

complex of feelings, sensations, and reflections, 

extended over time, accompanies sports play – a 

complex not easily reduced to the simple notion of 

“having fun.” 

When writers speak of “fun,” they typically mean 

doing something that produces immediate pleasure 

or excitement, doing something that doesn’t have 

the stamp of “work” on it. Now, clearly, even in 

adult sports, applied imagination can render fitness 

exercises and skill-development drills less tedious 

than they might otherwise be. The exercises and 

drills themselves can become small competitions 

in which teammates vie to win a race carrying on 

their backs fellow-players, or to keep the ball away 

from “defenders” in the middle of a circle by quickly 

passing it around the perimeter, or to make the 

most free throws and get rewarded by a rest break 

while others run laps around the gym floor. 

“Fun” can also mean “no disappointment.” Games 

with “no losers” are more fun for children – so 

goes the argument. However, even writers who 

are concerned to make competitions more childfriendly 

by modifying games to let everyone 

“win” concede that “young people usually prefer 

the ‘real game’.” 108 Whatever fun children find 

in their informal, self-directed games, they also 

turn out to be “serious” about real sports. 109 An 

ethnographic study by Sally Anderson is instructive 

on this point. She studied two organizations in 

Denmark, a community gymnastics association 

and a private capoeira school (capoeira is a 

Brazilian hybrid of dance and martial arts). The 

gymnastics association organized training around 

a popular set of notions about children: that they 

“are lively, playful, full of fantasy, easily bored, 

and inattentive;” and that they like “variety 

to prevent boredom, lots of pop music, ‘work’ 

disguised as ‘play,’ exercises to fit age groups, and 

new experiences.” 110 The capoeira school took 

all comers over the age of 12 and mixed adults 

and youth together, distinguishing students only 

by their ability level (beginner or advanced). The 

training proceeded in a business-like manner under 

the guidance of the capoeira teacher, adults and 

youth treated as peers, the better students – adult 

or youth – helping the less adept. 111 The capoeira 

youth progressed steadily toward mastery of their 

art. The gymnastics students applied themselves 

with varying degrees of seriousness. During 

exercises they “chatted, laughed, daydreamed,” or 

acted in other ways that demonstrated their casual 

interest in what was happening. 112 When one of 

the capoeira students joined the gymnastics group 

one day, he 

was able to do both push-ups and 

stretching exercise with ease, 

something the other boys found difficult, 

uninteresting, or both. He could also 

perform cartwheels without effort and 

in general tended to be both willing and 

able to do what the instructors asked of 

him. 113 

One need not over-generalize from this case to 

caution that young people may be more serious 

about their games, and less “childish” – less in 

need of fun, amusement, and work disguised as 

play – than critics of youth sports believe. 114 The 




challenge for youth sports organizations, and those 

who study them, is to find the middle ground 

between two extremes. At one extreme, adults 

can forget that youth sport is for the enjoyment 

of the youthful participants; they try to “[convert] 

children into mini-adults.” 115 At the other extreme 

adults can render “enjoyment” into a notion that 

excludes the serious approach to sports favored 

by many boys and girls. Youth participants no less 

than adults are capable of delayed gratification, 

even if the gratification comes in a bittersweet 

package. Youth participants no less than adults 

can set high goals for themselves and work hard 

to achieve them. When they succeed, success’ 

value-conferring shadow stretches back over and 

redeems the many efforts that produced it. Fun is 

a pale substitute for success – or even the striving 

for it. 

Without gainsaying concerns about the intensified 

competition prevalent in contemporary organized 

youth sports, a bit of perspective is in order. 

The critic quoted earlier who was fed up with 

competitive youth sports and recommended 

music as a better way to imbue kids with traits 

like teamwork, self-discipline, and perseverance 

hadn’t paid enough attention to his local high 

school marching band. It, too, competes: in local 

events; in one or more of the 700 major regional, 

state, multi-state, and national band competitions 

every April through December; and possibly in an 

international competition – there is one in Italy 

in July and the other in Spain in October. 116 For 

example, if the critic’s local high school band 

happened to be “The Pride of the Bluegrass” at 

Lafayette High School in Lexington, Kentucky, he 

would have observed the following schedule: a 

week of band camp in July, another in August; 

extensive rehearsals once school began; trips to 

two band competitions in Kentucky and one in 

Ohio; a trip to the state competition in Bowling 

Green followed by a trip to Indianapolis for the 

Bands of America Regional Competition. These 

competitions had to be fitted around performances 

at home football games and at the Governor’s 

inauguration parade. 117 If the critic’s local band 

happened instead to be the Minutemen Marching 

Band of Washington Township High School 

in Sewell, New Jersey (20 miles southeast of 

Philadelphia), he would have observed an even 

more frenetic schedule: seven competitions (one 

hosted by the Minutemen) in the fall of 2003 

followed by a trip to Scranton, Pennsylvania for 

the Atlantic Coast Championships and then on 

to Jacksonville, Florida, to compete with scores 

of other bands in the Gator Bowl (where the 

Minutemen took away a fourth place in the Parade 

and a third place in the Field Show). Nor was 

there much post-Gator Bowl rest for the weary 

Minutemen. They resumed indoor practice during 

the winter and spring of 2004. 118 To remain at the 

top requires year-round effort. 

The tedium of rehearsal and drill and the stress of 

group performances were not the only experiences 

awaiting some members of these two high school 

bands in 2003. The better players auditioned 

individually (perhaps after a preliminary round of 

cuts) for a spot in their all-state bands. Now, while 

playing on a competitive sports team can generate 

plenty of nervousness and tension, the psychologist 

Michael Passer concludes from the evidence he has 

examined that nothing in team sports supplies the 

anxiety level induced by solo music audition. 119 

Any reader who recalls her own solo recitals in front 

of judges will likely offer an emphatic confirming 

nod. 

D. NOT ENOUGH? 

Although youth participation in sports is widespread 

across the country, it is unevenly dispersed. In 

many areas sports clubs and associations have 

burgeoned and opportunities abound while in 

others opportunities have diminished to the 

vanishing point. Martha Ewing and associates 

report that sports “[p]articipation rates in Detroit 

. . . have dropped to approximately 10 percent 

of the children compared to 75-80 percent in the 

suburbs.” 120 This same contrast between hard-up 

inner city and affluent suburb can be told about 

many metropolitan areas across the country. 121 

Not only do financially straitened urban jurisdictions 

lack flourishing private athletic associations and 




plentiful safe playing areas, their high schools 

maintain limited interscholastic sports programs 

that limp along with meager budgets, inadequate 

facilities, and old equipment. 122 

Inner city children are not in danger of adultorganized 

games overwhelming their spontaneous 

self-organized play. In fact, according to one study, 

fourth graders in an impoverished community 

did not even “know how to self-organize and play 

relatively simple games such as kickball.” 123 In 

gym class these children were unable to sustain 

vigorous physical activity more than a few minutes. 

At home they led sedentary lives and 

had little or no exposure to physical activity 

outside of school. Unsafe places in which to 

play, overburdened caregivers, overpopulated 

and small housing conditions, and limited 

role models were attributed to the children’s 

limited exposure to physical activity. 124 

IV. WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE? 

Most pre-1990s studies of sports participation 

typically involved very small samples of participants 

in particular settings. The small sample sizes 

and the lack of uniformity in variables identified 

for scrutiny make these studies relatively 

uninformative about cause and effect. Newer 

studies that rely on rich data sets – sets not 

available to an earlier generation of scholars 

– more successfully control variables statistically 

to cut through the fog of correlation. For example, 

Mark Lopez and Kimberlee Moore, in “Participation 

in Sports and Civic Engagement,” the Fact Sheet 

that accompanies this critical survey, use the 

2002 National Youth Survey of Civic Engagement 

to identify several civic outcomes that might 

reasonably be attributed to sports participation. 

They find a weak but positive relationship between 

participation in high school sports and some 

desirable civic behavior. 

Other recent studies make use of two richly 

informative longitudinal surveys generated by 

the National Center for Educational Statistics in 

the U. S. Department of Education. One is the 

High School and Beyond (HSB) series, containing 

an extensive array of information derived from 

two cohorts, namely sophomores and seniors in 

high school in 1980. Both cohorts were surveyed 

in 1980 and then three more times at two-year 

intervals. The sophomore cohort was surveyed 

again in 1992. The second data set is the National 

Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988. 

This study began tracking a cohort of 8th-graders 

initially interviewed in 1988 and re-interviewed 

every two years since. Both longitudinal surveys 

involved scores of thousands of students, selected 

to be representative of their age groups. 125 

The general upshot of recent analyses of 

these surveys is positive. Sport participation 

seems beneficial, as measured against several 

desiderata. For example, Sabo, Melnick, and 

Vanfossen analyzed the HSB data to conclude that 

participating in sports in high school made students 

more likely to attend college. 126 Hanson and Kraus 

explored the NELS data to determine whether 

sports participation made female high school 

students more likely to take, and be successful 

in, math and science courses, and concluded 

that “white and Hispanic girls who participate in 

sport have a tremendous advantage in all aspects 

of science – achievement, course-taking, and 

attitudes.” 127 Marsh, using the HSB data, found 

that “participation in sport favorably affected (in 

order of size of the effect) social self-concept, 

academic self-concept, educational aspirations 

2 years after high school, attending university, 

educational aspirations in the senior year, being 

in the academic track, school attendance, taking 

science courses, time spent on homework, parental 

involvement, parental educational aspirations, 

taking math courses, and taking honors 

courses.” 128 Broh, analyzing data from the NELS, 

found that “participation in interscholastic sports 

during the 10th and 12th grades has small but 

consistent benefits for students’ grades . . . even 

after [self-selection] characteristics are taken into 

account.” 129 Analysis of the HSB data underlies 

the conclusion by McNeil that “participation in the 

athletic arena significantly reduces the student’s 




likelihood of dropping out, whereas participation 

in the academic and vocational spheres does not,” 

a conclusion that holds up even when the selfselection 

phenomenon is accounted for. 130 

These studies differ, however, in their depictions 

of the particular causal mechanisms – those 

“intertwined and interwoven threads of influence, 

subtle and not always easily analyzed” – that 

yield positive results from sports participation. 

For McNeal and Marsh, being on a high school 

sports team makes players more attached to their 

school and its academic values. 131 For Hanson 

and Kraus, being on a school team inducts players 

into important networks, provides a source of 

status, and fosters character traits that prove 

valuable in academic work. Girls who perform in 

what was formerly a “male” domain – sports – are 

advantaged in performing in other “male” domains 

– science and math. 132 Broh finds the good 

effects of sport working through two mechanisms. 

Sport does build character, in his opinion; that 

is, it promotes individual traits that pay off in 

academic achievement. Furthermore, it increases 

participants’ “social capital” by enhancing their 

involvement in peer, family, and other valuable 

networks. 133 

These studies, for the most part, focus on high 

school sports, so they tell us nothing directly about 

the impact on younger children who play on club 

teams, whether recreational or travel. Moreover, 

the efficacy of sports participation is measured in 

these studies against a limited set of outcomes: 

better grades, completion of school, enhanced 

self-esteem, good work ethic, and the like. These 

outcomes seem tied to “character” as a mediating 

factor, since perseverance, self-confidence, 

disposition to cooperate with teachers, and other 

individual traits that plausibly foster academic 

achievement can be counted as aspects of 

character. However, none of these studies tells us 

anything about the effect of sports participation on 

other aspects of character – good or bad – such as 

propensity to cheat, dedication to fair play, respect 

for others, or tendency to view the world selfishly. 

Nor do these studies link up with those that do try 

to trace connections between sports participation 

and these distinctively moral aspects of character. 

Despite a vast literature on youth sports 

participation – much of which is not touched on 

here – we actually know very little about this 

pervasive dimension of young lives. Is there more 

undesirable competition now than in the past? 

Considering the whole of formal, structured sports 

play by children, adolescents, and college-age 

youth, what proportion of competition today is 

inappropriate, excessive, unhealthy? People are 

quite willing to make up their minds on the basis 

of anecdotal evidence and inflammatory media 

reports but we possess no genuine data base that 

could anchor confident answers to these questions, 

even if we could agree on what is inappropriate, 

excessive, and unhealthy. 

Studies that show sports participation on the whole 

beneficial don’t answer structural and cost-benefit 

questions. If, for example, playing on a high school 

sports team increases academic achievement, 

we must ask at what cost? After all, school 

systems (and communities that support them) 

invest resources in athletics that could be diverted 

to other activities that also improve academic 

achievement or yield other goods of a different 

kind. What represents a sensible trade-off? 

Further, if sports participation is good, why need it 

be lodged in high schools rather than in clubs? Is 

the impressive growth of club-based sports in the 

last thirty years to be regretted or welcomed? 134 

How does sports participation affect children in 

their early years, ages 5 to 12? 135 Are the typical 

forms of their participation appropriate to their 

ages? (T-ball and 3-sided micro soccer certainly 

seem child-friendly for very young kids; elevenyear-olds 

seem to thrive on baseball.) 

What reform measures seem easiest to implement? 

What measures will have the greatest yield? What 

abuses need most urgent attention? 

National, state, and local associations, federations, 

and leagues of all sorts monitor, oversee, and 




regulate youth sports. They have in place codes 

of ethics, rules of play, and coach-education 

programs meant to assure sportsmanship, safe 

play, and stimulating competition for kids. USA 

Hockey, for example, the governing body of ice 

hockey in the United States, has a “zero tolerance” 

policy in place for all youth hockey games – zero 

tolerance of bad sportsmanship of all sorts. 136 

The National Federation of State High School 

Associations, in partnership with the American 

Sports Education Program, offers training and 

certification for coaches of interscholastic teams. 

The American Sports Education Program, run by 

the sports publisher Human Kinetics, also offers 

on-line, instructor-based education for those 

involved in other youth sports as well. 137 The 

Positive Coaching Alliance, founded at Stanford 

University in 1998, claims to have provided 

workshops for 40,000 coaches, parents, and 

leaders, in partnership with 300 youth sports 

organizations, cities, and schools. 138 The National 

Youth Sports Coaches Association purports to have 

trained 1.8 million coaches in 2,600 community 

organizations (thus remedying to some extent 

the deficiencies noted by Alex Poinsett). 139 Its 

umbrella organization, the National Alliance for 

Youth Sports, offers a booklet, Recommendations 

for Communities, listing basic steps to take in 

creating or running youth sports programs. 140 (The 

recommendations were compiled in conjunction 

with the National Recreation and Park Association.) 

U. S. Youth Soccer, through its state associations, 

maintains an extensive system of coach training 

and licensing. It also runs a parent education 

program. 141 Parent education in all sports is 

made mandatory by many county and municipal 

recreation departments, using tools provided 

by the Parents Association for Youth Sports, 

another offshoot of the National Alliance for Youth 

Sports. 142 

The Citizenship Through Sports Alliance – formed 

in 1997 by Major League Baseball, the National 

Football League, the National Basketball 

Association, the National Hockey League, the 

National Collegiate Athletic Association, the 

National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, 

the National Junior College Athletic Association, the 

U. S. Olympic Committee, the National Federation 

of High School Associations, and the National 

Association of Collegiate Athletic Directors – is an 

ambitious attempt to build “a sports culture [at all 

levels] that encourages respect for self, respect 

for others, and respect for the game.” 143 Among 

the resources it offers is a “community organizing 

tool kit,” a set of guidelines and materials any 

group can use to form (or reform) a youth sports 

association so that it honors true sportsmanship. 

Sports advocacy and information organizations 

abound. An interested parent or community leader 

can gain orientation from organizations as diverse 

as the American Academy of Child & Adolescent 

Psychiatry and Mom’s Team, both web-based 

sources of news and advice. 144 

V. THE MICROWORLD OF PARTICIPATION 

At the outset, I suggested that understanding the 

“intertwined” and “subtle” influences of sports 

participation requires the tools of social science. 

We can conclude that social scientists have made 

some progress in illuminating the effects of sports 

participation on certain aspects of “character” – but 

the progress is limited and checkered. It is not 

clear, in fact, how social scientists can penetrate 

very deeply into character, something that is 

formed and refined in the microworld of everyday 

moral life. 

Consider some of the dimensions of that 

microworld. Earlier, I observed that participating 

on a sports team requires an individual to 

subordinate herself to the team’s needs. There 

is much more to this subordination than merely 

fulfilling roles and carrying out tactics on the field. 

A player who rides the bench may think she is 

better than those who start. She has to try to 

see herself – and her teammates – through the 

coach’s eyes if she is to reconcile herself to her 

secondary place. She has to suppress jealousy 

toward other players and avoid conflicts that hurt 

team morale. At the same time she doesn’t want 

to remain passive in the face of what she thinks 




is an injustice. How, then, does she request 

– or demand – more playing time without being 

disruptive? Does she endure quietly, redoubling 

her efforts in practice to prove her worth as a 

starter – or does she slack off, since more effort 

doesn’t seem to pay off? How assertive should 

she be, how submissive? For a young athlete in 

her early or mid-teens, these are complicated and 

vexing matters to work out. 

Even if she succeeds at seeing matters through 

the coach’s eyes, the player may still experience 

mental turmoil. Her sense of what’s best for 

the team may conflict with the coach’s policies. 

Perhaps the coach, in her view, allows too much 

negative chatter during practice – chatter in which 

teammates grouse at one another about failures 

to make a timely pass or execute a throw to the 

right base, chatter that carries over into games as 

well. Perhaps the coach seldom takes starters out 

of a game when they make mistakes but pulls the 

trigger quickly on substitutes when they commit 

errors. In these ways, so the player thinks, the 

coach is hurting team morale. But it is not her 

place to tell the coach his business, is it? So how 

does she make her views known? Does she talk 

covertly to other players about her concerns? Does 

she urge her parents to speak to the coach? Or 

does she urge them not to intervene, though they 

share her concerns? 

Further complications offer themselves. For 

example, the good feelings a player has for her 

team may wash away under the stress of a losing 

season. She may begin to think she is wasting 

her talent on the team and should go elsewhere 

– but how does that honor solidarity, a value 

she’s been vocally defending in past seasons? Is 

it morally better to stick with the team although 

a return to winning ways seems remote? Isn’t 

it selfish to seek a better deal for oneself at the 

team’s expense? On the other hand, how much 

self-sacrifice must a player make for the sake of 

loyalty? When does altruism cease to be admirable 

and become foolish? (Or, to vary the example, 

suppose the coach decides to let go a handful of 

players who’ve been stalwart contributors from 

the club’s beginnings but don’t have the skills 

needed now that the club has climbed to the 

highest levels of competition. Isn’t it unacceptable 

to reward the dedication of this handful with such 

ruthless dismissal? Is winning such a valuable 

goal to warrant tossing aside considerations of 

past contribution? On the other hand, the team 

originally set for itself high goals. Does it now 

brush these goals aside for the sake of communal 

bonds? Whether a player is one of those dismissed 

or one of those retained, she has much to consider, 

many points of view to reconcile.) 

These are typical of the challenges – characterbuilding 

or character-deforming – that a player 

confronts every season, every game, every 

practice. She may resolve them in ways she 

regrets in hindsight, or in ways she builds upon as 

her sense of value matures, or in ways that pass 

quickly into the trash bin of forgotten episodes in 

her life. She may find her resolutions instructive in 

other dimensions of her life – in school, in personal 

relationships, in family affairs – as she recapitulates 

them in new circumstances or acts consciously to 

avoid following their lead. 

However, the main effects of her reflections and 

choices as a player may actually lie dormant for 

a long time, coming into sharp relief only as she 

becomes a parent herself and watches her own 

child take up a sport. What she imparts to her 

child-athlete – by specific instruction or silent 

observation – may carry the distinctive stamp 

of experience forged on another playing field at 

another time. 

Sports participation truly involves “many 

intertwined and interwoven threads of influences, 

subtle and not always easy to analyze.” The 

challenge ahead for students of sport is to find 

effective ways to capture accurately these “threads 

of influence” and to generalize about them. This is 

a challenge we are a long way from meeting. 




VI. APPENDIX A 

A. SHIELDS AND BREDEMEIER 

Over a twenty-year period David Shields and 

Brenda Jo Bredemeier have compiled an impressive 

body of work on sports participation and moral 

development. It is widely cited. Their 1995 book, 

Character Development and Physical Activity, has 

no peer. Their chapter, “Moral Development and 

Behavior in Sport,” in the second edition of the 

Handbook of Sport Psychology, is the obvious 

starting-point for all students and scholars alike 

interested in sports and character. 145 

Their studies seem to support some arresting 

conclusions about sports. Bredemeier and Shields 

have shown, if their research is sound, that some 

college athletes use a “less mature” form of moral 

reasoning than their nonathletic peers 146 and that 

“children’s participation in high contact sports is 

associated with less mature moral reasoning and 

greater self-reported tendencies to aggress.” 147 

A reader would be excused for thinking this is 

all bad news. After all, aggression, Shields and 

Bredemeier tell us, is “morally reprehensible,” 

and sport participation seems to induce players 

to legitimate it by regressing to “egocentric 

reasoning.” 148 Indeed, in one summation the two 

writers indict sport not only because it encourages 

“unbridled egocentrism” in players but also because 

it suppresses their “empathy.” It is not surprising, 

then, when they conclude that present-day sport 

fosters the evil of “militarism.” 149 

This is not a picture of sport to inspire its 

champions. Nor is it a picture that stays clearly in 

focus the more closely one reads Bredemeier and 

Shields. Instead, the picture keeps shifting, in part 

because Bredemeier and Shields are conceptually 

sloppy and in part because they are mesmerized by 

bad moral theory. 

Take the matter of aggression. According to 

Shields and Bredemeier, in their studies athletes 

who were more aggressive displayed a “lower level” 

of moral reasoning – that is, reasoned at a lower 

developmental stage – than athletes who were 

less aggressive. To discover this connection, two 

things have to be measured in subjects: level of 

aggression and level of moral reasoning. In the 

case of aggression, Shields and Bredemeier do 

not measure it directly; instead, they have relied 

on (i) coaches’ assessments of their players, (ii) 

players’ responses to “aggression” hypotheticals, 

or (iii) an objective proxy. Before any of this 

measuring could get off the ground, however, the 

term ‘aggression’ had to be defined. Shields and 

Bredemeier adopted a definition from an earlier 

literature: aggression is initiation of an attack with 

intent to injure. 150 

At first blush, this definition seems highly 

confining. Very little happens on the playing field 

that counts as aggression by this account. With 

rare exceptions, most sports injuries – even at 

professional levels – result from unforeseeable 

events at best (the turf fails to yield and a sharply 

turning player tears a knee ligament; one player 

looses his balance and falls on another’s ankle) 

and reckless play at worst (a pitcher persists in 

throwing high inside pitches though he knows he’s 

losing his control). Moreover, the Bredemeier- 

Shields definition goes against the grain of ordinary 

usage. When players are called aggressive 

by coaches or commentators, they are usually 

singled out for one of a number of characteristics: 

fearlessness, risk-taking, spontaneity, attackorientation 

(“attack” the ball, “attack” the plate, 

“attack” the basket), and the like. 

Shields and Bredemeier are free, of course, to 

stipulate any meaning of ‘aggression’ they like. 

The problem is that they fail consistently to adhere 

to the meaning they’ve chosen. For example, in 

one study, as an “objective” measure of basketball 

players’ aggressiveness, they tabulated players’ 

fouls per minute played. 151 In another, they 

presented adolescent female soccer players with 

the following “aggression” scenario: a defender, 

Sue, can prevent an opponent from taking an 

unchallenged shot on goal only by successfully 

tackling the ball from behind. “Sue knows that 

tackling from behind is dangerous and [the 




opponent] will probably get hurt.” 152 In yet 

another study, to measure aggression children 

were asked to respond to a number of items, 

including this one: “You’re running a long distance 

race, and one of the other runners comes up from 

behind, trips you, and runs on ahead. What would 

you do?” The children could choose among three 

options: forget about the trip, report it to a race 

official after the race, or catch up with the runner 

and get him back. The last choice represented an 

aggressive response to the situation. 153 

None of these cases – fouls, tackling from behind, 

or getting back at the runner – involves intent to 

injure. When a basketball player fouls another 

taking a shot, he is attempting to block or deflect 

the ball. In making her risky tackle, Sue is trying 

to sweep away the ball and prevent a shot. In 

returning the trip, the retaliating runner intends to 

even the score. Unless he deliberately smashes 

the other runner in the face to break his jaw, he 

neither intends nor causes injury. 

These inconsistencies may not undermine the 

particular studies in which they occur but they 

do not give the reader much confidence in the 

aggression “scores” generated by Bredemeier 

and Shields. In the study that used fouls as 

an “objective” measure of players’ aggression, 

the other measure used was coaches’ rankings. 

Although Bredemeier and Shields tell us that they 

gave coaches “careful . . . instructions regarding 

the specific definition of aggression” at work in 

the study, we certainly can’t attach much weight 

to the resultant rankings. 154 We have no basis 

for thinking the coaches applied the concept of 

“aggression” any less loosely and clumsily than 

Bredemeier and Shields themselves do. 

In a 1986 study Shields and Bredemeier 

themselves saw the problem. They noted that 

the standard definition – aggression is an attack 

with intent to injure – is flabby and insufficiently 

discriminating. 

‘Attack’ has referred to physical, verbal, 

or even nonverbal assaults, while the 

term ‘injure’ has been interpreted to 

include infliction of all noxious stimuli. 

Such a broad definition . . . places murder 

and a playful sock on the arm along a 

single continuum of aggressive acts. . . 155 

Athletes commonly draw a distinction between 

robust play within the rules of the game that 

might “hurt” and real physical attack outside game 

skills (e. g., a deliberate elbow to the face). Yet, 

observed Bredemeier and Shields, “a qualitative 

distinction between [these] . . . two categories is 

blurred when all intentional hurting is placed on 

a single aggression continuum.” Quite so. Given 

this drawback in the original definition, Bredemeier 

and Shields asked whether investigators should 

continue to define aggression as “intent to injure.” 

In any case, they advised great caution in using the 

term ‘aggression.’ 156 

Unfortunately, Bredemeier and Shields didn’t take 

their own advice to heart and continued to use the 

standard definition without indicating the exact 

range of actions picked out by the words ‘attack’ 

and ‘injure.’ 157 Neither have they discontinued 

citing their early studies as supplying unambiguous 

evidence of a correlation between aggression and 

low-level moral thinking. 

Just as there are problems on the one side of 

the equation – measuring athletic aggression 

– there are problems on the other – measuring 

“moral maturity.” Initially, Bredemeier and Shields 

worked from within the moral development theory 

of Lawrence Kohlberg. That theory postulates 

six stages of moral development ranging from 

a preconventional stage in which the moral 

agent calculates in terms of egocentric wants 

to a postconventional stage in which the agent 

thinks in terms of universal moral principles. 158 

In a 1984 study, Bredemeier and Shields 

measured their subjects’ moral developmental 

level by administering the Defining Issues Test 

(DIT), developed by James Rest to assess 

Kohlbergian stages using a simple, multiple choice 

questionnaire. 159 This test, wrote Bredemeier and 

Shields, provided “an objective measure of moral 




development.” 160 

By the next year, however, they had shifted to 

a different developmental account based on 

the work of Norma Haan. Haan formulated her 

theory explicitly in opposition to Kohlberg’s, 

which portrayed the moral agent as embracing 

increasingly general and abstract moral principles 

as he matures. To this Kohlbergian picture – which, 

in her view reflected only the process of “learned 

sophistication” – Haan counterposed another: 

that of the agent in a particular, concrete context 

with a specific problem to solve. As Bredemeier 

and Shields present Haan, morality consists of 

conflict, balance, and the transition from the first 

to the second by means of dialogue. “Together we 

create moral agreements,” writes Bredemeier. 161 

Balance is reached, Shields and Bredemeier go on 

to note, when “all parties involved in a relationship 

are in basic agreement about respective rights, 

obligations, and privileges.” 162 

The ability to take part in the “dialogic” process 

that creates agreements evolves through phases 

or orientations. In the assimilative phase, “moral 

balances are egocentrically constructed.” 163 

“Others’ interests and needs are not given 

equal consideration to the self.” 164 In the 

accommodative phase, individuals “subordinate 

their needs and interests to those of others.” 165 

Finally, in the equilibration phase, “all interests and 

needs [are coordinated] in an attempt to optimize 

situationally specific potentialities for mutually 

satisfying responses to interpersonal difficulties.” 166 

To associate athletes’ level of moral thinking with 

aggression, the former has to be measured. In 

a 1994 study of children at a camp, Bredemeier 

explained her measurement procedure: 

The children’s moral reasoning level was 

assessed by means of 45-minute individual 

interviews. . . . [Each] interview consisted of 

four moral dilemmas, two set in sport contexts 

and two reflecting daily life situations. . . . 

One sport and one life situation featured a 

girl forced to choose between honesty and 

keeping a promise to a girlfriend. The second 

set of sport and life stories featured boys faced 

with a decision about whether to risk hurting 

another boy to prevent him from continuing 

an unfair activity. Each dilemma was followed 

by a standard set of probe questions, with 

the interviewer free to ask additional probes 

to obtain clarifications. . . . The research 

associates who interviewed subjects . . . had 

previously completed a semester-long training 

program on Haan’s interactional model of 

morality and the techniques of structural 

scoring. . . . Each rater assigned a major and 

minor score to each story. The major score 

reflected [the] moral level that most closely 

corresponded to the underlying structure of 

the reasoning offered, while the minor score 

reflected secondary themes presented by the 

respondent. 167 

Beyond this assurance that the scorers were “welltrained,” 

Bredemeier supplied the reader with no 

further illumination. Yet the scoring enterprise 

must have involved a great deal of subjectivity. 

Unlike application of the DIT, where scoring is 

pretty mechanical, or even use of the Kohlbergian 

Standard Issue Moral Judgment Interview, where 

the scorer is constrained by an elaborate formula, 

in an interactional morality interview the scorer has 

enormous latitude. “Because interactional moral 

performance is thought to be creative,” writes 

Haan, “the [scoring] manual does not predetermine 

the formulations that will be scored.” 168 The 

moral performance is “creative” because moral 

agents in any situation are (in Bredemeier’s words) 

negotiating “interpersonal difficulties or potential 

conflicts of interest.” 169 The outcome of the 

performance is not governed by an antecedent 

principle but constructed from the situation-specific 

materials at hand. This means that assessing the 

moral level of an interview-subject’s response has 

to be a highly interpretive affair, and consequently 

depends on the assessor’s own grasp of morality 

and its demands. “[O]nly the complexity of 

another human’s mind,” declares Haan, “has a 

chance of encompassing and fathoming the critical 

meanings” in the subject’s response. 170 Now, 




if that other human’s mind – i.e., the scorer’s 

moral imagination and sensitivity – turns out to 

be rather uncomplex and limited, then, even with 

a semester-long course in interactional morality 

or close familiarity with a scoring manual, the 

interviewer’s score-assignments are likely to say 

more about her than about her interviewees. 

Thus, although the essays by Bredemeier and 

Shields teem with correlations and regressions, the 

numbers plugged into their equations – numbers 

representing levels of athletes’ moral thinking and 

levels of aggression – may have the substance 

of sand rather than stone. More importantly, 

Bredemeier and Shields’s insecure grasp of the 

nature of Norma Haan’s “interactional morality” 

threatens to subvert their very project. This point 

needs to be explained. 

A.1. MORAL MATURITY: WHAT ARE 

PSYCHOLOGISTS LOOKING FOR? 

When social scientists describe moral development, 

what are they describing? Are the most morally 

mature people those who consistently make 

morally right choices? If this is the criterion, 

then moral psychology is a branch of morality 

itself, and social scientists are moralists. On its 

surface, this picture derives support from Haan’s 

own account of “interactional morality.” Recall 

that the equilibration phase of moral development 

– as described by Bredemeier – is one in which 

“moral balances” reflect a certain desideratum: 

“all interests and needs [are coordinated] in 

an attempt to optimize situationally specific 

potentialities for mutually satisfying responses to 

interpersonal difficulties.” This looks like a straightforward 

moral criterion, on the same order as the 

utilitarian’s famous principle endorsing only those 

“moral balances” that maximize everyone’s wellbeing. 

Haan, herself, doesn’t shy from this way of 

understanding her theory: 

The question for researchers in social 

science then becomes clear: Are there 

common characteristics of humans and 

their social interactions that invariably 

result in common but tacit undertakings 

about the nature and ground of morality? 

If such a moral ground – an Ought 

– exists as a universal agreement, the 

differing, practical instances of morality 

that can be observed . . . could be 

alternative manifestations of the same 

underlying Ought. The current search, 

then, is for an Ought common to 

humankind... 171 

The tenets of interactional morality – especially 

the characterization of the equilibration stage as 

most adequate – rest on an explicit moral ground, 

namely “that a person’s view of what is good for 

him or her and the other’s good should be served 

as equally as possible...[I]n both process and 

outcome, equality is the cherished moral value.” 172 

For Haan, when psychological researchers elicit 

from subjects responses to hypothetical moral 

dilemmas, the researchers must inevitably 

assess “the moral adequacy of the dialogues and 

resolutions they witness.” 173 She takes Kohlberg 

to be misguided in claiming empirical validation for 

his stages when, in fact, they are “based on moral 

grounds,” as are her own stages. 174 

Bredemeier and Shields followed Haan’s lead. 

Consequently, their assigning of particular pieces 

of thinking by their athlete-subjects to different 

“developmental” levels involved (implicitly if not 

explicitly) nominating some of the pieces as morally 

inferior. Nevertheless, they felt as social scientists 

fully justified in their approach, taking refuge in 

two (specious) syllogisms from Haan. The first: 

“(a) implicit value assumptions are inherent in all 

scientific investigation, (b) moral research does 

not require commitment to any additional values 

and, therefore, (c) research on morality can be 

scientific.” The second syllogism: (a) values 

implicit in science are egalitarian; (b) therefore 

scientists are warranted in taking the basic value 

in morality to be egalitarian. This latter is a “thin” 

assumption for social scientists to make, insist 

Bredemeier and Shields, because it does not 

resolve all moral disputes. Morally 




mature persons can arrive at divergent 

positions in response to the same moral 

dilemma. In such cases, the social 

scientist cannot designate one position as 

better than another without transgressing 

the bounds of science and entering the 

domain of philosophical ethics.” 175 

Thin or not, if Haan’s egalitarian assumption 

(embedded in her equilibration phase) doesn’t 

resolve all moral disputes, it does stamp a solution 

on some of them, and Bredemeier and Shields have 

already stepped into the “domain of philosophical 

ethics” whether they intended to or not. 176 

In a 2001 essay, Shields and Bredemeier reflect 

again on the proper role of the social scientist. 

They claim that as scientists they are exploring not 

the content of moral reasoning by their subjects 

but its structure. They analogize their inquiries to 

that of the structural linguist, who seeks to uncover 

the deep grammatical structure of language. Just 

as structural linguists are not concerned about the 

truth of particular sentences a speaker might utter, 

[w]hen structural developmentalists 

assess moral development, they are not 

analyzing the correctness of a person’s 

moral beliefs. People who are equally 

mature may hold very different beliefs 

about moral issues. . . . [S]tructural 

developmentalists are interested in the 

relative adequacy of the structure that 

generates . . . beliefs. 177 

But when are people equally mature? Haven’t 

Haanian developmentalists already built the 

“correctness of a person’s moral beliefs” right into 

their notion of maturity? 

Shields and Bredemeier, in fact, have given 

different and conflicting accounts of what 

constitutes moral maturity and structural adequacy. 

For example, in a 1986 essay, Bredemeier and 

Shields observed that their athlete-subjects 

consistently drew a distinction between legitimate 

robust, hard-nosed play and illegitimate efforts to 

hurt or injure. 

[W]ith the exception of one player, all 

athletes . . . agreed that mild expressions 

of aggression were legitimate. Is 

this acceptance of minor aggression 

necessarily an indication of moral 

immaturity? . . . We suggest that differing 

opinions about the legitimacy of various 

aggressive acts may have several sources 

including philosophical differences of 

opinion as well as inadequate moral 

reasoning. There are two basic 

criteria, however, that we believe all 

developmentally mature individuals would 

implicitly or explicitly acknowledge. First, 

any act intended to inflict an injury that 

reasonably could be predicted . . . [to] 

impair a person in his or her everyday life 

function [is illegitimate] . . . Second, any 

intentionally injurious act is illegitimate if 

it occurs apart from strategic employment 

of game-constitutive skills... 178 

In this passage, the moral maturity of an agent 

corresponds to her affirming the content of two 

propositions. 

By contrast, in their 2001 chapter in the Handbook 

of Sports Psychology, Shields and Bredemeier 

offer a properly structural characterization: 

development is “change . . . from less adequate to 

more adequate” structures, a change marked by 

increasing differentiation and integration. 

Differentiation refers to increased 

refinement in the psychological structure 

that enables the individual to recognize 

and respond appropriately to more 

complex and more subtle aspects of 

experience. Integration is the structural 

reorganization through which external 

phenomena are comprehended in a more 

integrated and parsimonious manner. 179 

This characterization of development is morally 

neutral. People with quite different moral outlooks 




can possess full sensitivity to the complexity 

of situations and can integrate this complexity 

into views with ample scope and power to 

yield reasonable (though opposed) judgments. 

Moreover, this characterization is neutral between 

different developmental accounts like Kohlberg’s 

and Haan’s. 

However, this neutral characterization of 

structure doesn’t do any real work for Shields 

and Bredemeier, since they overlay it with Haan’s 

interactional theory. And at different times they 

describe the latter in slightly but importantly 

different ways. At one place they say Haan’s 

assimilative phase is one “in which moral balances 

are egocentrically constructed.” 180 To this repeated 

depiction Bredemeier adds a small elaboration, 

describing the “maturing individual’s capacity 

to engage in constructive moral dialogue” as 

evolving from an assimilative phase in which 

“others’ interests and needs are not given equal 

consideration to those of the self.” 181 Thus, the 

assimilative phase is not one in which people 

simply do favor moral balances that serve their 

self-interest but rather one in which they lack the 

capacity to “negotiate” other kinds of balances. 

This point becomes clearest in their 2001 essay in 

the Handbook of Sports Psychology, where Shields 

and Bredemeier note that in the assimilative phase, 

the egocentric person is not selfish but, “due to 

developmental limitations, is unable to comprehend 

with equal clarity and urgency the felt needs and 

desires of others.” 182 

A.2. GAME THINKING 

Why is it important to tease out the various 

accounts offered by Shields and Bredemeier of the 

assimilative phase? It is important because it lets 

us see how the centerpiece of their work – their 

theory of “game thinking” – falls apart. In their 

studies Shields and Bredemeier find that their 

subjects score “higher” on life-hypotheticals than 

game-hypotheticals. 183 Sport reasoning, they find, 

is much more egocentric than life 

reasoning . . . Our interviews led us 

to conclude that when people enter 

sport they tend to shift their moral 

perspective in the direction of egocentric 

reasoning. 184 

Now, if the claim here amounted to the proposition 

that sports competitors are single-minded in 

their pursuit of victory, “game thinking” would 

be no novelty and Shields and Bredemeier would 

have discovered nothing. They are quite aware 

that different contexts license different kinds of 

behavior. In a football stadium, for example, fans 

are permitted to scream and yell as loudly as 

they want whereas such behavior would be wholly 

inappropriate in a department store, a theater, 

or a church. When different contexts legitimate 

different conduct, Bredemeier and Shields call 

this a “first-order” change. This is not what goes 

on in sports play, they insist. Their interviews 

show a “second-order” change, “an alteration 

in the underlying pattern of decision-making or 

justificatory reasoning.” The “internal structure” of 

game reasoning is “regressive-like . . . paralleling 

a lower level of maturity in many respects.” 185 A 

“transformation” in moral reasoning has taken 

place, they contend. 186 

However, their interviews don’t show any such 

thing. Shields and Bredemeier discover only that 

their subjects – athletes and non-athletes alike 

– focus more on self-regarding goals when they 

respond to sports-hypotheticals than when they 

respond to life-hypotheticals. To indicate “secondorder 

change” taking place, this differential 

response must indicate that when they play sports 

athletes regress in the sense that they become 

incapable of understanding their opponent’s 

interests. They must suffer diminished capacity to 

“negotiate” egalitarian “moral balances.” 

Now, individuals at an assimilative phase of moral 

maturity focus on their own success; and athletes 

in games focus on their own success. But to 

conclude from these two propositions as Shields 

and Bredemeier do that athletes in their games 

are reasoning at an assimilative level elevates the 

Fallacy of an Undistributed Middle into a scientific 

procedure. The slight equivocation, already noted, 




in the way Shields and Bredemeier describe the 

assimilative phase – as a phase exhibiting a kind 

of reasoning some people might favor or as a 

phase exhibiting a kind or reasoning some people 

cannot transcend because of developmental 

limitations – leads them into the conflation of 

structure and content. This conflation is evident 

in one of their formulations of game reasoning 

(partially quoted just above): sport, they say, 

“elicits a transformation of moral reasoning 

such that egocentrism, typically the hallmark of 

immature morality, becomes a valued and accepted 

principle.” 187 This formulation, although it starts 

by hinting at structural change (“transformation”), 

ends by invoking content (“principle”). 

A.3. MORAL CONFUSION 

Bredemeier and Shields are driven toward their 

game-reasoning thesis because they think it an 

implication of Haan’s interactional morality. What 

happens in game reasoning, according to Shields 

and Bredemeier, is the “suspension of the typical 

moral obligation to equally consider the interests of 

all parties.” 188 Here they fall into two errors. The 

first is thinking that “life” is generally governed 

by Haan’s egalitarian principle and the second is 

thinking athletes suspend it in games. 

Shields and Bredemeier follow Haan in seeing 

“life” as a set of negotiated moral balances among 

persons of different desires and needs. Further, 

only those moral balances generated by a “truthidentifying” 

dialogue are morally acceptable. 

A truth-identifying dialogue is one in 

which all relevant parties are included, 

no party dominates, all parties have 

equal access to information pertinent 

to themselves and the situation, and a 

consensus is achieved. Thus, moral truth 

is created only when dialogue results in 

unforced and informed consensus that 

is pragmatically accepted by all relevant 

parties as mutually beneficial in their 

ongoing lives. 189 

However, there is no such “equalization premise 

of everyday morality.” 190 Everyday morality is 

saturated through and through with preexisting 

duties, rights, powers, and liberties. The main 

moral challenge facing most people most of the 

time is to carry out faithfully the responsibilities 

that go with their roles and offices. The convicted 

criminal has desires and needs different from those 

of the judge about to sentence him, no doubt, but 

moral balance is not achieved by having the two 

negotiate a consensual agreement. A teacher 

about to assign a deserved flunking grade to one 

of her students needn’t take into account the 

disappointment of the student’s grandmother, 

although she is an affected party. A straying 

husband thinking of mending his ways doesn’t 

honor his marriage vows by assembling a powwow 

among himself, his mistresses, and his wife 

so that they can identify the course mutually 

beneficial to them all. An elderly woman who 

wants to leave all her money to Oxfam instead of 

her dissolute nephew need only consult her lawyer. 

A battered wife having taken refuge in a safe-house 

is not morally bound to assure that her loutish 

husband has “equal access to information pertinent 

to themselves and their situation,” including 

information about her location. 

There are certainly many situations in life where 

preexisting duties remain unclear or where 

countervailing moral forces come into play, 

situations where moral opacity and undetermined 

liberty make it incumbent on people who fall into 

conflict to “negotiate” their way to a fair outcome. 

But this is only a small part of everyday moral 

life. To offer the “equalization premise” as a moral 

constraint on action generally is silly. 

Shields and Bredemeier are free to step directly 

into the domain of “philosophical ethics” if they 

wish and try to save their equalization principle by 

qualifying it in various ways. They might argue 

that the principle applies not directly to individual 

actions but to the rules, practices, and institutions 

under which individuals act. That is to say, a 

society’s rules, practices, and institutions ought 

to be ones informed people of good-will assent 




to. So amended, the principle still tells us nothing 

determinate about morality since people don’t, in 

fact, universally assent to the rules, practices, and 

institutions under which they live. Perhaps, then, 

Shields and Bredemeier could qualify the principle 

further and have it say that rules, practices, and 

institutions do justice when they are such that 

all informed people of good will would assent to 

them were the people in a fair bargaining position 

and able to choose the basic institutional scheme 

for their common life. The problem with this step 

toward a standard contractarian conception of 

morality is that it moves the equalization principle 

far away from “everyday life” and the specific 

sports contexts to which Shields and Bredemeier 

want to apply it. 

The real problem, however, is not that Shields and 

Bredemeier commit themselves to an inadequate 

and ill-defended moral view. The real problem is 

that they misapply the equalization principle to 

sport itself. Instead of indicting sports as a realm 

of egocentrism, if anything the principle does the 

reverse. Shields and Bredemeier glimpse this 

point in their 2001 essay in the Handbook of Sport 

Psychology but then let their insight slip away. 

Sports competition has no difficulty achieving and 

maintaining egalitarian moral balance, as Shields 

and Bredemeier there observe: 

[I]n a game . . . competitors are in moral 

balance if they are in basic agreement 

about the informal norms of play and all 

parties are complying with those norms. 

. . . [If imbalance does occur, it can be 

restored. For example, if] a soccer player 

is tripped in violation of both the rules 

and informal player norms, the moral 

dialogue [between players] may take the 

form of the offended player’s hitting the 

offending player with extra force during 

a later play to communicate [where 

the proper boundaries are and ought to 

remain]. 191 

Furthermore, as Bredemeier and Shields 

note elsewhere, in games “the process of fair 

competition is facilitated by each party assuming 

self-interest (or team interest) as the primary 

focus.” 192 Thus, they go against their own insight 

when they then go on to claim that sport suspends 

the typical obligation to consider equally the 

interests of all parties. 193 On the contrary, sport is 

one of the few venues in life where the egalitarian 

principle is best met. 

The clearly marked field of play, the rules, the 

refereeing, the matching together of teams with 

the same level of experience and same physical 

capacities, and the informal “boundary policing” 

that takes place during play – all of these establish 

and maintain a condition that takes account of 

participants’ interests. All of the players want a 

chance to perform well and win. Those wants are 

served by a fair set of rules and a division of labor: 

once play starts, Team A tries to do well against 

Team B and is not terribly concerned if Team B is 

not doing well against it. This lack of concern is 

not somehow morally regrettable. When Shields 

and Bredemeier say that “[t]here is little room in 

sport for equally considering the desires, goals, 

and needs of opponents,” they mean that once play 

starts, there is little room for Team A to consider 

(except tactically) Team B’s desire to win. 194 So 

what? Why should there be room? If a member 

of Team A, after its having gone up a goal, is so 

moved by the laments of Team B’s parents on 

the sidelines and by the visible demoralization of 

Team B’s players on the field that she deliberately 

scores an own-goal to make things right, she is not 

displaying moral maturity but just its opposite. 

One the other hand, if Shields and Bredemeier 

maintain that before play starts the sport context 

precludes consideration of the interests of all 

parties, then they contradict themselves. They’ve 

already noted, correctly, that everyone’s interests 

– given fair rules of play in a well-refereed, evenlymatched 

contest – are facilitated by single-minded 

pursuit of winning. 

In sum, despite its impressive credentials and great 

influence, the work of Bredemeier and Shields 

leaves a great deal to be desired. It makes many 




important claims but conceptual sloppiness robs the 

claims of credibility. The athletes Bredemeier and 

Shields interview intuitively draw the right lines, 

but Bredemeier and Shields won’t listen to them. 

The athletes refuse to be hobbled by an unsuitable 

definition of aggression. They distinguish between 

robust play and “boundary-policing,” on the one 

hand, and dangerous play outside the constitutive 

skills and rules of the game, on the other. They 

know what is legitimate and what is not. They 

further understand that their single-focused pursuit 

of victory takes place within a fair and egalitarian 

contest that honors the desires of competitors all 

around. Their single-focused play doesn’t make 

them inferior or immature moral thinkers. 

B. STOLL, LUMPKIN, BELLER AND HAHM 

Work generated out of Sharon Kay Stoll’s Center 

for Ethics at the University of Idaho deserves a 

brief mention. Angela Lumpkin, Sharon Kay Stoll, 

and Jennifer M. Beller are authors of a text, Sport 

Ethics: Applications for Fair Play, that, because 

it is endorsed by the National Association for 

Sport and Physical Education, gets used in a lot 

of college classrooms. 195 Moreover, work by Stoll 

and associates often gets cited on behalf of the 

proposition that athletes reason at a lower moral 

level than nonathletes. A great deal of this work 

remains unpublished. Some of it relies on the 

DIT to measure moral development and some 

on the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory 

(HBVCI), devised by Chung Hae Hahm and Jennifer 

Beller in 1989 - 1992. It and the “intervention” 

programs run by the Center for Ethics purport to 

be based on “deontological” moral theory, which 

holds that “an inherent rightness apart from all 

consequences exists in making moral decisions.” 196 

The HBVCI “evaluates, from a deontological or 

ideal philosophy, how individuals use principles to 

reason.” 197 It has been used on 40,000 athletes, 

Stoll and Beller contend, 198 and the findings are 

grim: 

empirical evidence from the HBVCI 

supports previous sport psychologist’s 

[sic] and sport sociologist’s [sic] 

hypotheses that the longer athletes 

participate in sport, the less able they are 

to reason morally. Specifically, results 

show a steady decline in moral cognitive 

reasoning from ninth grade through 

university age populations... In essence, 

this evidence tells us that athletes have 

lost or turned off their abilities to think 

and reason for themselves. 199 

But there is hope. “The philosophical intervention 

program [run by the Center] proposes that all sport 

and social dilemmas can be solved using a morally 

reasoned approach based on impartial, consistent, 

and reflective critical thinking” 200 – and the 

intervention program works astonishing success. 

Athletes “can meet or move beyond their peer 

group” in moral thinking in as little as eighteen 

weeks. 201 

The clumsy and fractured accounts of moral theory 

that accompany Sport Ethics probably do little 

harm to its intended readers, who can give most of 

their attention to the many case descriptions and 

hypotheticals that make up the book. The HBVCI 

figures in few research projects beyond those at 

the Idaho Center. It’s relation to the Kohlberg 

stages is obscure; its equivalence to the DIT is 

unexplained; and its scoring is done by the Idaho 

Center. Most of the work based on it remains 

inaccessible. The alleged findings of Stoll and 

associates need not be taken seriously. 

VII. APPENDIX B 

A. KOHLBERG 

The stage theory of moral development set out 

by Lawrence Kohlberg in the 1960s and 70s has 

had enormous influence in the social sciences 

and educational theory. Although the theory has 

now faded considerably as a live research project 

(until recently a residual neo-Kohlbergian program 

remained active at the University of Minnesota), 

it continues to hold sway over the textbook 

knowledge of thousands of teachers, education 

officials, psychologists, and others. It shows up in 




the work of sports scholars and researchers. 

According to Kohlberg, moral development 

progresses through six stages, two stages to a 

level. In the preconventional level, the agent acts 

from fear of punishment or in blind obedience 

(stage 1) or comes to view rule-following as 

instrumental to his purposes, recognizing the 

personal value of reciprocal exchanges and fair 

bargains (stage 2). In the conventional level, 

the agent increasingly conforms his behavior to 

other’s expectations and thinks by means of the 

Golden Rule (stage 3), reaching a level where he 

identifies more broadly with the social system 

and its imperatives (stage 4). Finally, in the 

postconventional level, the agent’s attachment to 

the social system evolves into a conception of the 

common good as a “social contract,” which gives 

him a platform for measuring the worth of, and 

criticizing, existing law and custom (stage 5). Only 

a minority of adults achieve stage 5. Beyond this 

stage, available to the rare individual is a stage 

of “self-chosen universal principles” (stage 6), in 

which the agent judges by reference to universal 

principles that all perfectly rational and impartial 

agents would adopt. 202 

Kohlberg developed a set of dilemma-stories that 

were supposed to reveal the moral stage of those 

who responded to them. The most famous is 

called “Heinz and the Drug:” 

In Europe a woman was near death from 

a special kind of cancer. There was one 

drug that doctors thought might save her. 

It was a form of radium that a druggist in 

the same town had recently discovered. 

The drug was expensive to make, but 

the druggist was charging ten times what 

the drug cost to make. He paid $200 

for the radium and charged $2,000 for a 

small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s 

husband, Heinz, went to everyone he 

knew to borrow money, but he could 

only get together about $1,000... He 

told the druggist that his wife was dying, 

and asked him to sell it cheaper or let 

him pay later. But the druggist said, 

“No, I discovered the drug and I’m going 

to make money from it.” So Heinz got 

desperate and began to think about 

breaking into the man’s store to steal the 

drug for his wife. 

An interviewer would tell the Heinz story to a 

subject and ask her if she thought Heinz should 

steal the drug and why or why not. To establish a 

moral stage score, the interviewer elicited enough 

responses to identify the subject’s justifications 

and then matched them to one of 500 Criterion 

Judgments in a scoring manual. The Criterion 

Judgments were developed by Kohlberg and his 

associates to locate the content of a subject’s 

response within in a particular point of view or 

perspective. 

This feature of the Criterion Judgments was 

important because in the early formulations of 

his theory Kohlberg tended to identify particular 

content with a particular developmental stage. 

A subject who thought Heinz should not steal 

the drug because he might be punished for 

doing so was automatically assigned to stage 

one. However, because the moral stages were 

supposed to reflect structural developments in 

an individual’s moral life, tying scoring so closely 

to specific content undermined the coherence of 

developmental theory. Individuals at different 

developmental stages might offer the same 

responses to a dilemma. Thus, responses needed 

to be differentiated by locating them within an 

overall perspective used by the respondent. Did 

the respondent’s concern that Heinz might be 

punished for stealing reflect her inability to take 

a perspective larger than reward-and-punishment 

or was it connected to other reasons that showed 

she judged from a broader social perspective? The 

Criterion Judgments were meant to capture both 

the variety of answers subjects might give and 

their connection to a particular perspective. 203 

By the mid-1970s the Kohlberg theory was widely 

embraced in the academy but also beginning to 

draw criticism. One objection to the theory was 




summed up in Haan’s comment, noted above: 

Kohlberg was not measuring moral maturity but 

“learned sophistication.” The fact that the highest 

scorers – the most “morally mature” – among 

Kohlberg’s subjects turned out to be philosophy 

graduate students 204 should have given the game 

away to any observer: Haan was right. A person’s 

ability morally to size up a particular situation 

and react appropriately to it is different than her 

ability to articulate why she is reacting as she 

does. Relying on subjects’ verbal answers to posed 

dilemmas pushed results in favor of the facile, not 

the mature. In particular, the kind of facility that 

would rate an individual as a stage 5 or stage 6 

thinker is the kind undergraduate and graduate 

students pick up in political science and moral 

philosophy courses. 205 

Even as an account of “learned sophistication,” the 

Kohlbergian stages are problematic. The highest 

stage requires moral thinkers to justify conduct 

by reference to completely general and abstract 

principles – but because of their abstractness 

and generality, these principles don’t do any 

real justificatory work in real-life situations. For 

example, suppose you think you ought to act in 

a particular situation as a fully rational individual 

would act (the principled perspective typifying 

stage 6). Your supposition gives you zero 

guidance. To identify an actual course of action 

you ought to follow, you have to supplement your 

“rational individual” principle by a morally concrete 

depiction of your situation; but once the concrete 

depiction is rendered rich enough, it (and not the 

principle) seems to do the heavy lifting in any 

moral justification you offer. 

Kohlberg’s guiding ambition was to marry 

two ideas, one from psychology and one 

from philosophy, to build a theory of moral 

development. 206 The idea from psychology is 

differentiation (an idea we’ve already encountered 

in discussing Shields and Bredemeier): individuals 

performing at a low cognitive level rely on simple 

ideas and associations and as they develop 

cognitively, they become able to make distinctions 

among a richer repertoire of ideas and to put 

these ideas to work in arguments of greater 

subtlety and power. The idea from philosophy 

is universalizability: for a claim about what an 

individual ought to do in a particular circumstance 

to count as moral it must be universalizable, 

that is, binding on every similarly-situated 

individual. 207 Universalizability constrains 

the form of moral discourse, not its content. 

Kohlberg thought that his higher moral stages 

were more adequate in a double sense. First, 

they are more adequate psychologically. They 

reflect increasing differentiation. Second, they 

are more adequate morally. They better honor 

the demands of universalizability. 208 However, 

while differentiation is something that can occur in 

degrees, universalizability is not. A proposition is 

either universalizable or it isn’t. Thus, Kohlberg’s 

higher stages are not more morally adequate 

when measured by the purely formal criterion of 

universalizability. 

Initially, Kohlberg conceived of the stages as 

representing, roughly, egoism (I do what’s good 

for me), social chauvinism (I do what’s good for 

my society), and principle (I do what rational 

agents would agree to do). Certainly, many who 

understand Kohlberg only from textbook accounts 

still treat his stages this way. Properly understood, 

however, judgments at any of these stages can be 

universalized. The astute egoist, for example, can 

subscribe to the principle, “Let each person act in 

his own self-interest,” and the astute chauvinist 

can subscribe to the principle, “Let each person act 

in the interest of his own society.” If the egoist’s 

principle and the chauvinist’s principle are deficient 

in some way, the deficiency cannot lie in lack 

of universality. 209 Thus, Kohlberg has no basis 

for describing his higher stages as morally more 

adequate unless he substitutes an ideological for 

a structural account of them. The Kohlbergian 

thus faces a dilemma. Taking the ideological road 

turns what is supposed to be an empirical theory 

into a moral theory (Haan chided Kohlberg for not 

owning up to this corollary; she thought his theory 

as ideological as her own); while staying off the 

ideological road leaves the theory unable to explain 

why the stages are stages in moral development. 




B. NEO-KOHLBERGIANISM 

After Kohlberg’s death in 1987, the center of 

gravity of his stage development research shifted 

to the University of Minnesota, where over the 

years James Rest utilized his Defining Issues Test 

(DIT) to assess the moral stages of thousands of 

students. Rest devised the DIT as an alternative to 

the Kohlberg moral interview, which is labor- and 

time-intensive. The DIT is a short pen-and-pencil 

test that collects subjects’ responses to posed 

dilemmas. It makes possible the mass testing 

of subjects at low cost. To assure comparability 

of results, the DIT has used the same set of 

dilemmas and questions for thirty years. 210 

However, during this time, the theory behind the 

test has altered dramatically. In its canonical 

statement, the neo-Kohlbergian approach posits 

three cognitive schema (i.e., mental patterns new 

information is fitted into) – the preconventional, 

the conventional (or “maintaining norms”), and the 

postconventional. The DIT measures only the latter 

two, since it is not administered to children under 

age twelve. 211 Moreover, these two measured 

schema have a highly specialized but limited 

role in a person’s moral economy: they underlie 

her “solutions for creating a society wide system 

of cooperation.” In other words, they shape a 

person’s response to a question of macromorality: 

“how to organize cooperation among strangers and 

competitors in a state system.” 212 Thus, schema 

level measurements are not informative about 

individual maturity with respect to micromorality, 

i. e., the common, everyday contexts of decisionmaking. 

The space between solutions to the 

“general cooperation” problem and solutions to 

everyday problems has to be filled by “intermediate 

concepts” which comprise norms of decency, care, 

responsibility, loyalty, and beneficence appropriate 

to a specific cultural, institutional, and legal 

order. 213 The DIT does not test for “levels” of 

intermediate concept application. Indeed, writes 

Rest and associates, “we do not even know yet 

whether or not intermediate concepts . . . follow a 

general developmental sequence.” The concrete 

understanding ordinary people display about 

everyday circumstances is not captured by neo- 

Kohlbergian theory or practice. 214 

However, if all this is the case, then the DIT or 

any other instrument that purports to capture 

neo-Kohlbergian stages is largely irrelevant to 

inquiries about the moral understanding and moral 

development of athletes as they play their games, 

go to school, interact with their families, form 

friendships, and set goals for themselves. On its 

own terms, neo-Kohlbergian theory cannot reach to 

this level of life. 




ENDNOTES 

1 Charles W. Kennedy, Sport and Sportsmanship (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 

1931), pp. 1, 8. 

2 Margaret Gatz, Michael A. Messner, and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach, eds., Paradoxes of Youth and Sport 

(Albany, New York: SUNY Press, 2000), “Introduction,” p. 5. 

3 See Revised European Sports Charter at http://cm.coe.int/ta/rec/1992/92r13rev.htm (visited November 

12, 2003). 

4 See Vivian Reding’s comments at www.eyes-2004.info/219.0.html (visited November 11, 2003). 

5 See President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, www.fitness.gov/aboutpcpfs.aboutpcpfs.html 

(visited November 11, 2003). 

6 Christopher L. Stevenson, “Socialization Effects of Participation in Sport: A Critical Review of the 

Research,” Research Quarterly, 46 (1975), p. 297. 

7 Bruce C. Ogilvie and Thomas A. Tutko, “Sport: If You Want to Build Character, Try Something Else,” 

Psychology Today, 5 (October 1971), p. 61. 

8 Andrew W. Miracle and C. Roger Rees, Lessons of the Locker Room: The Myth of School Sports 

(Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1994), pp. 92, 88. 

9 David Light Shields and Brenda Light Bredemeier, “Moral Development and Behavior in Sport,” in Robert 

N. Singer et al., eds, Handbook of Sports Psychology, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001), 

p. 598. See also David Lyle Light Shields and Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier, Character Development and 

Physical Activity (Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1995), pp. 2, 104, 107, 179, 187, 190; D. 

Stanley Eitzen, Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman 

& Littlefield, 1999), p. 54; Barry D. McPherson and Barbara A. Brown, “The Structure, Processes, and 

Consequences of Sport for Children,” in Frank L. Smoll et al., eds., Children in Sport, 3rd ed. (Champaign, 

Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1988), pp. 273, 274; Agnes Elling, Paul De Knop, and Annelies Knoppers, 

“The Social Integrative Meaning of Sport: A Critical and Comparative Analysis of Policy and Practice in 

the Netherlands,” Sociology of Sport Journal, 18 (2001), pp. 419, 422; Paul De Knop and Kristine De 

Martelaer, “Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Youth Sport in Flanders and the Netherlands,” 

Sport, Society & Education, 6 (2001), p. 36; Margaret Gatz, Michael A. Messner, and Sandra J. Ball- 

Rokeach, “Introduction,” in Gatz et al., eds., Paradoxes of Youth and Sport, p. 5; Jay Coakley, “Using 

Sports to Control Deviance and Violence Among Youths: Let’s Be Critical and Cautious,” in Gatz et al., 

eds., Paradoxes of Youth and Sport, pp. 23-4; James Curtis, William McTeer, and Philip White, “Do High 

School Athletes Earn More Pay?” Sociology of Sport Journal, 20 (2003), p. 23; Jay Coakley, Sport in 

Society: Issues and Controversies, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2001), pp. 91-2, 93; Sharon K. Stoll 

and Jennifer M. Beller, “Do Sports Build Character?” in John R. Gerdy, ed., Sports in School: The Future 

of an Institution (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000), pp. 20, 24; Maureen R. Weiss, “Psychological 

Effects of Intensive Sport Participation on Children and Youth: Self-Esteem and Motivation,” in Bernard R. 

Cahill and Arthur J. Pearl, eds., Intensive Participation in Children’s Sports (Champaign, Illinois: Human 

Kinetics, 1993), p. 39. For claims (asserted or reported) that sports participation is actually harmful to 




character development, see Bob Bigelow, “Is Your Child Too Young for Youth Sports or Is Your Adult Too 

Old?” in Gerdy, ed., Sports in School, p. 7; Stoll and Beller, “Do Sports Build Character?” p. 25; Robert 

W. McCabe, “The Rise of American Sport and the Decline of American Culture,” in Gerdy, ed., Sports 

in School, p. 140; Maria Kavussanu and Glyn C. Roberts, “Moral Functioning in Sport: An Achievement 

Goal Perspective”, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23 (2001), p. 38; David Lyle Light Shields and 

Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 

2 (1996), p. 379; Mary E. Duquin, “Gender and Youth Sport: Reflections on Old and New Fictions,” in 

Smoll et al., eds., Children in Sport, pp. 35-6; Nancy Theberge, “A Critique of Critiques: Radical and 

Feminist Writings on Sport,” Social Forces, 60 (December 1981), p. 341. 

10 Stevenson, “Socialization Effects,” p. 292. 

11 The National Federation of State High School Associations, which “believe[s] that interscholastic 

sports and fine arts promote citizenship and sportsmanship,” provides in support a list of studies and 

surveys showing positive correlations between sports participation and variety of desirable outcomes 

(see www.nfhs.org/scripcontent/va_custom/va_cm/contentpagedisplay.cfm?content_id=71) (visited May 

11, 2004). See also Shields and Bredemeier, Character Development and Physical Activity, pp. 181ff; J. 

A. Fox and S. A. Newman, “After-School Crime or After-School Programs: Tuning In to the Prime Time 

for Violent Crime and Implications for National Policy” (report to the U. S. Attorney General, 1997), 

cited in Martha E. Ewing, Lori A. Gano-Overway, Crystal F. Branta, and Vern D. Seefeldt, “The Role of 

Sports in Youth Development,” in Gatz et al., eds., Paradoxes of Youth and Sport, p. 39; H. W. Marsh, 

“Extracurricular Activities: Beneficial Extensions of the Educational Curriculum or Subversion of Academic 

Goals?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (1992), pp. 553-562; N. Fejgin, “Participation in High 

School Competitive Sports: A Subversion of School Mission or Contribution to Academic Goals?” Sociology 

of Sport Journal, 11 (1994), pp. 211-230. 

12 Stevenson, “Socialization Effects,” p. 294. 

13 See Miracle and Rees, Lessons of the Locker Room, p. 85; McPherson and Brown, “The Structure, 

Processes, and Consequences of Sport for Children,” p. 273; Coakley, Sport in Society, p. 92; Curtis, 

McTeer, and White, “Do Athletes Earn More Pay?” p. 73; Herbert W. Marsh, “The Effects of Participation 

in Sport During the Last Two Years of High School,” Sociology of Sport Journal, 10 (1993), p. 21; Ralph 

B. McNeal, “Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts,” Sociology of Education, 68 (1995), p. 

75; Beckett A. Broh, “Linking Extracurricular Programming to Academic Achievement: Who Benefits and 

Why?” Sociology of Education, 75 (2002), p. 70; Andrew Guest and Barbara Schneider, “Adolescents’ 

Extracurricular Participation in Context: The Mediating Effects of Schools, Communities, and Identity,” 

Sociology of Education, 76 (2003), p. 103. 

14 Eitzen, Fair and Foul, p. 54. 

15 Shields and Bredemeier, Character Development and Physical Activity, p. 122. 

16 Shields and Bredemeier, “Moral Development and Behavior in Sport,” p. 592. 

17 Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning and Their Assertive, Aggressive, and 

Submissive Tendencies in Sport and Daily Life,” Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16 (1994), p. 12. 






20 Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” pp. 376, 379. 

21 Duquin, “Gender and Youth Sport,” pp. 35-6. 

22 Gatz, Messner, and Ball-Rokeach, “Introduction,” p. 5. (describing views of “critical sports theorists”). 

23 John Gerdy, “Want Value for Education Dollars? Try Music!” in Gerdy, ed., Sports in School, p. 134. 

24 Olgivie and Tutko, “Sport: If You Want to Build Character, Try Something Else,” p. 61. 


26 Elling, De Knop, and Knoppers, “The Social Integrative Meaning of Sport,” p. 419; Coakley, Sport in 

Society, pp. 91-92. 

27 A few pages before he attributes all the apparent influence of sport to “selection effects,” Stanley 

Eitzen contends that sport participation “fosters the admirable traits of courage, determination, hard 

work, fairness, respect, sacrifice, selflessness, and loyalty.” Eitzen, Fair and Foul, p. 43. 

28 “[S]port . . . promotes rule-breaking, selfishness, greed, contempt for opponents, and violence on the 

field as well as deviant behavior off the field.” Eitzen, Fair and Foul, p. 43. 

29 See Mary E. Duquin and Kate Schroeder-Braun, “Power, Empathy, and Moral Conflict in Sport,” Peace 

and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2 (1996), p. 352. 

30 See Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning,” p. 2 (aggression is “a hostile, coercive act involving selfexpression 

at the expense of others”); Brenda Jo Bredemeier, “Moral Reasoning and Perceived Legitimacy 

of Intentionally Injurious Sports Acts,” Journal of Sport Psychology, 7 (1985), pp. 110, 111, 113-4 (intent 

to injure defines a continuum that begins with nonphysical intimidation); Dawn E. Stephens and Brenda 

Jo Light Bredemeier, “Moral Atmosphere and Judgments About Aggression in Girls’ Soccer: Relationships 

Among Moral and Motivational Variables,” Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18 (1996), pp. 158- 

9, 166 (aggression is “the initiation of an attack with the intent to injure”); Brenda Jo Bredemeier and 

David Shields, “The Utility of Moral Stage Analysis in the Interpretation of Athletic Aggression,” Sociology 

of Sport Journal, 1 (1984), p. 141; Brenda Jo Bredemeier and David L. Shields, “Athletic Aggression: An 

Issue of Contextual Morality,” Sociology of Sport Journal, 3 (1986), p. 22 (aggression “refers to an overt 

act intended to psychologically or physically injure . . .”); Roger R. VanDyke, “Aggression in Sport: Its 

Implications for Character Building,” Quest, 32 (1980), p. 202 (aggression is the “intent to inflict harm 

. . . on the opposition”); Michael D. Smith., “Significant Others’ Influence on the Assaultive Behavior of 

Young Hockey Players,” International Review of Sport Sociology, 3-4 (1974), pp. 46, 53-4 (aggression 

equated with violent assault, the latter including both legal and illegal bodychecking). 

31 For a useful conceptual analyses of “aggression” and “violence” and a discussion of their moral 

valence, see Jim Parry, “Violence and Aggression in Contemporary Sport,” in M. J. McNamee and S. J. 




Parry, eds., Ethics & Sport (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 204-224. 

32 On Kohlberg’s account, there are six stages of moral development (assembled in three levels, 

preconventional, conventional, and postconventional). Stage 1 agents guide their behavior solely by 

reference to reward and punishment; stage 2 agents calculate according to self-interest; stage 3 agents 

factor into their calculations mutual expectations and role-requirements; stage 4 agents guide adhere to 

norms that help stabilize and maintain the social system; stage 5 agents think in terms of social contracts 

and contractually-derived rights; and stage 6 agents apply universal ethical principles. See Lawrence 

Kohlberg, Essays in Moral Development, 3 vol. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) and F. Clark Powers, 

Ann Higgins, and Lawrence Kohlberg, Lawrence Kohlberg’s Approach to Moral Education (New York: 

Columbia University Press, 1989). 

33 See Carol Gilligan, In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, 

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982); Nell Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral 

Education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Norma Haan, Eliane Aerts, and Bruce A. B. 

Cooper, Moral Grounds: The Search for Practical Morality (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984); 

James Rest, Daria Narvaez, Muriel J. Bebeau, and Stephen J. Thoma, Postconventional Thinking: A Neo- 

Kohlbergian Approach (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates, 1999). 

34 On this last point: the theories are supposed to measure moral maturity. A theory fails to do this if, 

for example, it says that a morally mature person must oppose capital punishment. Such a theory is no 

longer describing a process of maturation but dividing the world into people with “correct” and “incorrect” 

views on a morally contentious issue. Kohlberg fell into this error, contending that “postconventional 

thinkers” at stage 6 (the highest stage of moral development) would (consistent with their principled 

thinking) condemn capital punishment as immoral (Kohlberg, Essays on Moral Development, vol. I, p. 

244). For an account of Kohlberg’s confusions on this point, see Robert K. Fullinwider, “Moral 

Conventions and Moral Lessons,” in Randall Curren, ed., Philosophy of Education (Oxford: Blackwell 

Publishers, forthcoming 2006). For a further account of how a theory of development can illicitly 

embody substantive views, see Russell Gough, “Moral Development Research in Sports and Its Quest for 

Objectivity,” in M. J. McNamee and S. J. Parry, eds., Ethics & Sport (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 137- 

147. See also Bill Puka, “The DIT and the ‘Dark Side’ of Development,” Journal of Moral Education, 31 

(2002), pp. 339-352. 

35 Shields and Bredemeier’s numerous studies about the effects of sports participation on moral 

reasoning or moral maturity are cited constantly. A parallel body of work – also sometimes cited in sports 

studies – has emanated from the Center for Ethics founded by Sharon Stoll at the University of Idaho. 

See Stoll and Beller, “Do Sports Build Character?” pp. 18-30; and Angela Lumpkin, Sharon Kay Stoll, and 

Jennifer M. Beller, Sports Ethics: Applications for Fair Play, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1999). These 

two streams of research – the Shields-Bredemeier stream and the Stoll et al. stream – are discussed 

further and in detail in Appendix A. 

36 Kavassanu and Roberts, “Moral Functioning in Sport: An Achievement Goal Perspective,” p. 37. 

37 Kavassanu and Roberts, “Moral Functioning in Sport: An Achievement Goal Perspective,” p. 37; 

Christopher Hickory and Lindsay Fitzclarence, “Educating Boys in Sport and Physical Education: Using 

Narrative Methods to Develop Pedagogies of Responsibility,” Sport, Education and Society, 4 (March 

1999), p. 55 




38 Council of Europe – Recommendation No. R (95) 16, at http://cm.coe.int/ta/rec/1995/95r16.html 

(visited May 14, 2003); Kavassanu and Roberts, “Moral Functioning in Sport: An Achievement Goal 

Perspective,” p. 37; Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” p.380; Shields and 

Bredemeier, Character Development and Physical Activity, pp. 191-2; Stoll and Beller, “Do Sports Build 

Character?” p. 49; Jack W. Berryman, “The Rise of Highly Organized Sports for Preadolescent Boys,” in 

Smoll et al., eds., Children in Sport, p. 12; Poinsett, “The Role of Sports in Youth Development.” 

39 Kavassanu and Roberts, “Moral Functioning in Sport: An Achievement Goal Perspective,” p. 37; 

Poinsett, “The Role of Sports in Youth Development.” 

40 Council of Europe, R (95) 16; Duquin and Schroeder-Braun, “Power, Empathy, and Moral Conflict in 

Sport,” p. 352; Eldon E. Snyder and Elmer Spreitzer, “Sociology of Sport: An Overview,” in Donald W. Ball 

and John W. Loy, eds., Sport and Social Order: Contributions to the Sociology of Sport (Reading, Mass.: 

Addison-Wesley, 1975), p. 13. 

41 Council of Europe, R (95) 16; Duquin and Schroeder-Braun, “Power, Empathy, and Moral Conflict in 

Sport,” p. 352 

42 Poinsett, “The Role of Sports in Youth Development.” 

43 Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” p. 379. 

44 Poinsett, “The Role of Sports in Youth Development;” Shields and Bredemeier, Character Development 

and Physical Activity, pp. 191-92; Berryman, “The Rise of Highly Organized Sports for Preadolescent 

Boys,” p. 12 

45 Stoll and Beller, “Do Sports Build Character?” p. 49. 

46 Stoll and Beller, “Do Sports Build Character?” p. 49. 

47 Snyder and Spreitzer, “Sociology of Sport: An Overview,” p. 13. 

48 Snyder and Spreitzer, “Sociology of Sport: An Overview,” p. 13; Eitzen, Fair and Foul, p. 42. 

49 Snyder and Spreitzer, “Sociology of Sport: An Overview,” p. 13. 

50 Kavassanu and Roberts, “Moral Functioning in Sport: An Achievement Goal Perspective,” p. 37; Snyder 

and Spreitzer, “Sociology of Sport: An Overview,” p. 13. 

51 Berryman, “The Rise of Highly Organized Sports for Preadolescent Boys,” p. 12 

52 Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” p.378. 

53 Duquin and Schroeder-Braun, “Power, Empathy, and Moral Conflict in Sport,” p. 352; Stephen C. Miller, 

Brenda J. L. Bredemeier, and David L. L. Shields, “Sociomoral Education through Physical Education with 

At-Risk Children,” Quest, 49 (1997), p. 114. 




54 Council of Europe, R (95) 16. 

55 Council of Europe, R (95) 16; McPherson and Brown, “The Structure, Processes, and Consequences of 

Sport for Children,” p. 273. 


57 Duquin and Schroeder-Braun, “Power, Empathy, and Moral Conflict in Sport,” p. 354 

58 Miller, Bredemeier, and Shields, “Sociomoral Education Through Physical Education,” p. 114. 

59 Terry D. Orlick and Anne Pitman-Davidson, “Enhancing Cooperative Skills in Games and Life,” in Smoll 

et al., eds, Children in Sport, p. 152. 

60 Randy Bonnette, Ron E. McBride, and Homer Tolson, “The Differential Effect of Indirect Instruction in 

the Teaching of Sport Skills on Critical Thinking and Self-Esteem in Early Adolescent Boys Placed at Risk,” 

Sport, Education and Society, 6 (2001), p. 192; Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” 

p. 370. 

61 Bonnette, McBride, and Tolson, “The Differential Effect of Indirect Instruction,” p. 192; Vicki Ebbeck 

and Sandra L. Gibbons, “The Effect of a Team Building Program in the Self-Conceptions of Grade 6 and 

7 Physical Education Students,” Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20 (1998), p. 306; Ewing et al., 

“The Role of Sports in Youth Development,” p. 31. 

62 A good summary description can be found in the American Legion code of sportsmanship. A player 

pledges: “I will keep the rules; keep faith with my teammates; keep my temper; keep myself fit; keep a 

stout heart in defeat; keep my pride under victory; keep a sound soul, a clean mind, and a healthy body.” 

63 For a good discussion of sportsmanship, see Anthony Skillen, “Sport Is for Losers,” in McNamee and 

Parry, eds., Ethics and Sport, pp. 169-181. 

64 One answer to this question is: because sport in all its forms supports an unjust social system. For 

example, according to George Sage, Power and Ideology in American Sport: A Critical Perspective, 2nd 

ed. (Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1998), “sport socializes young athletes to accept authoritarian 

leadership and the norms of segmentation and rationalization in the playplace. . . [T]he discourse 

of building character through sports turns out to emphasize forming traits admired in the capitalist 

workplace” (p. 265). According to Rod Beamish, “Karl Mark’s Enduring Legacy for the Sociology of 

Sport,” in Joseph Maguire and Kevin Young, eds., Theory, Sport & Society [Oxford, JAI, 2002], p. 31, 

sport supports the power of dominant classes by indoctrinating youth with the beliefs and values that 

sustain that power. And according to Jeremy W. Howell, David L. Andrews, and Steven L. Jackson, 

“Cultural and Sports Studiers: An Interventionist Practice,” in Maguire and Young, p. 161, 

Contextualizing youth soccer within the political economy of suburban American affluence 

uncovers soccer’s role in sublimating the very real social class relations . . . through which 

a suburban landscape of the powerful (white middle class) is bounded and experienced . . . 

[P]articipating in youth soccer is commonly viewed simply as a lifestyle choice, thereby effectively 




obscuring the very real economic barriers that preclude many from involvement . . . The 

uncomfortable notion of socioeconomic classes is erased, and the suburban middle class allowed 

to bolster its sense of self-righteous achievement and privilege.” 

The problem with this approach to sports is that it doesn’t, in the end, tell us anything about sports. 

From this perspective, everything the suburbanite does – from buying a house in a nice neighborhood, 

taking a vacation, enrolling his children in good public schools, watching the network news, and working 

at a well-paying job – bolsters his sense of achievement and obscures America’s class divisions. All major 

social institutions are conservative in the sense that their primary norms do not subvert the status quo 

– at least so long as they are part of a reasonably well-functioning society. Thus, ringing these themes 

about sports institutions doesn’t really illuminate them. The growing “Critical” literature on sports is not 

reviewed here (although it is referred to in the second motto at the head of this paper). 

65 Bill Pennington lists this number without citation (“As Team Sports Conflict, Some Parents Rebel,” 

New York Times, November 12, p. A1. Steven J. Danish offers the following figures: 20-35 million youth 

between ages 5-18 play in organized non-school sports (“Teaching Life Skills through Sport,” in Gatz et 

al. eds., Paradoxes of Youth and Sport, p. 49). Alex Poinsett, reporting studies by Margaret Ewing and 

Vern D. Seefeldt, contends that 22 million kids play a sport under the aegis of a national sponsor (such 

as Little League Baseball and Pop Warner Football); 2.4 million play in club-based sports; 14.5 million 

take part in “recreational” sports under the auspices of city and county recreation programs or nonprofit 

institutions; 7.4 million play interscholastic sports. Because children often play more than one sport, 

there is considerable double-counting in these figures. The estimate used in the text – 40 million overall 

– seems a conservative figure. 

66 Poinsett, “The Role of Sports in Youth Development.” Michael Clark, “Who’s Coaching the Coaches?” 

in Gerdy, ed., Sports in School, p. 55, gives a figure of 3.1 million coaches. The need for finding, 

training, and keeping coaches is ubiquitous. De Knop and De Martelaer (“Quantitative and Qualitative 

Evaluations of Sport in Flanders and the Netherlands,” pp. 43, 45) report on the problems confronting 

sport in the Netherlands. Poinsett’s estimate of untrained coaches may be out of date. See note 139 and 

accompanying text. 

67 Daniel Gould and Linda Petlichkoff, “Participation Motivation and Attrition in Young Athletes,” in Smoll 

et al., eds., Children in Sport (pp. 161-62), report that 42% of those who drop off a team do so because 

they have “other things to do,” 28% because they are “not having fun,” 24% because they “want to play 

another sport,” 24% because they are “not as good as they wanted to be,” 20% because they disliked 

coach, 16% because they felt “too much pressure,” 16% because they were bored, 16% because they 

found their sport “too difficult”). These figures obviously involve children giving multiple reasons for their 

team-leaving. Michael W. Passer, “Determinants and Consequences of Children’s Competitive Stress,” in 

Smoll et al., eds., Children in Sport, offers a “very rough guess” that “competitive pressure, overemphasis 

on winning, [and] dislike of coach” cause about 25-35% of dropouts (p. 217). 

68 Robert J. Rotella, Tom Hanson, and Richard H. Coop, “Burnout in Youth Sports,” Elementary School 

Journal, 91 (1991), p. 423. The drop-out picture drawn in this paragraph isn’t universally endorsed. 

Douglas E. Abrams, “The Challenge Facing Parents and Coaches in Youth Sports: Assuring Children Fun 

and Equal Opportunity,” Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 8 (2002), asserts that most kids 

quit sports because parents and coaches have “made them miserable” (p. 255), basing his assertion on 

an article by Eryn M. Doherty, “Winning Isn’t Everything . . . It’s the Only Thing: A Critique of Teenaged 




Girls’ Participation in Sports,” Marquette Sports Journal Law Journal, 10 (Fall 1999), who reports that 

the “number one reason” children drop out of sports is because they are no longer having fun (pp. 130, 

130n20). Doherty in turn is relying on a 1997 article in Sports Illustrated for Kids purportedly reporting 

results of a survey by the National Youth Sports Coaches Association. The figures and explanations 

offered by Gould & Petlichkoff, Passer, and Rotella, Hanson & Coop are much more trustworthy. 

69 John H. Lewko and Susan L. Greendorfer, “Family Influence in Sport Socialization of Children and 

Adolescents,” in Smoll et al., eds., Children in Sport, p. 288. 

70 Information about Colorado Springs sports can be gleaned from www.springsgov.com/SectionIndex.a 

sp?SectionID=6 (visited December 5, 2003) and www.thesportscorp.org/directory/programs.htm (visited 

December 7, 2003). Colorado Springs is probably unusually strong in its sports offerings because it is 

the home of the United States Olympic Training Center and over 40 national and international sports 

association headquarters. 

71 See Coakley, Sport in Society, p. 121; Eitzen, Fair and Foul, p. 69; De Knop and De Martelaer, 

“Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Sport in Flanders and the Netherlands,” p. 42. 

72 Pennington, “As Team Sports Conflict,” p. A1. 

73 Coakley, Sport in Society, pp. 124-26; Michael W. Passer, “Psychological Issues in Determining 

Children’s Age-Readiness for Competition,” in Smoll et al., eds., Children in Sport, p. 71; Bigelow, “Is Your 

Child Too Young for Youth Sports?” p. 11. 

74 Shane, “The Key to Enjoying Youth Sports,” p. 20; Pennington, “As Team Sports Conflict,” p. A1. 

75 Pennington, “As Team Sports Conflict,” p. A1. 

76 See www.beachfc.com/ColumbusDay02.html > (visited December 9, 2003); www.dallascup.com/ 

history/index_E.html (visited December 9, 2003). 

77 See www.orionhunter.com (select U12, select schedule) (visited December 10, 2003). 

78 Bill Osinski, “Swifter, Higher . . . and Costlier: Players, Parents Turn Increasingly to Sports Experts,” 

Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 18, 2003, p. 1JJ. 

79 A New York Times story describes a high school student who was practicing three hours in the evening 

on her travel volleyball team after two hours of basketball practice in the afternoon ( Pennington, “As 

Team Sports Conflict,” p. A1). 

80 Jacqueline L. Salmon, “Driven, Willingly, to Compete; Young Athletes on the Road Again and Again,” 

Washington Post, December 8, 1996, p. A1. 

81 Brown, “When the Fun Goes Out of Games,” p. Z10. The National Alliance for Youth Sport trumpets 

this high drop-out rate (70% by age 13) in its web pages. See www.nays.org/IntMain.cfm?Page=56&Cat 

=9&texyarea=drop%20out (visited January 5, 2004). 




82 Bigelow, “Is Your Child Too Young for Youth Sports?” p. 7. 

83 See www.nays.org/nays_community_recommendations.pdf (visited January 5, 2004). 

84 Gerdy, “Want Value for Education Dollars? Try Music,” p. 134. 

85 The essays by Abrams, “The Challenge Facing Parents and Coaches,” and Doherty, “Winning Isn’t 

Everything” constitute a “parade of horribles.” 

86 See www.mcleansoccer.org/aboutus/notnewsmemo/02news/0212mps.htm (visited December 10, 

2003). 

87 See www.mcleansoccer.org/travel/travman.htm (visited December 10, 2003). 



90 See http://dubuqueavalanche.home.mchsi.com (visited December 10, 2003). 

91 See www.dubuquesoccer.org/AboutUs.cfm (visited December 10, 2003). 

92 See www.dubuquesoccer.org/developmental.cfm (visited December 9, 2003). 

93 See www.crsoccer.com (visited December 9, 2003). 

94 See www.cvysa.org/CVYSA/CVYSABylaws.html (club manual) (visited December 10, 2003). 

95 See www.avalon.net/~icasc (visited December 12, 2003). 

96 See www.molinesoccerclub.com/mission.htm (visited December 12, 2003). 

97 See www.fcamerica.com (visited December 10, 2003). 

98 See www.qcstrikers.org (visited December 10, 2003). 

99 See, e.g., Bob Duffy, “The Changing Face of Sportsmanship,” Boston Globe, December 28, 2001, p. 

E1. 

100 See, e.g., Pamela Ferdinand, “Hockey Dad Found Guilty in Fatal Fight; Mass. Man Faces 20 Years in 

Manslaughter,” Washington Post, January 13, 2002, p. A7. 

101 Osinski, “Swifter, Higher . . . and Costlier,” p. 1JJ (mother’s 10 year-old has been living away from 

home since she was five to train with professional swimming coaches). 

102 It, too, offers extravagant but unsupported claims. See, e.g., Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, 

Militarism, and Peace,” p.379 (sport from little league to major league is plagued by a high level of 




violence). 

103 Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” p. 370; Orlick and Pitman-Davidson, 

“Enhancing Cooperative Skills in Games and Life,” p. 156. 

104 Craig Clifford and Randolph M. Feezell, Coaching for Character: Reclaiming the Principles of 

Sportsmanship (Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1997), p. 13. See also Shields and Bredemeier, 

“Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” p. 375. 

105 See a similar account by Robert L. Simon, Fair Play: Sport, Values and Society (Boulder, Colorado: 

Westview Press, 1991), pp. 23-26. 

106 Of course, this reciprocal “raising of the game” occurs between two more or less equally matched 

opponents. A contest between ill-matched teams doesn’t make your team play its finest game ever, since 

it is either blowing out the other team or getting blown out. Thus, sports leagues work hard to match like 

with like – on the basis of age-level, physical prowess, experience, record of achievement, and similar 

factors. 

107 See, for example, Abrams, “The Challenge Facing Parents and Coaches.” 

108 De Knop and De Martelaer, “Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Sport in Flanders and the 

Netherlands,” p. 44. 

109 Coakley, Sport in Society, p. 112. 

110 Sally Anderson, “Practicing Children: Consuming and Being Consumed By Sports,” Journal of Sport 

and Social Issues, 25 (August 2001), pp. 238-9. 

111 Anderson, “Practicing Children,” pp. 239-40. 

112 Anderson, “Practicing Children,” p. 244. 

113 Anderson, “Practicing Children,” p. 229. 

114 A similar caution arising in a different context can be found in Merita Irby, Thaddeus Ferber, and 

Karen Pittman, Youth Action: Youth Contributing to Communities, Communities Supporting Youth, 

Community Youth Development Series, vol. 6 (Takoma Park, Maryland: The Forum for Youth Initiatives, 

International Youth Foundation, 2001), where the authors challenge the generally held notion that “youth 

are incapable of adopting adult roles” in community action and mobilization campaigns (p. 3). 

115 De Knop and De Martelaer, “Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Sport in Flanders and the 

Netherlands,” p. 42. 

116 See www.marching.com/events/index.html (visited December 1, 2003). 

117 See www.lafayette.fayette.k12.ky.us/band/0304 (visited January 12, 2004). 




118 See www.wtshminutemenband.com (visited January 12, 2004). 

119 Passer, “Determinants and Consequences of Children’s Competitive Stress,” p. 214. 

120 Ewing et al., “The Role of Sports in Youth Development,” p. 41 

121 For example, Michelle Nario-Redmond, Jill S. Norton, and Jonathan Lindsay, in “Catholic Diocese 

South Neighborhood Profile” (Cleveland: Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Case Western 

Reserve University, June 2001), report that only 12 percent of children between ages 6-12 and 24 percent 

between ages 13-17 participate in organized recreational activities in South Neighborhood, a poor area 

of Cleveland (p. 16). See also Jerry Zgoder, “Beyond the Games; The Business of High Schools Sports,” 

Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 23, 2003, p. A 18. 

122 See, e.g., Kirk Johnson, “For New York, 25-Year Losing Streak,” New York Times, January 13, 1999, 

p. A1. 

123 Ewing et al., “The Role of Sports in Youth Development,” p. 42 (citing work by Branta and Goodway, 

see below). 

124 Crystal F. Branta and Jacqueline D. Goodway, “Facilitating Social Skills in Urban School Children 

Through Physical Education,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2 (1996), pp. 309, 317. 

125 A predecessor study, the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 completed its 

surveys in 1986. A new Department of Education initiative, Education Longitudinal Study 2002, builds on 

and extends the data from the three previous series of interviews. 

126 Donald Sabo, Merrill J. Melnick, and Beth E. Vanfossen, “High School Athletic Participation and 

Postsecondary Educational and Occupational Mobility: A Focus on Race and Gender,” Sociology of Sport 

Journal, 10 (1993), pp. 47-49. 

127 Sandra L. Hanson and Rebecca S. Kraus, “Women in Male Domains: Sport and Science,” Sociology of 

Sport Journal, 16 (1999), p. 104. 

128 Marsh, “The Effects of Participation in Sport During the Last Two Years of High School,” pp. 30-1. 

129 Broh, “Linking Extracurricular Programming to Academic Achievement,” p. 76. 

130 McNeal, “Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts,” pp. 74, 75. 

131 McNeal, “Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts,” pp. 74, 76; Marsh, “The Effects of 

Participation in Sport During the Last Two Years of High School,” p. 35. 

132 Hanson and Kraus, “Women in Male Domains: Sport and Science,” pp. 94-5. 

133 Broh, “Linking Extracurricular Programming to Academic Achievement,” pp. 78-9. 

134 The sport sociologist Jay Coakley, in Sport and Society, asks the question, “Are organized youth 




sports worth the effort?” and answers: yes, “when the adults controlling them put the children’s interest 

ahead of the program’s organizational needs to gain status through their association with child athletes” 

(p. 135); but he provides no firm basis for thinking that subordinating children’s interests is a pervasive 

and widespread phenomenon or merely an occasional local aberration. 

135 Jay Coakley writes in Sport and Society: “There is need for research on sport participation careers 

among young children and on how those careers are linked to overall social development” (p. 105). 

136 See www.usahockey.com (click on “youth” and click on “zero tolerance”) (visited January 20, 2004). 

137 See www.nfhs.org/coaches_ed.htm and www.asep.com (visited January 20, 2004). 

138 See www.positivecoach.org/subcontent.aspx?SecID=95 (visited (January 20, 2004). 

139 See www.nays.org/IntMain.cfm?Page=1&Cat=3 (visited January 20, 2004). 

140 See www.nays.org/nays_community_recommendations.pdf (visited January 20, 2004). 

141 See www.usyouthsoccer.org/ (visited January 20, 2004). 

142 See www.nays.org/IntMain.cfm?Page=13&Cat=2 (visited January 20, 2004). 

143 See www.sportsmanship.org/ (visited January 20, 2004). 

144 See www.aacap.org and www.momsteam.com/welcome.shtml (visited January 20, 2004). 

145 Singer, Handbook (2001). 


147 David Lyle Light Shields, Brenda Jo Bredemeier, Douglas E. Gardner, and Alan Bostrom, “Leadership, 

Cohesion, and Team Norms Regarding Cheating and Aggression,” Sociology of Sport Journal 12 (1995), p. 

325. 

148 Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic Aggression: An Issue of Contextual Morality,” p. 15; Shields and 

Bredemeier, Character Development and Physical Activity, pp. 119-120 (“entry into sport requires a 

transformation of cognition and affect” to a style of “moral reasoning [that] is much more egocentric . . . 

than life moral reasoning”). 

149 Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” pp. 375, 380. 

150 Shields and Bredemeier, “Moral Development and Behavior in Sport,” p. 595; Bredemeier and 

Shields, “Athletic Aggression: An Issue of Contextual Morality,” p. 15; Stephens and Bredemeier, “Moral 

Atmosphere and Judgments About Aggression in Girls’ Soccer,” p. 166; Bredemeier, “Moral Reasoning and 

Perceived Legitimacy of Intentionally Injurious Sports Acts,” p. 111. 

151 Bredemeier and Shields, “The Utility of Moral Stage Analysis in the Interpretation of Athletic 




Aggression,” p. 141. 

152 Stephens and Bredemeier, “Moral Atmosphere and Judgments About Aggression in Girls’ Soccer,” p. 

163. 

153 Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning,” p. 6. 



155 Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic Aggression,” p. 22. 

156 Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic Aggression,” pp. 23, 25. 

157 In Brenda Jo Bredemeier and David L. Shields, “Game Reasoning and Interactional Morality,” Journal 

of Genetic Psychology, 147 (June 1986), “intimidation” and “physical retribution” are called aggressive 

and equated with “hurting people” (p. 262), yet neither intimidation by a player nor physical retribution 

need be intended to injure (the assumed definition of ‘aggression,’ p. 263). 

158 For a fuller description of the stages, see Anne Colby and Lawrence Kohlberg, The Measurement 

of Moral Judgment, vol. 1: Theoretical Foundations and Research Validation (New York: Cambridge 

University Press, 1987), pp. 18-19. 

159 The original scoring method devised by Kohlberg and his associates was extremely labor-intensive, 

requiring extended interviews with subjects that were then scored according to an elaborate protocol (see 

Anne Colby and Lawrence Kohlberg, The Measurement of Moral Judgment, vol. 2: Standard Issue Scoring 

Manual [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987]). 


Aggression,” p. 142. This was the study in which the aggressiveness of subjects was measured in two 

ways: by coaches’ assessment of their players and by tabulating player fouls per minute played. Given 

the definition of aggression used by Bredemeier and Shields, it is not surprising that they found no 

correlation between players foul-quotient and their level of moral reasoning (p. 146). 



163 Bredemeier, “Moral Reasoning and Perceived Legitimacy of Intentionally Injurious Sports Acts,” p. 

111. 

164 Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning,” p. 2 

165 Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning,” p. 2; Bredemeier, “Moral Reasoning and Perceived 

Legitimacy of Intentionally Injurious Sports Acts,” p. 111. 





167 Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning, p. 4. 

168 Haan, Aerts, Cooper, Moral Grounds, p. 95. The scoring manual referred to by Haan, and used by 

Bredemeier and Shields, has never been published. 


170 Haan, Aerts, Cooper, Moral Grounds, p. 342. 

171 Haan, Aerts, Cooper, Moral Grounds, pp. 24-5. 

172 Haan, Aerts, Cooper, Moral Grounds, pp. 39, 40. 




176 For another related analysis of Haan’s methodology, see Gough, “Moral Development Research in 

Sports and the Quest for Objectivity,” pp. 134-47. 


178 Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic Aggression,” p. 23. Emphasis added and transitions between 

paragraphs elided. 


180 Bredemeier, “Moral Reasoning and Perceived Legitimacy of Intentionally Injurious Sports Acts,” p. 

111; Shields and Bredemeier, “Sport, Militarism, and Peace,” p. 372. 

181 Bredemeier, “Children’s Moral Reasoning,” pp. 1-2 (emphasis added.) 



184 Shields and Bredemeier, Character Development and Physical Activity, pp. 120, 122. 

185 Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic Aggression,” pp. 21, 22. 


187 Shields and Bredemeier, “Moral Development and Behavior in Sport,” p. 593. Emphasis added. 




188 Shields and Bredemeier, “Moral Development and Behavior in Sport,” p. 593; Shields and 

Bredemeier, Character Development and Physical Activity, p. 113; Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic 


189 Bredemeier and Shields, “Athletic Aggression,” pp. 17-18. 



192 Bredemeier and Shields, “Game Reasoning and Interactional Morality,” p. 272. 



195 2nd Ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999). 

196 Jennifer M. Beller and Sharon Kay Stoll, Moral Reasoning and Moral Development in Sport Review 

and HBVCI Manual (Moscow, Idaho: Center for Ethics, University of Idaho, 1992), p. 69. Moral theorists 

often distinguish between deontological and consequentialist moral theories. Deontologists argue that 

the foundation of morality lies in duty or right; consequentialists argue that moral practices take their 

ultimate justification from the overall balance of human welfare they create. The dispute between 

deontologists and consequentialists interests philosophers but it has no bearing on actual moral practice, 

including the goods and bads of sports participation. The reason is this: each philosophical account 

purports to explain all of morality’s main features. If some basic duty (e. g., treat all persons as ends 

in themselves, never as mere means) underlies all of morality, nevertheless this duty must provide 

room (and support) for the creation of conventional roles and practices, many of which will have as their 

point the production of good consequences. Likewise, if the basic grounding of morality lies, e. g., in 

its tendency to maximize human happiness, this grounding must be compatible with (and support the 

creation of) conventional roles and practices, some of which will impose strict duties and obligations on 

agents that limit their acting to accomplish good ends. A deontological theory of morality must recognize 

social roles like “parent” where the role-holder’s duty is to promote the welfare of other agents, and a 

consequentialist moral theory must recognize social roles that impose duties (like the fiduciary duty of a 

lawyer holding money in trust for a minor) that restrain the discretion of the duty-holder to promote the 

welfare of others. The word ‘deontological’ has no significant meaning when used by Beller and Stoll. 

197 Sharon K. Stoll and Jennifer M. Beller, “Does Sport Build Character?” in Gerdy, ed., Sports in School, 

p. 21. 

198 Stoll and Beller, “Does Sport Build Character?” p. 22. 

199 Beller and Stoll, Moral Reasoning and Moral Development in Sport Review and HBVCI Manual, p. 54. 

200 Beller and Stoll, Moral Reasoning and Moral Development in Sport Review and HBVCI Manual, p. 69. 

201 Lumpkin, Stoll, and Beller, Sport Ethics; Applications for Fair Play, p. 4. 




202 Colby and Kohlberg, The Measurement of Moral Judgment, vol. 1, pp. 18-19. 

203 Colby and Kohlberg, The Measurement of Moral Judgment, vol. 1, pp. 17, 35, 41-48. A brief 

description of the scoring procedure can be found in Jan Boom, Daniel Brugman, and Peter G. M. van 

der Heijden, “Hierarchical Structure of Moral Stages Assessed as a Sorting Task,” Child Development, 72 

(March-April, 2001), pp. 538-39. 

204 Colby and Kohlberg, The Measurement of Moral Judgment, vol. 1, p. 33; James Rest, “An 

Interdisciplinary Approach to Moral Education,” in Marvin Berkowitz and Fritz Oser, eds., Moral Education: 

Theory and Application (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985), p. 17. 

205 That Kohlberg’s moral stages really measure a certain kind of cognitive sophistication correlated 

with education is convincingly demonstrated in Theo L. Dawson, “A Stage is a Stage Is a Stage: A Direct 

Comparison of Two Scoring Systems,” Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164 (2003), pp. 335-64; and Theo 

L. Dawson and Sonya Gabrielian, “Developing Conceptions of Authority and Contract Across the Lifespan: 

Two Perspectives,” Developmental Review, 23 (2003), pp. 162-218. 

206 See Harvey Siegel, “On Using Psychology to Justify Judgments of Moral Adequacy,” in Sohan Modgil 

and Celia Modgil, eds., Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and Controversy (Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 

1986), pp. 65-78. 

207 Colby and Kohlberg, The Measurement of Moral Judgment, vol. 1, p. 10. 

208 Lawrence Kohlberg, “Stages of Moral Development as a Basis for Moral Education,” in Brenda Munsey, 

ed., Moral Development, Moral Education, and Kohlberg: Basic Issues in Philosophy, Religion, and 

Education (Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press, 1980), pp. 17, 42-43. 

209 Kohlberg failed to see this point because he conflated universality and generality. Generality, unlike 

universality, does come in degrees. To see the difference between universality and generality, consider 

these three principles: (i) “Each person needs to concern himself with his self-interest only;” (ii) “Each 

person needs to concern himself with the interest of fellow citizens only;” (iii) “Each person needs to 

concern himself with the interests of all mankind.” All three principles are fully universal (they are all 

governed by the universal quantifier, “for any person, that person needs...”) but the scope of concern 

broadens from the first to the third - the last principle is more general than the second and the second 

more than the first. Now, whether our scope of concern ought to extend to fewer or greater number is 

itself a moral question that can’t be decided by appeal to purely formal or logical considerations. 

210 The Center for the Study of Ethical Development, founded by Rest and directed by him until his death 

in 1999, released a new instrument five years ago, DIT 2, that uses fewer and different hypothetical 

dilemnas for subjects to respond to. DIT 2 putatively yields results matching those generated by DIT. The 

latter is still distributed by the Center, housed at the University of Minnesota. 

211 Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma, Postconventional Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach, pp. 31- 

46. 

212 Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma, Postconventional Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach, pp. 




111, 15. 

213 Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma, Postconventional Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach, p. 2. 

214 Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma, Postconventional Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach, p. 13. 




CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement) promotes research 

on the civic and political engagement of Americans between the ages of 15 and 25. Although CIRCLE 

conducts and funds research, not practice, the projects that we support have practical implications 

for those who work to increase young people’s engagement in politics and civic life. CIRCLE is also a 

clearinghouse for relevant information and scholarship. CIRCLE was founded in 2001 with a generous 

grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts and is now also funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York. It is 

based in the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. 

www.civicyouth.org 

48

The All-Sports Ministry of PA NJ & DE - Executive Summary Start-Up Budget & Prospectus

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?