Sport management education in an era of global neoliberalism and corporate influence on higher education

Abstract

Decreasing government funding and increased corporate influence have combined to create transformation in higher education. Considering the shifting nature of higher education funding and the pressures that have come with this change, the purpose of this paper is threefold: First, an overview of the paradigm of higher education is provided, including a brief examination of how higher education in the US has evolved from the mid-20^th Century to its current form. The point of this is to provide an explanation of how the corporate/entrepreneurial university has emerged. Within this discussion, ethical consequences of corporate funding are presented. Second, some approaches for exploiting external partnerships are discussed. Finally, innovative strategies for maintaining academic and professional ethics are proposed.

Introduction

A growing consumer culture, decreasing government funding, and increased corporate capitalism have combined to create massive transformation in higher education (Natale and Doran, 2012) in the United States and around the globe. The change in the paradigm of higher education to a more corporate model has been so dramatic that most colleges and universities now exist within a market that requires each institution to seek their students through active marketing, find new sources of revenue, and serve the needs of external stakeholders who provide the funding no longer available from State sources. Because of this, institutional core values, missions, and overall operations have undergone profound change (Parker, 2011), creating so-called corporate universities.

According to Spitzer-Hanks (2016: 393), a corporate university is defined as, “Any educational institution combining a de-emphasis on teaching with a governance system that recognizes as legitimate a specific type of research to the detriment of disciplines less clearly ‘practical’ and more difficult to monetize. Additionally, I mean by a ‘corporate university’ one that treats students and instructors like products and expects them to do likewise.”

The current article focuses on corporatism of higher education in the United States, but it is an issue that is emerging globally. In fact, pointing out that the issue is world-wide, Cannella and Koro-Ljungberg (2017: 156) state that higher education now consists of a “market focus that creates students as consumers and faculty as service providers." Moreover, by keeping the workforce in the precarious position of worker insecurity such as is seen with graduate students and adjunct instructors, there is control over workers and they are less likely to ask for wage increases or to strike (Chomsky, 2015).

Sport management education is focused on preparing students for work in industries that have been immersed in sponsorship and commercialism. Now, that commercialism has spread across all higher education. Considering the shifting nature of higher education funding and the pressures that have come with this change, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, an overview of the current paradigm of higher education is provided. In this overview is a brief examination of how higher education in the US has evolved from the mid-20^th Century to its current form. The point of this is to provide an explanation of how the corporate university has emerged. Within this discussion, ethical consequences of corporate funding are presented. Second, some approaches for exploiting external partnerships are discussed. Finally, strategies for maintaining academic and professional ethics are proposed.

The context of contemporary higher education

Since the early 1980s, the model of higher education within western societies has evolved in step with the shift in the function of governments brought about by neoliberal ideologies, which focus on free markets, reduction, or elimination of the role of governments in social welfare, commercialization, and corporatization (Peters, 2012). Now, across the globe, universities form a “corporate university industrial complex” where creating and protecting competition is an organizing principle of neoliberalism. Influences that shape a neoliberal condition in higher education are based on constantly changing economics, strong competition for limited resources, operational policies that are market-driven policies, reduced worker costs, and worth of faculty tied to grants-awarded or the monetary profit individuals make on behalf of the university. Cannella and Koro-Ljungberg (2017: 156) conclude that, “…the rise of managerialism, consumerism, accountability, …performance (evaluation), an audit culture, and evidence based-practices globally. …” is attractive to administrators and forms a positive feedback that reinforces and maintains corporate structure and hold on universities. How can “consumers” and “providers” return higher education to its brightest and strongest position? How can it resist simply being a factory for capitalism? But this is also an ethics problem. There is danger in corporations and businesses funding university research.

An obvious danger is misconduct and conflicts of interest in how results are obtained. With financial support highly competitive, lucrative corporate funding has high value, perhaps at times, more so than honest reporting of results. But another perk to corporations is providing academic credibility to the products of that research that can be used to advance capitalist interests (Robinson, 2013). This is not a minor point. Research is a powerful tool for attaining truth and knowledge. If it becomes synonymous with a corporate brand, what a business peddles may be taken (by association or deception) as a necessary truth.

Throughout the world, universities have made commercialization of scientific knowledge a primary objective (Boehm and Hogan, 2014). Naidoo (2003: 249–250) wrote “The international literature on the restructuring of higher education reveals that there is a global trend away from forms of funding and regulation which were based on the ‘social compact’ that evolved between higher education, the state and society over the last century…The perception of higher education as an industry for enhancing national competitiveness and as a lucrative service that can be sold in the global marketplace has begun to eclipse the social and cultural objectives of higher education generally encompassed in the conception of higher education as a ‘public good’”. Prokou (2013) added, throughout Europe, the driving forces in higher education have morphed from a focus on equity and social demand to efficiency and human resource development. It is difficult to determine whether these changes are the result of deliberate attempts by governmental leaders to deemphasize instruction and research that is socially focused and force institutions to emphasize structures and processes that favor private industry, or whether these trends are merely a byproduct of the current state of world economics and power.

Within capitalist economies, the transition to a corporate model of higher education is supported by a market-based ideology that favors and reinforces entrepreneurism, operational efficiency and effectiveness, radical individualism, quantitative assessment, deregulation of the economy, limited role of government, and privatization of state enterprises. The neoliberal economic context that has developed over the last several decades has largely transformed the public purpose of the university from an educational community with shared governance into a bureaucratic educational environment and administrative structure that is increasingly managed and operated like a traditional profit-maximizing corporation (King-White and Beissel, 2018: 336).

The term “neoliberal” refers to a person or institution who believes that political and economic institutions of a society should be capitalist and liberal; liberal in the sense of favoring free-market practices. Its foundations were being formed and supported during the terms of US President Reagan and Great Britain’s Thatcher (Peters, 2012). Neoliberalist policies promote eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers, promoting privatization, reduced federal spending (especially on social programs) to counter so-called big government (Vallier, 2021). In terms of education, neoliberalism promotes marketization policies and transferring services into private ownership rather than public control.

Originally, the term neoliberal was used by a group of progressives who helped shape social market economy in the mid-20th century. Neoliberalism is characterized by free market trade, deregulation of financial markets, individualization, and the shift away from state welfare provision (Peters, 2012). More specifically it refers to market-oriented reform policies such as eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers and reducing state influence in the economy, especially through privatization and austerity. Neoliberal approaches to higher education focus on institutional profit, entrenched bureaucracy, corporate culture, and civic engagement. The former concept of the public university as a bastion of liberalism and free thought is a false narrative still propagated today by conservative politicians supporting expanding neoliberal principles. This leaves concern for human value, morality, and frailty behind. Increasingly, industry stakeholders in higher education police academic research, particularly that which is politically based, in order to turn researchers into servants of power (Oleksiyenko and Tierney, 2018).

Today, market principles steer the value of higher education (Nica, 2014). For most students, emphasis is shifting from predominately academic jobs to industry and private sector positions that are marketable. Graduate master’s degrees are being compressed from two to three years to complete to just 12–18 months so students can enter the job force more quickly. It is more important for graduates to be proficient technologically and entrepreneurially than to be well-educated or thinking critically. Thus, the former is more appreciated and better funded than the latter. This shifts the role of the university from that of serving the greater good of the public and generating knowledge to serving the vocational needs of individual students (in which students invest for their own benefit). In other words, higher education has become a consumer good (Nica, 2014).

The academy, or college, as Plato established on the outskirts of Athens about 387 BCE focused on thought, discussion, and discovery where instruction originally included mathematics, dialectics, natural science, and preparation for statesmanship. The traditional missions of universities have been research and teaching. However, over the last several decades, a third mission has arisen, the mission to create entrepreneurial relationships with commercial industry. This third mission requires universities to change their culture to be receptive to innovation and rapid adaptation to constantly changing external environments. These changes will be necessary for institutions to remain attractive to potential students within the mass market of higher education (Bikse, et al., 2016; Binkauskas, 2012).

In Sport Management/Administration education, programs that were once typically housed in physical education departments and colleges of education and focused on athletic administration have evolved, where many programs have become stand-alone majors in colleges of business. The move to a focus on business has led to introduction of course content that stresses entrepreneurship (Case, 2017) and vocational training. This last point is related to student demand. In general, students are no longer going to college to gain an understanding of the world. They now typically seek to receive a degree and learn skills necessary for their desired profession and earn a higher career income (Natale and Doran, 2012).

Entrepreneurship in sport management academics is based, in part, on the construct of value creation. While this could mean the creation of social, ecological, and community value, it is currently limited to the creation of value in the form of financial profit for the institution and its corporate sponsors. This is due to the market-like behaviors and activities of institutions (Mars and Rios-Aguilar, 2010).

Institutions that adopt the role of entrepreneurship are involved in commercial activities such as partnerships with the private sector, reorganization of academic functions, and forming corporations. In this knowledge-based global economy, research universities are now addressing their new entrepreneurial mission, forming partnerships with external enterprises in the development of patents, licensing technologies, and developing solutions to problems in industry (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014). This allows programs to withstand the growing decreases in public subsidy. Of course, those faculty in many of the academic areas broadly under the umbrella of kinesiology (i.e., Physical Education Teacher Preparation, Adaptive Physical Education, Recreation, and Sports Management/Administration) know all too well the pressures of reduced public funding and decreases in other resource allocation.

Thomas (2016) wrote pursuing and obtaining outside funding is now essentially an expectation in kinesiology studies, particularly at research universities with doctoral programs. Because of this, faculty are now compelled to think more entrepreneurially in order to enhance program survival and growth. For example, according to a 2016 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “States cut funding for K-12 education—and a range of other areas, including higher education, health care, and human services—as a result of the 2007–2009 recession, which sharply reduced state revenue. Emergency fiscal aid from the federal government helped prevent even deeper cuts but ran out before the economy recovered, and states chose to address their budget shortfalls disproportionately through spending cuts rather than a more balanced mix of service cuts and revenue increases. Some states have worsened their revenue shortfalls by cutting taxes (Leachman et al., 2016: 2)”. Irwin and Ryan (2013: 15) called on sports management faculty to create research and learning environments that enhance the connectivity between their programs and the sport industry, in part to foster “healthy relationships with industry practitioners and organizations” and thus, establish “a mechanism for external funding” (Thomas, 2016).

At the same time, corporations and industrial-sector foundations have increased their contributions to higher education but often with various conditions and expectations (Mintz et al., 2010). Between 1990 and 2001, external funding through gifts, grants and contracts for land grant universities increased 65% and 83% for other state schools. Since the 1980s, academic research funding from commercial industries is the fastest growing source of such funding, going from US$264 million in 1980 to US$2 billion in 2001 (Mintz et al., 2010). Funding from commercial industry comes not only from corporations, but also from corporate foundations such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations. This funding takes the appearance of charitable support of non-profit institutions but is often designed to influence research and instruction.

The evolution of the corporate university in the US

The higher education boom

Higher education in the US in the 19th Century was for the most part limited in access to those from backgrounds of race, wealth, and power. This shifted slightly with the passing of the Morrill Act in 1862, which established land grant universities that were to serve the needs of some industries, particularly agriculture. But it was not until the middle 20th Century that higher education became accessible to a much wider population (Natale and Doran, 2012).

Higher education in the US experienced an intense period of substantial public funding immediately following World War II (Natale and Doran, 2012). At that time the federal government realized 15 million veterans would be returning from the war to a limited job market. In an effort to honor veterans as well as to stave off mass unemployment, Congress passed the G.I. Bill of Rights, which essentially allowed for those veterans to attend the university of their choice at little or no expense. By 1948, two million former service people were in college, doubling the student population of just a decade earlier (Labaree, 2016).

Before the surge of World War II vets (and their federal funding) had come and gone, the Cold War emerged. This smoldering conflict brought even more federal funding to US higher education. First, billions of dollars of government funding sustained university research in support of the war effort. Furthermore, there was a drastic need for educated individuals who could work in sectors that would help compete with the U.S.S.R.’s emerging technology and weapons development (Labaree, 2016). Additionally, the fight against communism included providing wide access to higher education as a propaganda mechanism against the perceived Soviet menace. “We needed to provide high-level human capital in order to promote economic growth and demonstrate the economic superiority of capitalism over communism. And we needed to provide educational opportunity for our own racial minorities and lower classes in order to show that our system is not only effective but also fair and equitable. This would be a powerful weapon in the effort to win over the third world with the attractions of the American Way (Labaree, 2016: 29)”.

Of course, higher education was happy for the windfall funding, as this led to a broad expansion of the university to respond to exploding enrollments. The first surge of enrollment was that immediately following World War II and continued through the next decade when the number of students in American educational institutions grew from 2.4 million in 1948 to 3.6 million in 1959. By 1969 enrollment was at eight million and continued to grow to 11.6 million in 1979. Increases in enrollment leveled off, rising to about 14 million enrolled in the 1990s. Over the last 20 years the majority of increases seen in college enrollments have been in the community colleges and in regional state colleges (Labaree, 2016).

In 1945, 15.5% of persons 18–21 years of age were attending college. By 1980 that number had grown to 45%. Included in this growth was a diverse population of students who received relatively high levels of public funding. The emphasis at the time was on a liberal arts education with a broad general education including critical thinking skills. The curriculum featured courses in the humanities and the sciences but was not as focused on training students for careers as seen in the current trend (Spitzer-Hanks, 2016).

A decline of public support for higher education came during the 1970s, when a tax revolt of sorts developed in California and spread across the country (Labaree, 2016). But the recession of 1990-1991 was the real starting point for a fiscal crisis in higher education, a crisis that has persisted to the present day. Since that time, state funding for higher education has steadily declined while student tuitions and fees have increased. The fiscal crisis that began in US higher education coincides with the emergence of corporate funding, along with the pressures imposed to shift research and classroom instruction to meet industry agendas (Barrow, 2010).

The end result of this evolution is a massification of higher education where institutions appeal to a mass market of potential students and where funding for that purpose no longer exists, leaving schools to struggle for revenue streams that can be used to fulfill their missions. Increasingly, many schools are turning to corporate funding or converting to a private, for-profit model (e.g., University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University) to accomplish their goals. The upshot is that higher education is now transforming from a public asset to a consumable good where admissions are based on money, not merit (as illustrated by recent admissions scandals at high-profile institutions and involving wealthy families, many of whom include famous celebrities), students are clients, professors are service providers, and humanities/liberal education are marginalized (Gupta, 2018).

The rise of the corporate university

Higher education has undergone a shift in core values, basic missions, and operational processes. Subsequently, colleges and universities have moved to a model of corporate governance, shaped to fit not-for-profit organizations (Bratianu and Pinzaru, 2015). This shift is mirrored in government functions. The funding for programs and activities addressing the general welfare of the populace has been cut and programs that concentrate on corporate success and corporate competitiveness have seen increased subsidies (Bass et al., 2015). The current paradigm of higher education forces faculty and administration to make institutional operations more cost-effective and financially efficient. This is due to the overall feeling that public funding of higher education, as well as other public functions such as health care and social programs must be reduced. Within this environment, the institutional emphasis becomes more focused upon outcomes, which means that performance and budgetary efficiency move to the forefront of importance. This tends to shift the operations of an institution to more of a business model, which stresses structure, planning, organization, control, and assessment. In higher education, this means a shift in focus from critical thinking, knowledge development and transfer to professional training within various career paths. The key for each institution is to provide an apparent value of instruction for the dollars that are spent (Parker, 2011).

The corporate university is typified by a new, permanent class of administrators who are those who have benefited the most from the shift to a corporate model. This group of administrators now are paid more like corporate CEOs and have little or no experience as educators. From 1998 to 2008, private colleges increased institutional spending on instruction by 22%, while at the same time increased administration funding by 36%. Since the mid-1970s, the number of full-time faculty at all colleges and universities has grown by 50%, while over the same period, the number of administrators has increased by 85% and, of those, administrative staff by 240% (Mills, 2012). As McFarlane (2014: 154) noted, “The last five decades has seen a growth in more administrators than faculty in our modern universities, and this trend seems to continue as the modern university grapples with academic challenges that are mainly addressed by administrators who are managerial-oriented rather than academic-oriented.” The transition to a corporate model of higher education has been accompanied by an increase in hiring institutional presidents and chancellors who have little or no background in higher education. One in five university heads have little or no professional experience in higher education. This has led to university leaders who refer to students as customers and embrace metrics based external funding (Bunds and Giardina, 2017).

This type of corporate governance, with its new corporate configuration supports a top-down managerial style that stresses operational efficiency and organizational effectiveness, the latter typified by external objectives and standardized assessments of learning. In a rapidly changing world, a focus on short-term goals does not allow for program or institutional accommodation of emerging opportunities and environmental changes, thus, making institutions and programs less adaptive (Parker, 2011).

Another characteristic of the corporate university is the power that exists at the top of the organizational hierarchy of the institution. The change in university governance structure started in the 1980’s and has led to more centralized decision-making and a marked decrease in institutional governance at the level of faculty, departments, and schools (Parker, 2011). This creates tensions between faculty and administration. In the new corporate model, the role of the faculty as middle manager has created time demands that are much less related to classroom instruction, mentoring students, or research activity. Duties related to administrative tasks such as accreditation, compliance, and reporting have come at a time of increased academic workloads and demands on research productivity (Parker, 2011). Specific to sports, in the United States, 60–80% of the revenue used to fund college athletics is derived from commercial sources, making college athletic departments one of, if not the biggest, entities on a college campus dependent upon external funding. This is astonishing, particularly since universities, as a whole derive 11–14% of their funding from corporations (Wolverton, 2009).

Ethical issues in the corporate university

Higher education now exists as a global market, and within that market neoliberal ideology calls for privatization of higher education, decreasing the role of the state in the enterprise. Privatization in higher education has four components: The sale of public assets, the privatization of higher education provision, deregulation allowing private players into the market, and the move to shift costs to users of educational services (Gupta, 2018). Conducting research specifically for use in commercial business operations may also be an example of privatization. Seeking knowledge through research to only fit this model of privatization, or rather, corporatization, has the potential to diminish the value of knowledge generation and seeking to understand the world.

Research as an entrepreneurial component of a university is knowledge-production (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014). However, knowledge-production is not what has typified research in the past, traditional research activities are conducted within the boundaries of university-based research. It moves beyond the social and cognitive norms that govern scholarly research to being trans-disciplinary in nature. This means research must be application-oriented, with practical implications in associated industries and meets the demands of external stakeholders. This new approach is more complex because not only does it involve those stakeholders, it also requires researchers come from multiple disciplines who work in cooperation to solve stakeholder problems. This type of trans-disciplinary, application-oriented research in the sport industry can be the driving force behind institutional collaboration with commercial organizations (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014) but provokes questions about the basic purposes of sport management education.

Business and growth models coddled by corporations are generally short-sighted and aimed at maximizing profit for stakeholders. This begs the question: Where does this leave knowledge generation in the field of sport management? Limited, at best. By narrowing research focus on what sells or what seems most marketable greatly limits the possibility of truly generating new knowledge—research without limits (or filtered towards markets and commercialization). Making new discoveries that are only useful commercially to humans or society drastically limits the potential of sport management and scientific exploration. For better or worse, higher education has ceded prerogative in research to external stakeholders. In today’s global society, with its emerging knowledge-based economy, sport management researchers are compelled to move away from their traditional roles of basic knowledge-production and transfer to knowledge-production for the sake of exploitation for innovation (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014).

What is so unethical about gearing sport management program functions for the benefit of private industry? In theory, the purpose of higher education has been to enhance democratic society and educate students for the purpose of preparing them for professional and public life. However, in the era of late capitalism and neoliberal ideology, these purposes have been deprioritized in favor of serving the needs of industry (King-White and Beissel, 2018) and to attend to external stakeholders.

Recent institutional tendencies have been to maintain their existing levels of federal funding but also to dramatically increase corporate or private funding in order to foster and enhance their place in the higher education marketplace. Corporate funding is potentially corrosive to democracy because it is relatively unregulated, unaccountable, and essentially results in buying academic talent to promote causes that benefit industry and establish an agenda of what is important to a society (Johnson, 2010).

Strict concentration on corporate interests and free-market fundamentalism drives values that are antithetical to democracy and is now attempting to reconfigure higher education around the world. The basis of those values is a corporate ideology that emphasizes standardized curricula, creating a top-down hierarchical administrative structure, promoting business values, and generally turning higher education into vocational training (Giroux, 2011). Societies that are steadfastly resistant or willing to question themselves are those that often champion the consumer, not the citizen and that willingly favor corporate power over the greater good of the populace. It is in these societies where the university becomes vital. The university must play a critical role examining culture, power, and politics. A place where a dialog and investigation based on critical thinking can foster social justice and democracy (Giroux, 2010).

Altering higher education to serve the need of commerce instead of fostering public values and civic responsibility, as envisioned after WWII, essentially diminishes the legacy of an institution that is rooted in moral, not commercial development. This approach fails a fundamental mission of higher education, which is to search for truth, regardless of its consequences, and in doing so teaching students critical thinking skills to hold those in power accountable (Giroux, 2011).

Entrepreneurship in sports management education

Universities and the programs housed within them are viewed in the perspective of revenue producers (Nica, 2014). Sports management programs within the entrepreneurial university cannot merely deliver educational content with job skills specific to the sport industry. They must now provide instruction on how to master new technologies in sport and exercise settings, access new markets, create new products, and grasp management skills that typify the sport industry (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014).

While researchers in sports management disciplines may find the transition of their roles uncomfortable, they should understand that this transition is likely just the latest in a series of academic revolutions. The first of these revolutions was when research was introduced into the teaching setting. The second revolution was when teaching and research were deemed interrelated, and research was used to enhance classroom instruction. This third revolution advances research beyond its current role as a basis of knowledge-production for its own sake and for the sake of instruction to knowledge-production for those ends and practical application in the commercial setting (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014).

This pragmatic approach appears necessary for the survival and/or growth of many sport management programs. Organizational theory suggests that organizations reconfigure themselves to adapt to changing environments and external changes, including those which create opportunities and threats for that organization. In sport, higher education, and other public-based entities, this has led to a phenomenon known as sector-bending, where the distinction between public (non-profit) and private (for-profit) ownership is diminished (Misener and Misener, 2017). Organizational forms and practices are steered and justified by what are institutional logics, taking into consideration the values, behaviors, and assumptions of the organization and how the organization can best succeed with fulfilling its mission (Misener and Misener, 2017).

There has been a corresponding blurring of the lines between public and private sector sport organizations since the 1980s, mainly due to environmental pressures that create a need to operate with greater fiscal efficiency and effectiveness. This has increased the need for non-profit sport organizations to operate in a more business-like manner and to seek new and deeper relationships with corporate partners. Conversely, commercial sport organizations have recognized the strategic advantages of working cooperatively with those in the public sector. This cooperation can take the form of joint ventures, investments, licensing agreements, and other strategic alliances (Misener and Misener, 2017).

Academic entrepreneurship initiatives are typically driven by external stakeholders and organizations, including those in the private sector as well as governmental entities. These initiatives do not usually originate in the university itself (Kozlinska, 2012). Yet, sports management faculty may want to be proactive in their development of entrepreneurial relationships, not only for the generation of revenue, but also to be able to shape such relationships for the benefit of the greater social good. According to Mars and Rios-Aguilar (2010: 446), “Entrepreneurship has also gained an increased presence in research and scholarly dialogue addressing certain socially oriented patterns and trends that intersect higher education. Specifically, the term ‘social entrepreneurship’…has been used to reference creative and innovative strategies that have been designed by students, professors, and practitioners within colleges and universities with the intent of solving a wide range of societal problems”.

Whatever form sport management program entrepreneurial relationships with external stakeholders take, there may be ethical considerations that arise which create conflicts of interest. On one hand, the institution must provide instruction and research that meets the needs of the commercial entities that provide necessary funding for the university. On the other hand, the institution is expected to meet the needs of the community in which it exists (Parker, 2011). Therefore, it is incumbent upon sport management faculty be diligent in their administration of such activities.

Ethical implications of corporate influence in higher education and research

In an environment that has seen a drastic change in the mission and functions of higher education, sport management educators must ask themselves, who do faculty and programs serve? Are students being served best by the institution and getting the education that they were promised at enrollment? And since the corporate university is likely the new normal, it is important to consider working with the system by asking what specific ethical issues and considerations exist for faculty as they navigate this new system of higher education. Scott (2014) provides a systematic approach to this practice. His four paradigms of ethical decision-making include the ethics of critique, where leaders are guided in their actions by continually asking themselves, who makes law or rule, who benefits from it, and who has power. This may allow sports management program leadership to avoid accepting the current state of funding as merely standard operating procedure.

From a research ethics standpoint, increased pressure to produce and commercialize results may lead to an increase in research misconduct, or put another way, a decrease in reproducibility of research findings (Gunsalus et al., 2019). A dramatic rise in research misconduct began about 2002. The incidences of allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification has risen ten-fold from in the last two decades (Kornfield, 2012). During this time there was strong effort to identify the source of generating misconduct however the typical solution was for more standardization, increased regulations, and greater expectations of compliance. Ostensibly, university research administration offices of compliance, were created to protect humans and other animals used in research or to provide guidance on conflicts of interest. More recently export control and industrial security rules are security measures aimed to safeguard classified information and devices. However, administrative motivation is more likely the threat of loss of funding should an institution not follow federal regulatory guidelines. Likewise, under the neoliberal paradigm in order to be funded, research must answer the questions of “what good is it?”, “how does (the research) benefit humans?”, or worse, “can this (results) be commercialized?” This structure is not only myopic, putting research in a silo emphasizing anthropocentricism greatly diminishes generation of knowledge about the rest of all that is.

Conflicts of interest are a second ethical issue related to corporate funding and is a broad, common behavior that may not be realized unless faculty are diligent in their observation of the relationship between the institution and an external funder. Corporate financial support can be corrosive because it comes relatively unregulated, unaccountable, and potentially results in buying academic talent to promote causes that benefit industry and establish an agenda of what is important to a society (Johnson, 2010).

Thus, there are some practices that sport management faculty can use to minimize the potential negative outcomes of corporate funding:

Be intentional in establishing partnerships with clear communication of the objectives to be achieved and stay out of the charity angle. This helps create an established agenda and sets the tone of equitability for the relationship.

Seek as much information as possible from others about practices and funding sources and entertain funding/sponsorships from a variety of businesses and foundations. This will help programs find the appropriate partner and keep them from locking into relationships that could prove harmful in the long run.

Only enter into funding/sponsorship agreements that gain the institution’s support and approval and that allow the institution to terminate the partnership at its discretion and in its own timeframe. Involving the institutional administration in the process provides oversight that can keep programs from unethical behaviors and conflicts of interest.

Be a good mentor. Never require a student to take part in a funding/sponsorship-related activity and continuously monitor the process and effects of the funding/sponsorship, including feedback from students, faculty, and administration. Often, once the relationship has commenced, the parties in charge lose sight of the effects on students, faculty, staff, and administration. The program or institutional faculty should participate in the review of the impact on the education of students. Constantly and systematically monitoring the processes and outcomes of the relationship may help alleviate poor outcomes for stakeholder groups.

Create and periodically revise conflict of interest policies for all funding relationships. Manage conflicts of interest with monitoring protocols and transparency. Faculty should have a major role in formulating and assessing the institution’s policy as well as creating those specific to their programs. This will assist in making policies that are consistent with the principles of academic freedom.

Conclusion

The massification of higher education, combined with changes to more of a corporate model of administration, as well as cuts in public funding for state colleges and universities have combined to change the way many sport management education programs are funded. Increasingly, there is a need for funding from external sources. The discipline is fortunate because it fits nicely in the corporate university setting. Sports management programs already have a close relationship with many of the various commercial components of sport industries through internship programs, research activities, consulting, and involvement in event operations. The challenge is to exploit those relationships for maximum benefit of the program without losing sight of the original missions of their institutions and setting. Moreover, there must be resistance to the forces of excessive commercialization and profit making.

Funding from sport and entertainment industry sources has the potential to create issues with ethics and conflicts of interest. Sport management faculty and administration would be well-served by proactively addressing these issues before they enter into funding partnerships with outside organizations. By creating in advance policies and procedures that address ethical concerns and conflicting values, programs and institutions may be able to benefit from the increased revenue while maintaining high ethical standards, academic freedom, and appropriate student educational outcomes.

Maintaining academic integrity in a time when commercial influences threaten to dominate the function of sport management education is an ongoing and significant challenge for faculty and administrators. Ball (2016: 1056) wrote that it will be important to re-conceptualize faculty members as intellectuals, rather than as technicians or “as a bundle of skills and competences,” in order to reposition them as those who will lead students to “new discourses and truths and who looks critically at the meaning and enactment of policy. Two regimes of truth are in opposition here: two systems of value and values. One produces measurable teaching subjects, whose qualities are represented in categories of judgment. The other is vested in a pedagogy of context and experience, intelligible within a set of collegial relations.”

None of this will be easy. Reconciling the need to create and enhance the value of sport management programs while continuing to promote basic human values within instruction is challenging but necessary. As King-White (2019: 133–134) pointed out in a self-critique of his attempts to do so within the context of a sport event management course he taught, “I was asked how I was able to come to terms with blending entrepreneurialism and critical pedagogy. The fact of the matter was that I have not yet been able to do so, but it is precisely that challenge that needs to be met by critical pedagogues since the notion of the academic entrepreneur is not likely going anywhere anytime soon.”