Hums and Chelladurai (1994b) found NCAA coaches and administrators believed distributing resources based on equality and need was more just than distributing them based on equity (i.e., contribution). However, Mahony and Pastore (1998) found actual distributions, particularly at the NCAA Division I level, appear to be based on equity over equality and need. The main purpose of the current study was to determine why the findings in these studies differed. The authors of the current study reexamined the principles from Hums and Chelladurai's (1994b) study, while making significant changes in the sample examined, asking new questions, and adding more distribution options. The results indicated that need based principles were considered to be the most fair, but there was less support for equality than in prior research. In addition, the current study found differences between Division I and Division III administrators with regards to some equality and equity based principles.
Journal of Sport Management
Mahony, Daniel F.; Hums, Mary A.; Reimer, Harold A. (2002). Distributive Justice in Intercollegiate Athletics: Perceptions of Athletic Directors and Athletic Board Chairs.. Journal of Sport Management 16(4) 331-356. Retrieved from https://oaks.kent.edu/flapubs/33