Collective reaction to injustice in intercollegiate athletics: Injustice to women and student athletes as test cases
Journal of Sport and Social Issues; Thousand Oaks; Aug 1999; Daniel F Mahony;

Volume: 23
Issue: 3
Start Page: 328-352
ISSN: 01937235
Subject Terms: College sports
Women
Athletes
Justice
Abstract:
Organizational justice research has suggested that collective action is often necessary to change the distribution of resources. Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton have identified seven factors that increase the likelihood of collective action.

Full Text:
Copyright Sage Publications, Inc. Aug 1999
[Headnote]
Organizational justice research has suggested that collective action is often necessary to change the distribution of resources. Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton have identified seven factors that increase the likelihood of collective action. The current study demonstrates that an examination of these seven factors can be useful in explaining why women have been able in recent years to increase their relative share of the resources in intercollegiate athletics. The factors also help explain why the women's sport teams do not yet receive the same share as the men's teams. Finally, these factors can be helpful in explaining why student athletes have been largely unsuccessful in increasing their relative share of the resources during a period in which women have experienced some success.

Organizational justice researchers have been examining how people evaluate the fairness of resource distribution for many years (e.g., Greenberg, 1990; Rawls, 1971; Tornblom & Jonsson, 1985). Some have been particularly concerned with how individuals react to what they perceive as injustice and how they bring about change through collective action (Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). When an individual believes a distribution is unjust, there are a variety of ways they can react, including asking those with power to change the distribution or leaving the organization that is distributing the resources unfairly (Adams, 1965; Hirschman, 1970). They may also choose to do nothing and simply accept the unjust distribution (Adams, 1965; Hirschman, 1970). When a group of individuals agree that the distribution of resources or the means of distribution is unfair, they can react collectively to bring about change or they may simply accept the unjust distribution and ignore the opportunity for collective action. A key tenet of organizational researchers is that collective action is a necessary condition to bring about major change in the distribution of resources. This article will examine conditions that increase the chance that a group will choose collective action.

Sheppard et al. (1992) have identified two major theories with regards to the conditions that lead to collective action. First, some researchers (Blumer, 1969; Smelser, 1962) have suggested that "collective action occurs only periodically as (aggregate) feelings (of tension and alienation) culminate in the need for a collective response" (Sheppard et al., 1992, p. 101). Second, other researchers (Gamson, 1975; McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Tilly, 1978) have suggested that collective action occurs because of"changes in the relative availability of power, such that alienated groups feel they have a chance at succeeding at efforts to rebalance the power equation" (Sheppard et al., 1992, p. 101).

Combining these two schools of thought, Sheppard et al. (1992) identified the following seven factors that could increase the likelihood of collective action:

1. The injustice is pervasive.

2. There is widespread disaffection with the agent of injustice.

3. An active leader emerges to mobilize a coalition against the causal agent.

4. Recipients of the injustice can communicate easily among themselves, so as to mobilize a response.

5. There is a shift in power toward the disadvantaged group.

6. Large power differences exist between the agent and the recipient of injustice.

7. Perceived class differences exist between the agent and the recipients of injustice.

Many would agree that power within college athletics has generally rested with male coaches, particularly those in revenue sports, and with male administrators. However, the author would argue that although these groups still have most of the power and still are the dominant force in college athletics, there has been some shift in power during the last 25 years as a result of collective action. Opportunities for women athletes at the college level have risen dramatically since the passing of Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994). Ten times as many women are participating in college athletics today when compared with the late 1960s (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994). In addition, the amount of money spent on women's sports has increased dramatically during the same period of time (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). These increased budgets are significant because they represent increases in items such as scholarships, number of games, and travel money (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992).

Despite the increases in opportunities for women athletes, all of the trends have not benefited women and some of the positive changes have come slowly. The number of opportunities for women in administration has declined and most of the new coaching opportunities in women's sports have gone to men (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994). Most schools still offer more scholarships for male athletes and spend considerably more money on male sports (Fulks, 1994; Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Despite the advances made in the last 25 years, women are still struggling to enforce the intent of Title IX and proportionality at most schools is still a dream (Brady, 1995a). Schrof (1994) notes that, "Nearly every measure of parity . . . favors male athletes. When the NCAA recently polled 646 member colleges, it found that 645 weren't even close to meeting equity standards" (p. 51). Kathryn Reith, the former Advocacy Director for the Women's Sports Foundation, has argued that "the process has stalled" and that `we're sort of stuck at that level of discrimination that the educational institutions are comfortable with" (Morse, 1992, p. 199).

Although the women have been making some advances in their attempt to change the distribution of resources in college athletics, the student athlete continues to be exploited. Even the former NCAA director, Walter Byers, admitted that the NCAA is "firmly committed to a neoplantation belief that the enormous proceeds from college games belong to the overseers and the supervisors" (Byers, 1995, pp. 2-3). As schools have looked to cut costs, athletic scholarships have frequently been the target (Byers, 1995), and many leaders in college sports have refused to discuss the possibility of an additional stipend (Mott,1994; Park,1996; Thorne,1996). At the same time, the number of administrative and coaching positions has increased (Fulks, 1994), and the average salaries of administrators and coaches have increased at a remarkable rate (Byers, 1995; Sperber, 1990). Although coaches often leave schools during the middle of their contract, many athletes who transfer (particularly revenue sport athletes) must sit out 1 year (Sperber, 1990). With the exception of the 20-hour-a-week rule (which is generally violated by coaches), an analysis of the last 25 years would show that the NCAA has made very few changes that directly benefit the student athlete, and none that has increased the athlete's share of the resources (Byers, 1995).

This article will use Sheppard et al's (1992) seven factors that influence the likelihood of collective action to answer three questions. First, why were women able to change the distribution methods in college athletics and thereby increase the relative share for women of the resources and participation opportunities? Second, why have women not been able to reach a point at which the relative share of the resources for men and women in college sports is essentially equal? Third, why have college student athletes not been able to use collective action to change the distribution methods to increase their share of the resources?

THE SUCCESS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION BY WOMEN

POSITIVE CHANGES FOR WOMEN IN COLLEGE SPORTS

An analysis of data from NCAA financial studies from 1973 to 1993 suggests that a change has occurred in the distribution of athletic resources (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). As compared to 1973, women have approximately 57 more participation opportunities at NCAA schools, whereas men have 27 fewer opportunities (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Women also have about 3.5 more varsity sports, whereas the men's programs lost an average of 1 sport per school (Mahony & Pastore, 1998).

Although only about 34.64% of the budget for sport teams went directly to women's sports at NCAA schools in 1993, the proportion of the budget spent on women's sports has increased significantly in the last 20 years (Mahony & Pastore,1998). According to the analysis of NCAA institutions, less than 4% of the budget for sport teams went to women's sports in 1973 (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). It should be pointed out that there were no scholarships for women athletes at that time, due to the rules of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), and that the physical education department often supplied substantial support for women's athletics (including the paying of coaches'/teachers' salaries) (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994; Cheska, 1966). However, there has even been an increase in the female share of the budget since 1981. In that year, 22.47% of the budget for sport teams went directly to women's sports, which means there has been an increase in the female sports share of 12.17% in 12 years (Mahony & Pastore, 1998).

The "loser" in this shift in resources has clearly been the men's nonrevenue sports. Despite constant complaining by coaches of men's revenue sports, particularly football (Brewington, 1995; Brown, 1992a; Neinas, 1995; Teaff,1995; Wolff,1993), the football budget has continued to grow at a rate that is greater than the increase in the consumer price index (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). For example, expenses for football at Division I-A schools increased by 29.53% (almost $1 million dollars per year) from 1989 to 1993 (Fulks, 1994; Mahony & Pastore, 1998), whereas the consumer price index only increased by 16.5% during this same period (Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1995, 1996). Although the percentage of the budget that went to women's sports did increase dramatically during the same period (52.36%), the total dollar increase in Division I-A women's sport team budgets ($570,000) was still only slightly more than half of the dollar increase in expenses for football alone (Fulks, 1994; Mahony & Pastore, 1998). In contrast to the revenue sports, expenses for men's nonrevenue sports at Division I-A institutions only increased $322,000 during the period from 1989 to 1993.

Although the portion of the total budget that has gone to revenue sports has declined about 2.5% during the last 12 years (Mahony dc Pastore, 1998), this is not significant when one considers a number of factors. First, the total amount of money spent on college sports has been increasing much faster than the consumer price index (in other words, the money being spent on revenue sports still continues to increase rapidly) and the yearly dollar increases in the budgets of the revenue sport budgets are still much greater than the dollar increases for women's sports. Second, the maximum number of scholarships for revenue sports teams were decreased during this time period (which should have naturally decreased their share of the budget). Third, the NCAA has passed other rules (i.e., recruiting rules) that were partially intended to decrease the amount of money spent on recruiting in the revenue sports. The bias toward the men's revenue sports in the budgeting process is still quite strong.

A much larger portion, about 8% to 9%, of the money shifted to women's sports during the period from 1981 to 1993 was taken from the men's nonrevenue sports (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Men's nonrevenue sports received 37.27% of the total sports team budget in 1981 and only 28.62% in 1993, the first point at which they received less than the women's sports. It is clear that there has been a large shift in resources and participation opportunities from men's nonrevenue sports to women's sports, and a small shift in the percentage of the budget from the men's revenue sports to the women's sports. Sheppard et al.'s ( 1992) seven factors influencing collective action can help to explain how and why this shift occurred.

INJUSTICE IS PERVASIVE

Opportunities for women interested in competitive sports in the late 1960s and early 1970s were very limited. It is estimated that only about 16,000 women competed in college sports in 1966 to 1967 (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994). Opportunities did increase somewhat during the early to mid1970s, but women still represented less than 20% of the athletes at NCAA institutions (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). In addition, none of these women athletes were able to receive athletic scholarships until the mid-1970s (Hult, 1989). Financial support for the women's athletic programs was almost nonexistent. Schools spent less than $ 10,000 a year directly on intercollegiate sports for women up until the mid-1970s (Cheska, 1966; Raiborn, 1978). As previously discussed, a large portion of the financial support for women's sports on the college level came from the Physical Education Department (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992; Cheska, 1966). Most women coaches were physical education instructors whose salary was paid by the department (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992; Cheska, 1966). This fact suggests that the $ 10,000 amount underestimates the actual amount of money spent on women's sports. In addition, many women coaches were volunteers who received no compensation for the heavy workload they assumed as coaches. It is clear that women coaches were often part-time coaches with full-time responsibilities elsewhere.

In 1972, the opportunities for male athletes who wished to compete at the college level were much better than the opportunities for women. Approximately 165,000 men were competing at NCAA schools alone in 1973 (Raiborn, 1978). Therefore, more than 90% of the athletic participation opportunities in NCAA institutions were provided to men in 1973. Also in 1973, Division I schools were already spending more than $1.5 million annually on the men's sports programs (Raiborn, 1978). At the same time that schools were making a very small investment in women's sports ($10,000), they were already committing a large amount of money to men's athletic teams. It is clear by looking at these numbers that the opportunities and resources spent on men's college sports were significantly larger than what was afforded the women. In the early 1970s, injustice was pervasive.

WIDESPREAD DISAFFECTION WITH THE AGENT OF INJUSTICE

The dissatisfaction with elements of the male-dominated society of the 1960s and 1970s was widespread. The women's liberation movement was becoming stronger and women were becoming more outspoken with regards to injustice within society. Women's athletics became a focal point for the women's liberation movement in a large part because of the visibility of athletes in American society (Guttman, 1991). The men involved with college athletics were an "easy" target for frustrated women for a number of reasons. First, many were clearly male chauvinists who looked down on women. Even today, coaches who want to insult a male athlete tell him that he "played like a girl" (Coakley, 1994). In their very macho world, women were and still are often seen as being inferior. Second, when women pushed to change the world of college sports, male coaches were not very open to change. They immediately did their best to fight against changing their operations in accordance with Title IX. NCAA lobbyists fought against the passage of Title IX throughout its legislative history (Gates, 1984). Furthermore, the NCAA even tried to file a lawsuit to prevent Title IX from being applied to college sports (Morse, 1992). Third, men's athletics had received widespread criticism and challenge via the counterculture movement and women's athletics came to be viewed by many observers as a movement for positive change in college athletics (Edwards, 1973). Overall, disaffection with the agents of injustice was present both inside and outside of college athletics.

AN ACTIVE LEADER EMERGES TO MOBILIZE A COALITION AGAINST THE CAUSAL AGENT

Billie Jean King provided symbolic leadership to the gender equity movement, whereas Donna Lopiano was and continues to be outspoken regarding the need to increase opportunities for women. She has written or been quoted in numerous newspaper articles (e.g., Herwig, 1992; Lopiano, 1995) and books (Lopiano & Zotos, 1994). Her role as a spokeswoman has helped to provide focus for the gender equity movement and to maintain pressure for increases in participation opportunities and resources. Also, the fact that she has been involved in the movement since before 1972 has provided the continuity that is needed for long-term collective action. But by and large no clearly defined leader has emerged to mobilize a coalition against men's control of resources and opportunities. Indeed, one of the major problems in the whole movement has been the lack of clear leadership and the dissension that divided the ranks of women athletic leaders. The AIAW was divided about the principal aims of women's athletics and how to deal with Title IX opportunities (Guttman, 1991; Hult, 1989). In recent years, there continues to be disagreement among women over the path toward gender equity (Lovett & Lowry, 1995). Liberal feminists have accepted the system in college athletics and choose to work for change within this system, whereas radical feminists believe that equality is not possible in the current system and true equality will only be possible after the current system is eliminated. The disagreement between these liberal feminists and radical feminists in college athletics is still present (Lovett & Lowry, 1995). Although many social movements suffer from dissension among group members, the presence of a clear leader to provide direction (i.e., Martin Luther King, Jr. for the civil rights movement in the 1960s, Ralph Reed for the Moral Majority in the 1990s) will often contribute to the success of the movement. Doubtless, the failure of the women's athletic movement to find a clear-cut leader has prevented women from achieving a more equitable distribution of athletic resources. This will be discussed again in more detail later in this article.

RECIPIENTS OF THE INJUSTICE CAN COMMUNICATE EASILY AMONG THEMSELVES, SO AS TO MOBILIZE A RESPONSE

A number of current and past national groups have allowed women to communicate and have provided backing for the movement. As early as 1917 to 1923, groups such as the National Athletic Conference of American College Women, the Committee on Women's Athletics, and the Women's Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation were formed and provided leadership for women involved in college sports (Cheska, 1966). These and other organizations were in existence throughout the middle ofthe 20th century. In 1966, Cheska suggested "that AAHPER headquarters (was) answering a real need as a clearinghouse, communications center, and consulting service in girls' and women's recreation associations" (p.14).

The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) was formed in 1971, the year before Title IX was passed (Hult,1989). This group, which met regularly, allowed for easy communication among these women leaders in college athletics. Although the AIAW folded in the early 1980s, organizations such as the Women's Sport Foundation (WSF) and the National Association of Girls and Women in Sports (NAGWS) remained as advocacy organizations that held periodic national meetings (Hult, 1989). Overall, the ease of communication among women has been enhanced by a number of national organizations that have existed since the early 1900s. These groups also made collective action in college athletics easier for women.

THERE IS A SHIFT IN POWER TOWARD A DISADVANTAGED GROUP

The shift in power was perhaps the most critical factor in changing the distribution of resources. For women interested in college athletics, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 represented the first shift in power. Women had legislative support for their desire to increase their share of the opportunities and the resources at the college level. The shift in resources during the decade after the passage of Title IX was dramatic. The amount of money spent on women's sports as a portion of the total amount spent on college sport teams went from 3.87% in 1973 to 22.47% in 1981, an increase of almost 20% (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Also during this period, the number of participants increased by an average of 43.59 per school and the number of sports for women increased by an average of 2.73 per school.

Despite the rapid initial increases, there was a leveling off or decrease in resources during the mid-1980s (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Decreases occurred because women's power in intercollegiate athletics declined for at least two reasons. First, the demise of the AIAW placed control of women's sports into the hands of male administrators (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994). Second, the Grove City v. Bell (1984) case made the Title IX program specific and lessened the effect of the legislation on college athletics. Most male athletic directors did not want to provide any more resources to women's sports than were necessary. When the power of Title IX decreased, the men shifted resources back to the men's teams or at least stopped the shift in resources toward women's athletics (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). The shift of resources probably would have been more dramatic if there was not some question as to whether this change in Title IX interpretation would remain.

The next major power shift came with the passing of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, which established the institutional approach for interpreting compliance with Title IX. The Restoration Act ensured that college athletics would continue to be impacted by Title IX. A study of NCAA statistics indicates that after the leveling off of resources for women's athletics in the mid-1980s, there was another increase in money spent (22.34% in 1985 to 34.64% in 1993), participation opportunities offered (97.5 per institution in 1985 to 107.4 in 1993), and sports offered (6.78 per institution in 1985 to 7.48 in 1993) (Mahony & Pastore,1998). Although the increases in participation opportunities and number of sports for women were not large, it is significant that during this same period participation opportunities for men (57.83 less) and the number of men's sports offered (3.09 less) declined (Mahony & Pastore, i1998). Clearly, a second shift in the power over resource distribution occurred after the Civil Rights Restoration Act.

Finally, recent court decisions have helped to shift power. Although women have not been successful in all the court cases (e.g., Stanley v. University of Southern California, 1994), most have been decided in favor of female athletes and coaches (Blum, 1993; Schrof, 1994). In addition, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 changed the focus of the cases from "the scope of Title IX jurisdiction to the real issues of determining whether sex discrimination exists and finding remedies to correct it" (Durrant, 1992, p. 63). Women have been able to prevent the dropping of sport teams through court decisions (e.g., Cohen v. Brown University, 1993; Cook v. Colgate, 1993; Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1993; Roberts u. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 1993) or by simply threatening legal action (Durrant, 1992). Women have also forced schools to increase the opportunities given them (e.g., Haffer u. Temple University, 1983) and have won the battle to include football in the calculations for determining the number of opportunities and scholarships that must be given to women to be in accordance with Title IX (e.g., Blair v. Washington State University, 1987). Perhaps the most significant ruling was the 1992 Supreme Court decision that said that women can sue schools for damages resulting from noncompliance with Title IX (e.g., Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 1992). The potential to lose large amounts of money in a court case has likely caught the attention of many male administrators. Finally, the recent U.S. Appeals Court decision that Brown University discriminated against female athletes should make college athletic administrators very concerned about their chances of winning a Title IX case (Naughton, 1996). Overall, women have been successful in using the courts to force universities to take Title IX compliance more seriously and, therefore, have been able to increase their share of the resources.

LARGE POWER DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE RECIPIENT OF INJUSTICE

As previously discussed, there were and are large power differences between men and women in college sports. The differences in the resources provided to each gender are one clear indication of the presence of a large power difference. In 1973, most of the money was spent on men's sports and men had about 90% of the total participation opportunities (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994; Raiborn, 1978). In addition, the attention paid to and significance attached to athletic performance by men's teams has generally been much greater than for women's teams (Coakley, 1994). The power of many male revenue coaches far exceeds their position on an organizational chart. Indeed, one of the key features of the Knight Commission's recommendations for intercollegiate athletic reform is for college presidents to take control of athletics away from the revenue sport coaches ("Keeping Faith," 1991; Thelin, 1994).

The power of women in college athletics has never approached this level. Even successful coaches who attempt to confront those above them about perceived injustice often fail. Marianne Stanley, a highly successful women's basketball coach, was fired by the University of Southern California (USC) when she demanded that she be paid a salary comparable with the men's basketball coach at the university (Monaghan, 1996). Although she had won a national championship and was arguably more successful than the men's coach, she was fired and replaced as a direct result of her salary demand (Monaghan, 1996). In addition, she was not able to find a fulltime permanent coaching position for several years because of her stand. Successful men's revenue coaches who have had their teams placed on NCAA probation are given more respect than was Marianne Stanley.

With the NCAA takeover of women's athletics, a process took place at the university and college campus level in which men became the administrators of most women's sports programs. Men, therefore, have substantial control over the distribution of resources and opportunities. With less than 20% of the women's athletic programs headed by women and with some schools having no female administrators (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994), there was and still is a large difference between the power of men and women within intercollegiate athletics.

PERCEIVED CLASS DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE RECIPIENTS OF INJUSTICE

Perception of class differences is the one factor that clearly did not influence collective action by women athletes and coaches. In fact, studies have shown that women athletes tend to come from higher socioeconomic classes than male athletes at the college level (Coakley, 1994; Coakley & Pacey, 1984). Although there have been some changes in sports such as basketball and track and field, minorities and people from lower socioeconomic classes are still underrepresented in women's sports (Abney & Richey,1992; Coakley & Pacey, 1984). In addition, some of the sports that have been added in recent years (e.g., golf, tennis, crew, water polo) (Wornshop, 1994), tend to have few lower-class participants. In fact, many of the NCAA emerging sports for women are sports in which most of the participants would be expected to be in the upper classes. It appears unlikely that adding sports for women will lead to high levels of participation by women from lowerclass households. Although inequities existed between men and women in college athletics, class differences was not, and still is not, one of these differences and it did not contribute to collective action.

THE LIMITATIONS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION BY WOMEN

Despite the success of women in changing the distribution of resources in college athletics through collective action, many have argued that the distributions are still not equitable (Lopiano, 1995; Lovett & Lowry, 1995). The recent U.S. Appeals Court decision in the Brown University case would seem to support the contention that equity, at least by Title IX standards, still does not exist (Naughton, 1996). The question is if most of Sheppard et al.'s (1992) seven factors necessary for collective action were present with regard to women in college athletics, why has their success fallen short of the desires and expectations of many women? A reexamination of Sheppard et al.'s seven factors based on the current situation can be useful in explaining the limitations of collective action by women in changing the distributions in college athletics.

INJUSTICE IS PERVASIVE

An examination of the financial records and participation opportunities at NCAA schools would indicate that at the very least, the injustice is not as pervasive as it was 20 or even 10 years ago (Mahony & Pastore,1998). It is still true that far less money is spent on scholarships, travel, recruiting, and other budget categories for women (Brady, 1995a; Brown, 1992a). However, those attempting to argue against the continued presence of injustice in the distribution of resources present a number of arguments. First, there have been increases since 1985 in the percentage of scholarships, participation opportunities, and sports offered for women (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Second, there has also been a consistent increase in the percentage of the budget for women sports during this same time period (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Some male administrators have argued that more significant changes in these distributions will simply take time.

Third, although the Office of Civil Rights has never granted an exemption for football, as has been requested by male administrators, the fact remains that at the Division I-A level, football and men's basketball contribute the largest portions of revenue and most are making large profits (Fulks, 1994). This argument has a large amount of public appeal in a capitalist society that generally supports the notion that the individual or group that makes the most money deserves the largest share of the resources. Many males have used these arguments to suggest that women are getting their "fair" share of the resources (Brewington, 1995; Neinas, 1995; Teaff, 1995; Wolff,1993). In addition, the argument that football needs more money and more participants has at least some validity. Football has far more starters (24) than any other sport, has a high incidence of injuries, and requires very expensive equipment for the athletes. Although football could endure more cuts at most schools without a significant decrease in quality (Lopiano, 1995), the fact remains that it will probably always require more team members and be more expensive than other sports for both women and men.

Fourth, many have attempted to shift the focus of injustice to men's nonrevenue sports because they have absorbed the most cuts in recent years. In some cases their budgets are cut and in other cases the whole program is eliminated (Mahony & Pastore, 1998; Wolff & Stone, 1995). For example, 99 institutions dropped wrestling and 64 eliminated men's swimming programs between 1982 to 1996 and there is no sign that this trend will stop (Gavora, 1996). When the portion of the budget going to football and men's basketball is eliminated, women received 54.99% of the remaining budget in 1993 (Mahony & Pastore,1998). As previously noted, this was the first time that women's sports received more than men's nonrevenue sports. This shift in power and resources from the men's nonrevenue sports to the women's sports may have forced some women to be more defensive of their support levels and less offensive. Male administrators and men's revenue coaches have been relatively successful in pointing the blame at gender equity when the supporters of the men's nonrevenue sports are upset. They have thereby distracted complainers from the fact that the revenue sports budgets have continued to grow at a tremendous rate and would appear able to absorb a larger share of the budget cuts today.

Fifth, many people inside and outside of college athletics have attempted to argue that the interest levels of female students may be met without providing proportional opportunities (Naughton, 1996). The third criterion that institutions can meet to satisfy Title IX is to show that they have been successful in meeting the needs and interests of the female students. In their case before the U.S. Appeals Court, Brown University presented "a battery of statistics proving," it said, "that women were less interested in athletics than men" (Naughton, 1996, p. A41). Although they lost the case, Brown was not alone in their belief that they are meeting the interests of women. Organizations that represented 1,700 colleges filed briefs in support of Brown University in this case (Naughton, 1996). In addition, the judge who authored the dissenting opinion in the 2-to-1 decision indicated that he believed that Brown's statistical evidence should be considered and was important in his determination that they were not in violation of Title IX (Torruella, 1996). Despite the U.S. Appeals Court decision, it is likely that there will continue to be an argument over whether institutions can offer fewer opportunities to women athletes if the school can show that women on their campus are less interested in sports.

Sixth, injustice does not exist at some schools ("Male/Female Expenses," 1996). At Division III schools without football (17% of the NCAA schools), women have more participation opportunities, more sports to choose from, and receive about 56% of the financial resources (Fulks, 1994; Mahony & Pastore,1998). This represents a significant change in the distribution of resources because at these same schools in 1977, men had three times as many participation opportunities, had twice as many sport teams, and were given more than 90% of the financial resources (Raiborn, 1978). Although women can still make legitimate arguments that injustice exists in college sports, they are unlikely to find as much agreement or sympathy with their argument as they did in 1972. In 1992, Kathy Clark, an assistant athletic director at the University of Idaho, suggested that, "As many of the major equity problems were being addressed on most campuses, it became less of a burning issue and the sex equity fires dimmed to shimmering coals" (Fox, 1992, p. 50).

WIDESPREAD DISAFFECTION WITH THE AGENT OF INJUSTICE

Although dissatisfaction with men's control of resources has certainly not disappeared, it may not be as widespread. There are some women in college sports who are relatively content with their distribution of the resources. As previously noted, there are some schools where women actually receive a greater share of the resources (Fulks, 1994; Mahony & Pastore, 1998; "Male/Female Expenses," 1996). Although women have expressed dissatisfaction with the decline in the percentage of female coaches and administrators (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994), many women athletes have indicated that they prefer to play for a male coach (Le Drew & Zimmerman, 1994).

The NCAA takeover of women's athletics has also served to dissipate widespread disaffection with the agent of injustice. NCAA control of women's college sports changed the group dynamics. Before 1982, there were generally separate athletic departments for men and women (Acosta & Carpenter, 1994). After 1982, most athletic departments were combined and became one "team." Although there is still resentment within a team, there is some decrease in resentment when the us versus them is not so clear. In addition, the us versus them atmosphere declined due to the decreasing number of female administrators and coaches. It is also possible that male coaches of female sports would be less dissatisfied with predominately male administrators and their decisions than would female coaches.

AN ACTIVE LEADER EMERGES TO MOBILIZE A COALITION AGAINST THE CAUSAL AGENT

In reality, there has never been complete agreement among the women leaders in college sports (Cheska, 1966). A 1963 study conference held by the Division of Girls' and Women's Sports (DGWS) determined that in addition to a lack of "adequate facilities and finances,' a "difference in philosophy as to what is appropriate for girls" was one of the problems of "greatest concern" (Cheska, 1966, p. 14). There was disagreement among those involved with women's sports over how competitive women's sports should be, whether scholarships should be offered, how to best achieve gender equity, and even what exactly was gender equity. In general, this has not changed in recent years (Lovett & Lowry, 1995) and actually another problem related to trying to find a united focus has emerged since the passing of Title IX.

It appears that some of the active spokeswomen have been too aggressive and extreme for some of the women associated with college athletics. In fact, women may have good reasons to avoid aggressive stances related to Title IX compliance. In order for a woman to succeed in the male-dominated profession of college athletics, some have chosen to work within the system toward slow but progressive changes. These liberal feminists have chosen to take a different path toward gender equity than radical feminists would prefer (Lovett & Lowry, 1995). Being involved in activities such as "keeping a gender equity scorecard" for your organization, as suggested by Lopiano (Coakley, 1994), will generally not help one move up within the organization. The previously discussed case of Marianne Stanley is a good example of the possible downside of an aggressive stance.

Another problem may be male coaches of female sports. Many of the women leaders do not appear to be in favor of the high number of male coaches in women's sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992; Diegmueller, 1992; Fox, 1992). However, to get more resources for women's sports, they must work with these same male coaches. This has made it difficult to find a leader who most of those involved with women's sports can follow. Therefore, although Lopiano and others are still the outspoken leaders of the gender equity movement, none of them are able to completely represent the views of women athletes, women administrators, and women's sport coaches (who are mostly men).

RECIPIENTS OF THE INJUSTICE CAN COMMUNICATE EASILY AMONG THEMSELVES, SO AS TO MOBILIZE A RESPONSE

As previously discussed, there are still a number of national women's sports groups for those involved in college athletics (Hult, 1989). However, communication is not as easy as it was before. When the AIAW ended, there was no longer a guaranteed meeting place for all the major women's college athletics leaders. None of the current groups include all the major leaders and many female college sports administrators and coaches do not attend meetings of any of the groups. In addition, few of the male coaches of women's sports are involved with these organizations and may feel that their involvement is not wanted. Again, the fact that there is not only one major organization and only one school of thought has limited both communication and the success of the gender equity movement.

THERE IS A SHIFT IN POWER TOWARD A DISADVANTAGED GROUP

Although the recent shift in power resulting from the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act clearly favored women, there are a number of reasons why women have not been able to exploit the shift in power to a greater extent. First, there is continued reluctance among men within college athletics to establish programs that conform to the intent of Title IX. In fact, there is widespread resistance to Title IX among many leaders in college sports (Brewington, 1995; Brown, 1992a; Neinas, 1995; Teaff, 1995; Wolff,1993) and in the general public (Hammel,1992; Lorenz,1994). As previously mentioned, Brown University received considerable support from organizations representing a large number of schools in their attempt to fight against a Title IX discrimination claim (Naughton, 1996). In general, schools have challenged Title IX through the courts, have implemented changes at an intentionally slow pace, and have complained about vague Office of Civil Rights (OCR) standards (Brady, 1995b; Brown, 1992b; Mott, 1996a, 1996b).

Second, the OCR has never actually taken away federal funding from a school for noncompliance (Morse,1992). In fact, ofthe 611 complaints filed with the OCR related to Title IX violations in college athletics by 1992, only 71 of the cases resulted in the OCR citing violations that needed to be corrected (Morse, 1992). Schools that wish to be found in compliance with Title IX need only "adopt a plan to correct the violations within a reasonable period of time" (Durrant, 1992, p. 62). Although the threat of an adverse judgment from the courts is becoming greater (Blum,1993; Naughton,1996; Schrof, 1994), any female athlete or coach who decides to use the court system realizes that it is a lengthy process and that they personally may have to sacrifice their own participation opportunity or career regardless of the outcome of the case (Monaghan, 1996). In general, most schools still are following a philosophy of trying to do just enough to avoid problems (Brady, 1995a).

LARGE POWER DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE RECIPIENT OF INJUSTICE

There are still large power differences between women and men in college athletics, especially with regard to revenue sports. However, there are other groups that have argued that they have even less power (men's nonrevenue teams) than the women and they have gained at least some public attention (Gavora,1996; Witosky, 1995; Wolff& Stone,1995). Also, whereas women have been increasingly successful in the courts at attempting to correct unjust distributions (Blum, 1993; Schrof, 1994), men's nonrevenue sports have been unsuccessful in the courts. In both Gonyo v. Drake University (1993) and Kelley v. University of Illinois (1993), the courts ruled that athletes on men's athletic teams that were dropped in an attempt to comply with Title IX were not victims of reverse discrimination and neither program was reinstated. The men were not successful in their claim that dropping male sports to comply with Title IX was in fact a violation of Title IX. The court in both the Kelley case and the Brown University appeal actually suggested that reducing men's opportunities while keeping the same number of women's opportunities was a perfectly legal and valid way to comply with Title IX (Naughton, 1996). Although men still have most of the power in college athletics, the difference in power decreased as a result of Title IX, the Civil Rights Restoration Act, and the court cases. The power differences are simply not as large as they were in 1972, or even 1985.

PERCEIVED CLASS DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE RECIPIENTS OF INJUSTICE

As has been discussed, this class difference has never existed. The addition of sports that appeal to middle- and upper-class women makes it likely that the shift has been toward more class differences in favor of women athletes. This struggle has never had much to do with social class and the same is true today.

THE FAILURE OF COLLECTIVE ACTION BY STUDENT ATHLETES

Although women may not have been as successful as they may have hoped in changing the distribution of resources in college athletics, they have certainly been far more successful than student athletes. Although students originally had complete control over college athletics in the mid1800s, they began to lose control in the late 1800s and had little or no power by the early 1900s (Smith, 1988). If student athletes are as oppressed as some have suggested (Sack, 1977), why have they not used collective action to effect change in the distribution of resources? Once again, Sheppard et al.'s (1992) seven factors are useful for explaining why collective action has not been used by college athletes and why they have generally been ineffective in changing the distribution of resources.

INJUSTICE IS PERVASIVE

Sack (1977) has argued that athletes are members of an abused working class that is exploited by those with power. Former Duke University basketball player Dick DeVenzio says that "college athletics are immoral, a travesty, a plantation system, slave labor" (Jensen, 1994, p. D6). Despite continual increases in revenue and the number of coaches, the number of participation opportunities (48 less per institution) and the number of sports offered (2.39 less per institution) decreased from 1985 to 1993 (Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Basralian (1996) writes that although NCAA schools still have done little with regard to cost containment, they have agreed to reduce the number of scholarships institutions offer by almost 20%. In other words, the NCAA will only limit costs when they can take the resources from the least powerful group-student athletes.

Moreover, recent studies indicate that at least some student athletes are in fact significantly under-compensated (Brown, 1993, 1994). The results of these studies indicate that student athletes in men's basketball and football, whose compensation is limited to scholarships worth up to $20,000 a year, are in some cases worth between $1 million and $2 million annually to their institutions (Brown, 1993, 1994). Still, any discussions of increasing the compensation for athletes by providing a stipend have been met with considerable resistance within the NCAA and its member institutions (Mott, 1994; Park, 1996; Thorne, 1996). This resistance is not surprising when one considers that the money that is earned by the players is currently being redistributed to the schools (Brown, 1994). In addition, the pervasive injustice with regard to student athletes extends beyond resource distribution to include limitations on how much they can work and how much they can earn, strict transfer rules, drug testing that some suggest violates constitutional rights, and so forth (Farrell, Fernandez, & Niland, 1997; Sperber, 1990; Wong, 1994).

However, many Americans believe that student athletes do not deserve any more than they already receive and that they should be grateful to be given the opportunity to receive a full-ride scholarship (Wornshop, 1994). Dr. Dana Brooks, Dean of the West Virginia University School of Physical Education, summed up the beliefs of many inside and outside of academia when he was quoted as saying,

My position has been, and will forever be, that student athletes are compensated adequately by that scholarship, by that room and board. Let's remember that they're on campus to be students first and student athletes second. They get quality coaching, trips to distant cities and access to a network of people with connections.. If you cost all that out, it's worth quite a bit. (Wornshop, 1994, p. A33)

Athletes also have received little sympathy regarding transfer rules and drug testing-which many, including the courts-support (Wong, 1994). Part of this is related to the fact that many Americans admire and envy athletes. The widespread adulation that athletes receive makes their acceptance as victims of injustice difficult, if not unlikely. Research in organizational justice suggests that the choice of the comparison other is critical in determining whether injustice exists (Sheppard et al., 1992). The comparative other concept suggests that when determining whether a group or individual is being treated fairly, people will compare them to a similar group or individual. When the group or individual is being treated worse than the comparison other, people perceive that injustice is present. The problem for college athletes is that the comparison other used by most people is the nonathlete student, who receives no direct financial benefits from the school and must pay large amounts of money to attend college (Sperber, 1990). If the comparison other used was college coaches and/or college athletic administrators, the perception of injustice certainly would be more likely.

There is, however, some indication that college athletes believe they are not treated fairly. Heisman Trophy winner Charlie Ward appeared to capture the feelings of many athletes when he said that, "I know guys who made a whole lot of money off me and I'll never share in that.... I'm not mad about it or anything, but what is fair is fair" (Shaw, 1994, p.1C). Sack (1994) found that 43% of the athletes saw nothing wrong with accepting money under the table for living and traveling expenses, and 43% also believed that they deserved a portion of the television money. These percentages rose for Blacks (61%), males (55%), lower-class athletes (55%), and athletes on scholarship (51%) (Sack, 1994). The results of the study indicate that there has been a change in the perception of injustice among some athletes. Still, most Americans would probably not classify the injustice toward college athletes as pervasive. Those who see it as a "neoplantation system" (Byers, 1995, p. 3) appear to be in the minority.

WIDESPREAD DISAFFECTION WITH THE AGENT OF INJUSTICE

Although the perception of injustice appears high among lower-class Black males receiving an athletic scholarship (Sack, 1994), it is not high among many other athletes at the college level. Many of the athletes, in fact, appear happy with their scholarships and do not believe that there is injustice within their relationship with the college athletic system. Most of the respondents in Sack's (1994) study did not believe that they deserved a share of the television money. As previously discussed, most of the general public does not see injustice in the relationship between the university and its student athletes. Although dissatisfaction appears to be spreading among some athletes (Sack, 1994), it simply has not been widespread enough to lead to collective action.

AN ACTIVE LEADER EMERGES TO MOBILIZE A COALITION AGAINST THE CAUSAL AGENT

Both former Notre Dame football player Allen Sack and former Duke basketball player Dick DeVenzio have proposed that players deserve a greater share of the revenue and have attempted to lead a collective movement (Byers, 1995). Sack was involved with the short-lived Center for Athletes' Rights and Education (CARE), which was accused of attempting to unionize college athletes (Byers, 1995). DeVenzio has been part of a number of efforts seeking to help student athletes to stand up for their rights and demand a larger share of the resources. However, neither has been very successful at establishing themselves as the leader of the movement and there are probably many college athletes who do not even know them.

A second group that could lead the athletes in this quest for a greater share of the resources are their powerful coaches. In fact, many of the current football and men's basketball coaches agree that their athletes should receive additional compensation (Mott, 1994; Osborne, 1990). However, coaches also agree that it is unlikely to happen due to the number of schools that are already losing money and they do not appear willing to fight hard on behalf of the athletes (1996 ESPNet Poll). It appears unlikely that the coaches will provide the leadership necessary to shift the power over the resources toward student athletes, especially because it could possibly decrease their own share.

Finally, it is difficult to find an active, powerful leader among the athletes because they are in school for such a short period of time. During the period that Lopiano has been a leader/spokesperson within the women's movement, student athletes could have gone through dozens of leaders due to the normal turnover of students. This makes a consistent long-term effort nearly impossible and, as the women's movement has shown, a long-term effort is necessary to change the distribution of resources in college athletics.

In addition, most athletes are reluctant to take a stand that may jeopardize their athletic careers. Although this has been a problem for gender equity advocates, it is an even greater issue with athletes in the revenue sports because of the potential for professional careers and lucrative contracts after college. Even a cursory review of the athlete rights movement in professional sports clearly shows that those who make the stand and lead the movement (e.g., Curt Flood, John Macky) sometimes suffer for their efforts. In conclusion, there are not currently any active leaders who are capable of mobilizing the athletes and the emergence of such a leader seems unlikely.

RECIPIENTS OF THE INJUSTICE CAN COMMUNICATE EASILY AMONG THEMSELVES, SO AS TO MOBILIZE A RESPONSE

Although the NCAA has established a student advisory board (Niland,1996) and is holding a conference for student athlete leaders to discuss current issues ("Annual Conference," 1996), there is no true national organization that is organized and controlled by students to represent their interests. It is interesting to note that the NCAA supports student athlete organizations only when they control the process. In fact, the NCAA is only inviting student athletes who are doing well academically to the leader's conference ("Annual Conference," 1996). Based on the Sack (1994) study, this may exclude many of the students who are most dissatisfied with resource distribution. The NCAA would doubtless oppose any student athlete organization that would actually challenge their control. When Sack attempted to increase the rights for student athletes as the leader of CARE, he faced immediate opposition from the NCAA, and CARE was soon dissolved (Byers, 1995). Moreover, the NCAA, before changing the rule at the 1997 conference (Farrell et al., 1997), had made it very difficult for athletes to communicate by forbidding them for many years to write articles for the print media (Belinfanti, 1996). Without an independent organization and access to the media, it is very difficult for disgruntled athletes to communicate.

Starting such an organization and mobilizing the athletes would probably be more difficult than the task of mobilizing women during their quest for equal opportunity because there are even greater differences among college athletes (by sport, division, and gender). They will probably always have trouble agreeing on the main issues and on how the resources should be distributed. For example, a football player at a Division I-A school will likely be more concerned with receiving his "share" of the revenue generated by his sport than would be a Division II men's swimmer, who may prefer equal distributions. The lack of a means of national communication and the lack of an agreed on focus will continue to make it difficult for college student athletes to use collective action to change injustice in the distribution of resources. In fact, it is possible that because of their differences, athletes may focus their frustration on each other rather than on the coaches and administrators. This would not be much different than other historical cases where those in power have allowed the abused classes to focus their anger on each other to prevent them from focusing on the true agent of injustice (e.g., poor Whites and poor Blacks in the South, "true" Americans versus various immigrant groups in the late l9th century, "true" Americans versus Mexican immigrants today).

THERE IS A SHIFT IN POWER TOWARD A DISADVANTAGED GROUP

There has been some talk of increasing compensation for athletes recently (Coomes, 1996; "What is it Doing," 1996). Consistent with Sheppard et al. (1992), this talk has been related to a minor shift in power. In recent years, an increasing number of college basketball and football players have been leaving school early to enter the professional leagues (Coomes,1996). The opportunity to leave early, which did not exist for many of these athletes 25 years ago, has shifted some of the power toward student athletes. College officials are concerned that the early departure of these athletes may negatively affect revenue (Coomes, 1996; "What is it Doing," 1996). Although this had led to a discussion among college and NCAA officials about changing resource distribution to keep these athletes in school ("What is it Doing," 1996), this probably involves too few athletes and is too minor of a shift in power to lead to major changes (Coomes, 1996).

In general, there has been no major shift in power toward the student athletes. Although the NCAA now has a student advisory board, the board has no real power and was mostly unsuccessful at the 1996 NCAA Convention (Niland, 1996). Government intervention (as happened for women through Title IX and the Civil Rights Restoration Act), or some other major change will be necessary for collective action to occur. This, however, appears unlikely because the public does not see a violation of rights or injustice, so politicians are unlikely to become involved. In addition, it would be difficult for young athletes, particularly those with little free time and deficient educations (Sperber, 1990), to be able to figure out how to manipulate the current system on their own to increase their share of the resources without outside intervention.

LARGE POWER DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE RECIPIENT OF INJUSTICE

Although there is certainly a large power difference between athletes, coaches, and administrators, the general public and many of the athletes tend to see this as normal and expected. One would not expect a young student to have more or as much power as an adult administrator or coach. Also, most do not compare the share of the resources going to student athletes with the share that coaches and administrators receive. As mentioned before, athletes are generally compared with other students and in this comparison they are seen as having more power and as being treated better. In addition to receiving scholarships, student athletes often eat better, live in better housing, travel more, and receive more academic assistance when compared with other students (Wornshop, 1994). When focusing on other students, the power difference actually appears to favor the athletes.

PERCEIVED CLASS DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE RECIPIENTS OF INJUSTICE

There is class difference in this case, but it only exists for some athletes. Sheppard et al.'s (1992) theory is supported by the fact that lowerclass athletes are the most likely to perceive that injustice exists and appear to be the most upset with the current distribution of resources (Sack, 1994). However, there are a large number of college athletes who are from the middle and upper classes (Coakley, 1994; Coakley & Pacey, 1984) and they are less likely to be upset. In addition, the class difference among the athletes has led to a lack of agreement on the existence of injustice and decreases the likelihood that the class differences between the agent and recipients of injustice will lead to collective action.

CONCLUSION

Sheppard et al.'s (1992) seven factors that lead to collective action are helpful in understanding the success and limitations of the gender equity movement in college athletics. It is clear that women have effected a change in the distribution of resources from the pre-Title IX days of limited participation opportunities and more limited budgets (Fulks,1994; Mahony & Pastore, 1998; Raiborn, 1978). Collective action by women was made possible and was successful because the injustice was pervasive and there was widespread disaffection with the agent of injustice (predominately male administrators). Leaders emerged who helped to mobilize a coalition necessary for collective action against this agent. Women were able to communicate easily through a number of national organizations so as to mobilize a response. Most important, there was a shift in power toward women due to supportive legislation and court decisions. Finally, there were large power differences between men and women in college athletics at the time that collective action began. All of these factors contributed to the collective action that resulted in a change in the distribution of resources in college athletics.

However, Sheppard et al.'s (1992) seven factors also explain why this collective action has thus far fallen short of expectations. The success of collective action has been limited because the injustice was seen as less pervasive over time and for some women the disaffection with the agent of injustice dissipated. In addition, there was also no clear leader who all those associated with women's sports could follow and communication among those with ties to women's sports became more difficult. For a number of reasons, women have also had trouble taking complete advantage of the shifts in power. Finally, the differences in power have become less significant over time. Although it seems likely that women will continue to make advances in changing the distribution of resources (Naughton, 1996), the changes are likely to be very slow.

Finally, Sheppard et al's (1992) seven factors were also useful in explaining the failure of student athletes to effect change in the distribution of resources. When examining student athletes, many do not see pervasive injustice. In addition, disaffection with the agent of injustice is not present for many college athletes. There is no clearly defined leader and there is unlikely to be one due to the transient nature of athletes. Student athletes have not been able to communicate easily among themselves and they have no organization that could mobilize a response. There has not yet been the large shift in power in the direction of student athletes necessary for collective action. Furthermore, the large power difference between athletes and the agents of injustice is seen as appropriate by many so it is less likely to lead to collective action. Finally, class differences are only present for some college athletes.

Although the author believes that collective action by college student athletes in the near future is unlikely, it does appear that changes in some of the factors could increase the chances for such action. For example, more widespread belief in the existence of injustice, the emergence of a leader, increases in the ease of communication, and a shift in power would all increase the chances for collective action. Monitoring these factors could be helpful in predicting future trends and possible changes. In conclusion, Sheppard et al.'s (1992) seven factors were helpful in explaining and understanding the successes, limitations, and failures of collective action by women and student athletes and could be useful in predicting and understanding collective action in other areas of sport as well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to thank Dr. Lawrence Fielding for his helpful comments. This article certainly benefited from his insightful feedback.

[Reference]
REFERENCES

[Reference]
Abney, R., & Richey, D. L. (1992). Opportunities for minority women in sport: The impact of Title TX. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(3), 56-58.

[Reference]
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1992). As the years go by: Coaching opportunities in the 1990's. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(3), 36-41. Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1994). The status of women in intercollegiate athletics. In S. Birrell& C. L. Cole (Eds.), Women, Sport, & Culture (pp. 111-118). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Annual conference to serve as student forum. (1996, November 11). The NCAA News, pp. 1,16.

[Reference]
Basralian, J. (1996, February 14). Financial controls? What financial controls? Financial World, p. 121.
Belinfanti, G. (1996, March 25). Athletes need a way to get the word out. The NCAA News, pp. 4-5.
Blair v. Washington State University, 740 P. 2d 1379 (1987).

[Reference]
Blum, D. E. (1993, September 1). Two more coaches of women's teams go to court to press claims of sex discrimination. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A47-A48. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brady, E. (1995a, November 7). College sports still tip scale toward men. USA Today, pp. lC-2C.

[Reference]
Brady, E. (1995b, November 8). Federal law still being defined 23 years later: Department of education drafting clarifying document. USA Today, pp. 4C. Brewington, P. (1995, November 9). Big-time college football major focus of numbers game: Women leaders target sport; coaches say enough on cuts. USA Today, p. 8C. Brown, B. (1992a, June 9). Law gives women their fair share. USA Today, pp. lC-2C. Brown, B. (1992b, June 9). Athletic directors confused about how to comply with law. USA Today, pp. lC-2C.
Brown, R. W. (1993). An estimate of the rent generated by a premium college football player. Economic Inquiry, 31, 671-684.
Brown, R. W. (1994). Measuring cartel rents in college basketball player recruitment market. Applied Economics, 26, 27-34.
Byers, W. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Cheska, A. (1966). Historical development and present practices of women's athletics/recreation association. Washington, DC: American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation.
Coakley, J. J. (1994). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (5th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.

[Reference]
Coakley, J., & Pacey, P. (1984). The distribution of athletic scholarships among women in intercollegiate sport. In N. Theberge & P. Donnelly (Eds.), Sport and the sociological imagination (pp. 228-241). Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.
Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F. 2d 888 (lst Cir. 1993). Cook v. Colgate, 992 F. 2d 17 (2nd Cir. 1993).
Coomes, M. (1996, June 23). Trend leaves gaping holes in NCAA ranks. The Courier Journal, p. Al, A14.
Diegmueller, K. (1992, June 17). Two decades after the passage of Title IX fewer and fewer women fill coaches' shoes. Education Week, pp. 23-24. Durrant, S. M. (1992). Title IX - Its power and its limitations. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(3), 60-64.

[Reference]
Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of sport. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 7 F. 3d 332 (1993). Farrell, K., Fernandez, J., & Niland, B. (1997, January 27). Convention listened to concerns of athletes. The NCAA News, pp. 4-5.
Fox, C. (1992). Title IX and athletic administration. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(3), 48-52.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 112 S. Ct. 1028 (1992). Fulks, D. L. (1994). Revenues and expenses of intercollegiate athletics programs: Financial trends and relationships-1993. Overland Park, KS: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.

[Reference]
Gamson, W. A (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Gates, R. F. (1984). The development of Title IX of the educational amendments of 1972 and its current application to institutional athletic programs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 06.
Gavora, J. (1996, July 23). Quota system hurts teams. USA Today, p. 14A. Gonyo v. Drake University, 837 F. Supp. 989 (S.D. Iowa 1993). Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432. Grove City v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984).

[Reference]
Guttman, A (1991). Women's sports: A history. New York: Columbia University Press.

[Reference]
Haffer v. Temple University, 678 F. Supp. 517 (E.D.Pa. 1987). Hammel, B. (1992, May 13). Equity where there is no equality. The Herald-Times,
pp. B1, B3.
Herwig, C. (1992, June 9). Lopiano sees dozen reasons for focus on women's sports. USA Today, p. 9C.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to declines in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Hult, J. S. (1989). Women's struggle for governance in U.S. amateur athletics. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 24, 249-261. Jensen, M. (1994, December 14). One man's collegiate crusade: Play for pay. The Arizona Republic, p. D6.
Keeping faith with the student-athlete: A new model for intercollegiate athletics. (1991). Charlotte, NC: Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

[Reference]
Kelley v. University of Illinois, 832 F. Supp. 237 (1993). Le Drew, J. E., & Zimmerman, C. (1994, Winter). Moving towards an acceptance of
females in coaching. Physical Educator, 51, 6-14. Lopiano, D. (1995, May 9). Problem solvable without damaging success of football. USA Today, p. 2C.
Lopiano, D. A., dc Zotos, C. (1994). Equity and policy problems in women's intercollegiate athletics. In R. E. Lapchick & J. B. Slaughter (Eds.), The rules of the game (pp. 31-54). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Lorenz, M. (1994, March 2). A reality-based plan for achieving gender equity in college sports. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B1-B2. Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1995). Is liberal feminism working in the NCAA? Journal of Sport Management, 9, 263-272.

[Reference]
Mahony, D. F., & Pastore, D. (1998). Distributive justice: An examination of participation opportunities, revenues, and expenses at NCAA institutions-1973-1993. Journal of Sport & Social Issues.
Male/female expenses in III highly affected by football. (1996, November 11). The NCAA News, pp. 1, 11.
McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241. Monaghan, P. (1996, February 23). A coach fears her gender-bias suit is costing her jobs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A43.
Morse, S. L. (1992, March 6). Women and sports. Congressional Quarterly Researcher, pp. 195-207.

[Reference]
Mott, R. D. (1994, September 19). Student-athlete voices join pay-for-play debate. NCAA News, pp. 1, 19.
Mott, R. D. (1996a, January 29). Title IX clarification brings mixed reaction. The NCAA News, pp. 1, 20.
Mott, R. D. (1996b, January 22). Title IX clarification statement varies little from September draft. The NCAA News, pp. 1, 19.
Naughton, J. (1996, November 29). Appeals court affirms ruling that Brown U. discriminated against female athletes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A41-A42. Neinas, C. (1995, May 9). Purpose of statute lost when focus put on proportionality. USA Today, p. 2C.

[Reference]
Niland, B. A. (1996, January 22). A mixed bag of results from the convention. The NCAA News, pp. 4-5.
Osborne, T. (1990, April 6). Feedback. USA Today, p. 11A. Park, T. R. (1996, February 12). A four-part approach to solve agent problem. The NCAA News, pp. 4-5, 8.

[Reference]
Raiborn, M. H. (1978). Revenues and expenses of intercollegiate athletic programs: Analysis of financial trends and relationships 1973-77. Overland Park, KS: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 998 F. 2d 824 (1993). Sack, A. L. (1977). Big time college football: Whose free ride? Quest, 27, 87-96. Sack, A. L. (1994). Recruiting: Are improper benefits really improper. In R. E. Lapchick& J. B. Slaughter (Eds.), The rules of the game (pp. 71-82). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. Schrof, J. M. (1994, April 11). A sporting chance. U.S. News & World Report, p. 51. Shaw, B. (1994, January 10). Payment principle collects interest. The Plain Dealer, p. 1C.

[Reference]
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the work place. New York: Lexington. Smelser, N. J. (1962). Theory of collective behavior. New York: Free Press. Smith, R. A (1988). Sports and freedom: The rise of big-time college athletics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, M. (1990). College sports, Inc.: The athletic department vs. the university. New York: Henry Holt.
Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F. 2d 1313 (1994). Statistical abstracts of the United States: 1995. (1996). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

[Reference]
Teaff, G. (1995, November 8). Not all sports are equal. USA Today, p. A14. Thelin, J. R. (1994). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in college athletics. Bal
timore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Thorne, G. (1996, March 11). University name, not athletics performance, that is what sells. The NCAA News, p. 5.
Torruella, J. R. (1996, November 29). Excerpts from the dissent in the Brown University case. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A43-A44.

[Reference]
Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tornblom, K. Y., & Jonsson, D. S. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249-261.
What is it doing to the student-athlete? (1996, June 23). The Courier Journal, p. C8. Witosky, T. (1995, May 9). Iowa coach Gable wrestles with impact. USA Today, p. 2C. Wolff, A. (1993, October 25). Trickle-down economics. Sports Illustrated, p. 84. Wolff, A, & Stone, C. (1995, March 27). Pinned program. Sports Illustrated, p. 15. Wong, G. M. (1994). The essentials of amateur sport law. Westport, CT: Praeger. Wornshop, R. (1994, August 26). College sports. Congressional Quarterly Researcher, p. A33.

[Author note]
AUTHOR

[Author note]
Daniel F. Mahony is an assistant professor and Sport Administration Program Director at the University of Louisville.



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.