RESEARCH QUESTION

Do student-athletes have different gambling behaviours compared to other students?

PURPOSE

Recent reports suggest that a majority of student-athletes gamble, many in violation of NCAA rules, and a small but noteworthy proportion of these athletes experience significant problems related to their gambling. The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend previous research on student-athlete gambling by including a sample of non-athlete students from the same institutions.

HYPOTHESIS

None stated.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample comprised a total of 736 student-athletes (57.3% male; mean age = 19.7 years old) competing in 15 NCAA sports and 1,071 non-athlete students (34.1% male; 20.7 years old) from the same institutions. The samples were significantly different in terms of ethnicity, gender, age, and monthly income.

PROCEDURE

Participants across four different universities completed a questionnaire packet. The questionnaires took approximately 20 minutes. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire, place it in an envelope, seal it, and give it to a research assistant.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics were collected, including age, gender, ethnicity, year in school, grade point average (GPA), monthly income, parent gambling, and parent history of gambling problems. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) assessed gambling severity and gambling behaviour over the past year. Gambling prevalence questions were asked with reference to the start of college, such as gambling activities engaged in, whether a bookmaker was used, had been a runner for a bookmaker, or had been a bookmaker.

KEY RESULTS

The gambling prevalence rate for male student-athletes was 75%, which was significantly higher than the 66% of male students in general. The prevalence of female student-athletes was not different from female students (55%). About 20% of males and 4% of females reported sports betting. Only 6% of males and 1% of females used a bookmaker. Student-athletes did not differ from other students in terms of gambling frequency or disordered gambling. The SOGS showed approximately 5.4% of males were pathological gamblers and 6.5% problem gamblers. Females consisted of 1.4% pathological and 2.1% problem gamblers. In terms of risk factors for gambling, the results showed that student-athletes were more likely to gamble than non-athletes, males were more likely to gamble than females, and Caucasians were more likely to gamble than African-Americans. Participants with more time in college were more likely to gamble as well. Athletic status was associated with betting on sports, with athletes betting less on sports than other students. Disordered gambling was significantly related to gender and parental history of gambling problems, such that males were 5.26 times more likely to be in a higher pathology group than females and students with parents who gambled were 5.27 times more likely to be in a higher disordered gambling group.

LIMITATIONS

One large limitation was the known NCAA consequences of athletes gambling, which could have caused some to under-report their gambling bahviours. Similarly, there was some missing data in about a third of the sample collected who were then excluded. Lastly, due to the survey length limits, the lifetime measure of pathological gambling was used and prohibited the estimation of past year prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study replicated previous research reporting that the majority of student-athletes gamble, however only a minority were in violation of NCAA by-laws. Notably, a significant proportion of student-athletes were experiencing problems with gambling. The results extended previous research by showing that the student-athletes were very similar to their non-athletic student peers. Thus, gambling does not seem to be a student-athlete issue, but rather a university-wide issue. The prevalence of gambling since the start of college was the only area in which student-athletes exceeded other students, showing that student-athletes were 1.5 times more likely to engage in some form of gambling since the start of college. In sum, student-athlete gambling, while unique in its prohibitions, is likely best understood as part of the broader context of being a college student.