Chasing the Dream: Canadian Track and Field Student-Athlete Migration to the NCAA Division I

Sarah Boyle

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Department of Exercise Sciences University of Toronto

Chasing the Dream: Canadian Track and Field Student-Athlete Migration to the NCAA Division I

Sarah Boyle

Master of Science

Department of Exercise Sciences University of Toronto

2017 Abstract

While there is interest in understanding the motivations and experiences of student-athletes who migrate to the NCAA, there is a lack of data quantifying migration to the NCAA. Specifically, in the case of track and field, the last quantitative effort to identify Canadian student-athlete migration to the NCAA was published in the early 1990’s by John Bale. Using descriptive research methods, this thesis defines the population of Canadian track and field student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI between the 2005/06 and 2012/13 academic years. Results indicate that during this eight year period, 562 Canadian student-athletes migrated to the NCAA

Division I to participate in track and field. Canadian track and field student-athletes who migrate to the NCAA Division I comprise more than half of the athletes competing internationally for the

Canadian National Track and Field Team.

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been completed if it were not for the support of my supervisors, Peter Donnelly and Michael Atkinson. With a three-year hiatus to complete my Juris Doctorate at Osgoode Hall Law School, I have been afforded time to reflect on this research and appreciate the fruits of collecting systemic research data. Peter and Mike, I look up to you both and feel fortunate to have benefitted from your shared passion for always asking “why?”

A special thank you also to Timur Taha, you are a great teacher and mentor, both on and off the track.

And a final, and special thank you to Bart van Veghel and Joseph and Maureen Boyle. You consistently challenged me to reach further through your unconditional love and belief in the power of a good education.

iii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... III

LIST OF TABLES ...... VI

LIST OF FIGURES ...... VII

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... IX

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 THE ISSUE ...... 1

1.2 PURPOSE ...... 4

1.3 RESEARCHER BACKGROUND ...... 5

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 7

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7

2.2 UNDERSTANDING ATHLETE MIGRATION ...... 7

2.2.1 GLOBALIZATION ...... 7

2.2.2 DOCUMENTED MIGRATION FLOWS ...... 9

2.2.3 TRACK AND FIELD SPECIFIC RESEARCH ...... 11

2.2.4 RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENT ...... 13

2.3 WHY THE NCAA? FACTORS DRIVING INTERNATIONAL STUDENT -ATHLETE MIGRATION ...... 15

2.4 THE COMMODIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT -ATHLETE ...... 18

2.5 IMPACTS OF NCAA PARTICIPATION ON INTERNATIONAL STUDENT -ATHLETES ...... 20

2.6 CANADA ’S RESPONSE TO STUDENT -ATHLETE MIGRATION TO THE NCAA ...... 22

2.7 SUMMARY ...... 28

CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...... 30

3.1 PILOT STUDY ...... 30

3.2 SUB -GROUP ...... 30

3.3 DATA COLLECTION ...... 31

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 33

3.4.1 DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS ...... 33

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 37

5.1 GENERAL POPULATION STATISTICS ...... 37

5.1.1 OVERALL GROUP SIZE AND CONTEXT ...... 37

5.1.2 STUDENT -ATHLETE MIGRATION BY EVENT GROUP ...... 44

5.2 MIGRATION ...... 47

5.2.1 CHANGE IN NUMBER WITHIN THE NCAA DI PER YEAR – OVERALL ...... 47

5.2.2 MIGRATION MAPS ...... 49

5.2.3 MIGRATION MAPS BY YEAR ...... 50

5.3.4 MIGRATION MAPS BY PROVINCE ...... 61

5.3 POST NCAA DI COMPETITION ...... 79

5.3.1 RETURN TO THE CIS ...... 80

5.3.2 NATIONAL TEAM PARTICIPATION ...... 81

5.3.3 NCAA DI INSTITUTIONS WHERE CANADIANS COMPETED POST NCAA DI COMPETITION ...... 82

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...... 86

6.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 86

6.2 LIMITATIONS ...... 87

6.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS ...... 89

6.4 FINAL WORDS ...... 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 92

APPENDICES ...... 98

APPENDIX 1 - MASTER LIST OF CANADIAN TRACK AND FIELD STUDENT -ATHLETE MIGRATION TO THE

NCAA DI BETWEEN 2005/06-2012/13 ...... 99 ...... 99

APPENDIX 2 - CANADIAN TRACK AND FIELD STUDENT -ATHLETES COMPETING AT NCAA DI

UNIVERSITIES BETWEEN 2005/06 – 2012/13 ...... 127

List of Tables

Table 1: Data Collection Categories and Descriptions

Table 2: Total Canadian track and field student-athlete migration data – by conference and event

Table 3: Total student-athletes competing in U Sport in 2016/17 compared with the total number of student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI

Table 4: Top 40 NCAA DI universities attended by Canadian track and field student-athletes between 2005/06 – 2012/13

Table 5: Academic Rank of Top 40 NCAA DI institutions attended by Canadian student- athletes

Table 6: Number of Canadian track and field student-athletes in the NCAA DI between 2006- 2013

Table 7: Canadian student-athlete track and field participation post NCAA DI migration

Table 8: Comparison of post NCAA DI track and field participation with total NCAA DI migration – by event group

Table 9: Composition of prominent Canadian senior national track and field teams

Table 10: List of NCAA DI universities with Canadian student-athletes who continued to compete post NCAA DI involvement

List of Figures

Figure 1: Total number of Canadian track and field student-athletes in NCAA DI between 2005/06 and 2012/13 by Province

Figure 2: Canadian student-athletes in the NCAA DI by event type

Figure 3: Total number of Canadian track and field student-athletes in the NCAA DI per year (2006-2013)

Figure 4: Number of Canadian track and field student-athletes entering the NCAA DI per year (2005/06 – 2012/13)

Figure 5: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2005/06 academic year

Figure 6: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2006/07 academic year

Figure 7: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2007/08 academic year

Figure 8: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2008/09 academic year

Figure 9: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2009/10 academic year

Figure 10: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2010/11 academic year

Figure 11: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2011/12 academic year

Figure 12: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2012/13 academic year

Figure 13: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from British Columbia during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 14: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Alberta during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 15: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Saskatchewan during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

vii

Figure 16: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Manitoba during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 17: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Ontario during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 18: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Quebec during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 19: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Newfoundland and Labrador during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 20: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from New Brunswick during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

Figure 21: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration from Nova Scotia during the academic years of 2006/07 and 2012/13

viii

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 - Master List of Canadian Track and Field Student-Athlete Migration to the NCAA DI between 2005/06-2012/13

Appendix 2 - Canadian Track and Field Student-Athletes Competing at NCAA DI Universities between 2005/06 – 2012/13

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 The Issue

Every year Canadian student-athletes migrate to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), to a variety of different US colleges, for a variety of different sports, from a variety of different Canadian provinces and cities. Sociologists of sport have spent considerable efforts exploring sport migration both intra and internationally to better understand choices and experiences, impacts, and future directions of athlete movement. Included within the various arms of sport migration studies has been a focus on student-athletes who migrate to and participate within the NCAA. Small samples of these student-athletes have been studied through interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups to piece together aspects of their experiences and to better understand collectively the draw and impact of the NCAA system for both athletes and their sports.

While there is interest in understanding the experience and impact of athlete migration on those international student-athletes who migrate to the NCAA, there is a lack of data quantifying the magnitude of migration. Specifically, in track and field, the last quantitative effort to identify the metrics of Canadian student-athlete migration was published in the early 1990’s by John Bale.1 Bale’s research focused on the increasing phenomenon of international student-athlete migration to the NCAA occurring through the 1970s and ‘80s. Part of Bale’s comprehensive data collection included the number of international student-athletes, including Canadians, who participated at the NCAA Division I (“DI”) Track and Field Championships. Bale’s research quantified Canadian track and field student-athlete migration to the NCAA as a proportion of international track and field student-athletes who participated at the NCAA DI Track and Field Championships. This effort to quantify the flow of migration was a foundational step to better understanding the increasing presence of international student-athlete talent flooding the NCAA. Through Bale’s data collection efforts, he was able to create a foundation for deeper inquiry regarding the experiences and the impacts of migration on student-athletes and their host and

1 John Bale, The brawn drain: Foreign student-athletes in American universities (University of Illinois Press, 1991). 1 2 donor countries.

Since the 1991 publication of Bale’s book, The Brawn Drain , there has been a void in the available metrics accounting for the migration of Canadian student-athletes to the NCAA. While we have insights about what drives student-athletes to leave their home countries, and the range of experiences they have while participating in the NCAA, we do not know how many, we do not know where they are migrating to, and we do not know how many return to sport in Canada at the senior national level. Operating with this data void limits our understanding of student- athlete migration, both in the ability to understand who we are discussing when we generalize from smaller research studies, and in our ability to adequately select representative participants for these smaller, often qualitative, research studies.

When selecting the topic for my thesis, my main interest was in pursuing a study examining the path(s) to high performance track and field in Canada. My original intent was to study Canadian participation in both Canadian and US intercollegiate sport to understand the impact of varied experienced in these two systems and its relation to development and retention of athletes who would become high-performers on the Canadian National Track and Field Team. Soon after setting out on this path, I ran into a major road block - no recent data existed on Canadian track and field athletes who migrated to the NCAA from which I could launch my research. I had assumed this information would be available through the NCAA, and I was wrong.

I discussed this issue and my research idea with a variety of stakeholders including: Canadian varsity and national level coaches; board members at an athletics Provincial Sporting Organization (PSO); Athletics Canada’s records department; parents of junior aged track and field student-athletes; and track and field student-athletes who had competed in both the NCAA and Canadian Interuniversity Sport (“CIS”), now rebranded as U SPORTS. None of these conversations helped to solve my data issues – instead they alerted me that the issue of available metrics impacted on more than just my proposed thesis topic.

Canadian varsity coaches want to understand the magnitude of the loss of Canadian talent to the NCAA in order to better understand how best to position recruiting efforts and education for parents and student-athletes. The PSO wanted to better understand the scope of talent loss to the NCAA, and they were also interested in where student-athletes were migrating from and how

3 this reflected on local programming targeting junior level athlete development. Student-athletes from the NCAA wanted to know the impact that Canadians were having on the NCAA talent pool, and student-athletes from the CIS wanted to know the impact of talent loss on the CIS competitive landscape. A representative from Athletics Canada stated that the governing body was considering recording this data to better document the movement of athletes and the potential impact of NCAA participation on long-term athlete development, but had not been able to undertake this onerous task. Parents of student-athletes wanted tools to assist with making informed decisions with their children, and wanted to know more about the landscape of NCAA migration including post-NCAA paths.

Since Bale’s research, there has been a disconnect between the study of movement of student- athletes to the NCAA, and the impacts accompanying the forces that encourage student-athletes to migrate. The current data lacks fundamental information from which to launch meaningful inquiries into this sub-group of Canadian student-athletes. Furthermore, without knowing who we are talking about, an essential piece of the puzzle is missing when it comes to interpretation and generalization of research on smaller samples of this population of student-athletes. Without knowing how many student-athletes migrate to the NCAA, where they are migrating from, and where they are migrating to, can we generalize the findings of a powerful interview, or a survey based research study that, for example, samples a sub group of athletes from a highly ranked educational institution in the Northeast US if Canadians are actually attending lower level educational institutions in the Southern US? Without context, we miss opportunities to better understand the results of thoughtful, important research into the experiences of Canadian student-athlete migrants. And, more importantly, we miss the opportunity to take into consideration, during the design phase of research projects, who we will target and what factors we use regarding research participant selection.

From a sport policy development standpoint, at the federal, provincial, and university levels, we are missing the basic foundation from which to build and assess long-term senior national development, and the viability of national, provincial and municipal sport policy initiatives. Whether the goal is enhancing student-athletes’ experiences or increasing high performance athlete development, unless we know who our policies are impacting and more importantly who the policies are missing, we lack the proper tools for assessment.

1.2 Purpose

This thesis is intended to address the current data void concerning Canadian student-athletes who migrate to the NCAA through the creation of a database for one sport: Canadian track and field student-athletes who have migrated to the highest level of NCAA competition, DI. Specifically, the purpose of this thesis is to document, illustrate and characterize the sub-group of Canadian track and field student-athletes who have migrated to NCAA DI universities between the 2005/06 to 2012/13 academic years. Through the use of publically available data, this thesis collects and organizes the information necessary to better define this population of student- athletes in terms of their number, their rate of migration and their movement patterns from Canada to the NCAA, in order to create a foundation for future research on this issue. In addition to documenting the migration of Canadian track and field student-athletes to the NCAA DI, this thesis also documents the return of these student-athletes to Canadian track and field post NCAA DI participation, and to explore the impact that student-athlete migration to the NCAA DI has on Canadian senior level track and field participation.

The study serves as a Canadian track and field student-athlete focused follow-up to Bale’s data published in the 1990’s, to provide a detailed preliminary overview of the current migration landscape of Canadian track and field student-athletes to the NCAA DI. The primary research goal of this thesis is to provide a clearer understanding of the status, rate and magnitude of Canadian track and field student-athlete migration to the NCAA DI. The secondary research purpose for these data includes providing a foundation for future study on this sub-group of athletes. The tertiary research purpose for these data and its subsequent database is to serve as a research tool for prospective student-athletes to better inform themselves prior to making decisions about where they will participate in interuniversity track and field competition. Collecting these data and posting it to a public forum such as the Center for Sport Policy Studies web site, in the form of a searchable database, would permit high school students to access information about NCAA DI universities they are interested in and provide information about the experience of other Canadian athletes who had attended before them. Having this information accessible and available to prospective student-athletes would transfer some knowledge and autonomy to the athletes when they are making these decisions and would facilitate a platform for discussion and reflection on the experiences of those Canadian track and field student-

5 athletes who did migrate to the NCAA – ultimately allowing this thesis to give back to the athletic community it seeks to understand.

1.3 Researcher Background

As a former Canadian university student-athlete at the University of Toronto and former senior national level athlete for Team Canada, I have witnessed the departure of close friends, teammates and acquaintances from Canada to the NCAA. I remember what it was like to be junior level athlete, receiving NCAA recruitment letters to my high school’s main office, relying on the advice of my coaches and teachers to determine where to attend university.

While I cannot say my decision to stay in Canada was right or wrong, I am grateful for my experience as an athlete on the University of Toronto’s track and field team. I am grateful for the opportunity to have competed in the Canadian Interuniversity Sport Championships (as it was known then), and to have achieved four national championship titles in high jump. I was also fortunate to have been a recipient of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Quest for Gold funding and the generous bursaries available from the University of Toronto.

I use the words “grateful” and “fortunate” with full knowledge that my experience in track and field was not average. I remained relatively injury free when it counted, I had the resources of an outstanding educational institution at my fingertips, and I was supported by professors and administrators who specialized in the study of sport. I clung to the identification of “student- athlete” as a means to justify and protect my extracurricular and academic interests, and was, for the most part, supported in doing so. And the financial support I received for track and field from both the University of Toronto and the Quest for Gold Program funded my participation.

Coming from a low socio-economic single-parent household, I participated in track and field because it was relatively affordable. While I knew that I would pursue post-secondary education, I spent my early high school years planning to join the Canadian Armed Forces to pursue the Paid University Program. As I progressed in high jump, I was afforded training opportunities at the University of Toronto and by grade 11 I was receiving NCAA recruitment letters. As my family knew little about the landscape of university level sport, my mother was my sounding board, but not my compass. My decision to pursue high jump at the university level in Canada was based entirely on the established coaching relationships I developed during my time as a

6 junior development athlete at the University of Toronto.

I could have easily, as a young athlete, been enticed to attend an NCAA institution. My partner, also a former University of Toronto junior development athlete, attended an NCAA DI university. My partner’s parents, similar to my mother, knew nothing about track and field at the university level, or that their son was being actively recruited. My partner still laughs at the shock his parents experienced when he informed them that he had been accepted to attend an NCAA DI institution for running.

Having the benefit of our different experiences, my partner and I are engaged in a constant debate regarding which route is better, and which route we would support our children to follow if they choose to participate in sport. Between close friends, training partners, and competitors, we know many Canadian track and field athletes who migrated to the NCAA, rather than stay in Canada. The range of their motivations, successes (or not), educational experiences, and overall experiences baffles me.

The reality for those of us who remained at Canadian institutions was acknowledgement of a two-tiered system. During my time as a student-athlete, top-tier talent in track and field typically left for the NCAA DI while outliers and second-tier track and field athletes remained in Canada. As a top-tier athlete at the University of Toronto, with a program budget deep enough to support it, I spent over 50% of my indoor track season competing in NCAA track meets in the United States. My coaches entered me into meets where I would often face top-tier fellow Canadians who would not be present at the Canadian Interuniversity Sport Championships. While I hold four national championships titles, I would always rank my performance against the NCAA indoor championships to see how I measured up to fellow Canadians in the NCAA.

Understanding the variation in personal, educational, and developmental impacts experienced by track and field student-athletes, and the pressures and motivations guiding their decisions, the lack of information on who stays in Canada and who goes to the US troubles me. I have often wished, even before I finished my student-athlete career, that more resources were available to athletes making their higher education choices.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 2.1 Introduction

This review of the literature considers athlete migration generally, addressing literature on globalization and current trends in the literature documenting athlete migration. Narrowing in focus, this review then considers the NCAA, addressing the push and pull factors associated with athlete migration, the commodification of student-athletes, and the impact that NCAA participation had on those student athletes who migrated to the US. The review of the literature concludes with an overview of the responses in Canada to Canadian student-athlete migration to the US/NCAA.

2.2 Understanding Athlete Migration

2.2.1 Globalization

Since the rise of globalization, workers in many professions have been required to become more mobile, increasing migration frequency. 2 Professional athletes are included amongst these workers facing pressure caused by the rapid changes in global economies, resulting in sport- worker migration as an inevitability for many athletes.3 While recognizing the important role of globalization in the athlete migration matrix, it must be understood that it is impossible to capture the complexities of athlete migration by narrowing the phenomenon down to two or three causal factors. Understanding athlete migration is an exercise in recognizing the sometimes unique and at other times shared impact of a number of interdependent processes.

Maguire describes the concept of globalization as “a growing network of interdependencies, political, economic, cultural and social, - that bind human beings together, for better and for worse”. 4 Reflecting on the impact of globalization on the sports world during the 19 th century, Maguire listed a variety of changes and shifts in sport which are inextricability linked to globalization:

2 George H. Sage, Globalizing Sport: How Organizations, Corporations, Media, and Politics are Changing Sport (Routledge, 2015), 82. 3 Ibid, 82. 4 Joseph Maguire, "Sport and Globalization: Key Issues, Phases and Trends," in Handbook of Sports and Media (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing, 2006), 471. 7 8

[T]he international spread of sport, the establishment of international sport organizations, the growth of competition between national teams, the worldwide acceptance of rules governing specific sport forms and the establishment of global competitions such as the Olympic Games. 5

As the movement of athletic labour varies by type of sport and level of competition (e.g., amateur, semi-professional, professional), there is not one conceptual model that can universally describe the process of sport migration. Sport type and level of competition afford different levels of human capital to athletes. The higher the level of human capital, typically, the increased opportunities available to athletes to migrate from their native domiciles.6 To account for the variety of opportunities and subsequent migration, researchers have created migration models that permit the spectrum of athlete migration experiences to be represented. For example, Sage divided the flow of sport-worker migration amongst three levels: within nation, between nations on the same continent; and between nations on different continents. 7 And, Maguire identified five different types of sport migrants: the pioneer ; the settler ; the mercenary ; the nomad ; and the returnee .8

Understanding that migrant athletes are not a homogeneous group, Maguire’s categories showcase the differences and complexities that exist between athlete migrants, their pursuits, and movement. For example, the pioneer seeks to integrate his/her sporting culture with a host country’s sporting system. Differing from pioneers , mercenaries attempt to achieve short-term gains in a host country while having no connection with the local. Migrants identified as nomads are in search of something beyond their sport. The primary purpose of a nomad’s migration is the experience of travelling and exploration of different cultures rather than the pursuit of sport. Settlers and returnees differ in that the former stays where they migrated to either for the duration of their athletic career and/or their life post career. Returnees on the other hand, go

5 Joseph Maguire, Global Sport: Identities, Societies, Civilizations , (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1999), 82. 6 Joseph Maguire, "‘Real politic’ or ‘ethically based’: Sport, globalization, migration and nation-state policies," Sport in Society 14, no. 7-8 (2011): 1040-1055; George H Sage, Globalizing Sport: How Organizations, Corporations, Media, and Politics are Changing Sport (New York: Routledge, 2016), 90. 7 Sage, Globalizing Sport, 67. 8 Joseph Maguire, Global Sport, 106.

9 home to their native domiciles. Returnees can include nomads , pioneers , mercenaries and even some long-term settlers .9

International athlete migration has positive and negative consequences for an athlete’s home and host country. While migrating athletes may raise performance levels and contribute to athlete development in their host countries, their presence is also resisted by those who view their presence as an intrusion that takes space away from native athletes. 10 Donor countries complain that athlete migration causes brawn-drain, deskilling and a weakening of national sport status while also benefiting from the return of athletes who have reaped the benefits of other sport development programs. 11

2.2.2 Documented migration flows

The mobility of athletes geographically is a by-product of globalization processes in modern industrial societies. 12 From the early 1970’s to present day, athlete migration across national and international borders has exploded. 13 Bale and Maguire maintain, not only has sport migration exploded, but the process of sport labour migration appears to be speeding up. 14 The movement of athletes away from their native domiciles occurs at both professional and amateur levels of sport. While it is often assumed that the flow of athlete migration is from developing nations to developed nations, this is not always the case. 15 There is more to athlete migration than purely “following the money”. 16

9 Ibid, 105-106. 10 Bale, The brawn drain , 190. 11 Ibid, 142. 12 James M. Connor and Amy L. Griffin, "The Muscle Trade: International track and field athlete mobility, colonialism and development" (conference paper, The Australian Sociological Association Annual Conference, Canberra, 2009); John Bale and Joseph Maguire, The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1994). 13 Thomas Carter, "On the need for an anthropological approach to sport," Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 9, no.3 (2002) : 405-422 at 407. 14 Connor and Griffin, "The Muscle Trade”; Bale and Maguire, The Global Sports Arena . 15 Richard Elliot and Joseph Maguire, "Thinking outside of the box: Exploring a conceptual synthesis for research in the area of athletic labor migration," Sociology of Sport Journal 25, no. 4 (2008) : 486-488. 16 Elliott and Maguire, "Thinking outside of the box,” 485.

Elliott and Maguire state that both the motivation for and impact of migration are coloured by politics, history, economics, geography and culture. 17 Just as top-tier sports programs with a surplus of athletic talent draw the attention of athletes from around the world, they can also serve as a motivation to migrate to other less developed markets where an athlete has more opportunity to reach quota restricted competitions such as the Olympics. 18 For example, while over the past 25 years track and field athletes from across the continent of Africa have left their countries to compete in track and field in the NCAA, there have also been groups of athletes changing their nationality to countries on the Saudi peninsula in order to secure positions on national team rosters unavailable to them in their own country.19

Sport migration for international competitive opportunities has been part of the Olympic Movement for decades. From 2000-2010, the International Association of Athletics Federations approved approximately 300 citizenship changes in track and field.20 Sage describes the breadth of athlete migration for just this one purpose as being global, “exist[ing] in all directions and involves all nations – rich and poor, developed and developing, large and small”. 21

Research on sport migration spans a variety sports including: soccer, 22 American football, 23 cricket, 24 hockey, 25 track and field, basketball, 26 rugby, 27 and baseball. 28

17 Ibid, 485. 18 Ibid, 486. 19 Jim Litke, "At the Rio Olympics, some find success in swapping passports," Toronto Star (Toronto, Ontario), Aug. 16, 2016. 20 Sage, Globalizing Sport, 88. 21 Ibid, 88. 22 Vic Duke, “The Flood from the East? Perestroika and the Migration of Sports Talent from Eastern Europe,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994), 147-161; H.F. Moorhouse, “Blue Bonnets over the Border: Scotland and the Migration of Footballers,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994), 79-96; Fiona Miller and Steve Redhead, “Do markets make footballers free?” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994), 134-146. 23 Harold McConnell, “Southern Major College Football: Supply Demand, and Migration of Players,” Southeastern Geographer 23, no. 2, (1983) : 78-106. 24 Jeffrey Hill, “Cricket and the Imperial Connection: Overseas Players in Lancashire in the Inter-wars Years,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994), 49-63. 25 Simon Genest, “Skating on Thin Ice? The International Migration of Canadian Ice Hockey Players,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994).

2.2.3 Track and field specific research

Specific to track and field, John Bale showed evidence of recruitment patterns and the subsequent retention of athletes. 29 Between 1971 and 1978, he documented a 200% increase in the number of international student-athletes competing in NCAA championship events. 30 In 1971, international student-athletes accounted for 11.1% of the athletes competing at NCAA championships. 31 This rose to 18.1% by 1978. 32

In 1987, Bale estimated that the involvement of student-athletes from outside the US in track and field, based on a sample of 46 NCAA institutions, was 5.3% for men and 4.5% for women. 33 Furthermore, in 1987, based on the same sample, 52.2% of NCAA DI universities had foreign recruits in track and field programs. 34 Until the 1970’s, Canada was the major source of foreign athlete recruits. Based on a sample of “superior” athletes (those that ranked in the Track and Field News ranking lists) Bale determined that by 1985, the number of Canadians in the NCAA had decreased, while the numbers of East African track and field student-athletes had seen an increase from 7.9% in 32.9% in the 1980s the 1960s to. 35 While the proportion of Canadian track and field athletes was decreasing, Bale’s analysis for 1987, indicated that Canadian student- athletes represented 19.2% of the student-athletes competing at the NCAA Track and Field Championships. 36 This proportion of athletes at the NCAA Championships shows that,

26 Joseph Maguire, “American Labour Migrants, Globalization and the Making of English Basketball,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994). 27 Gareth Williams, “The Road to Wigan Pier Revisited: The Migration of Welsh Rugby Talent since 1918,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994). 28 Alan M Klein, “Trans-nationalism, Labour Migration and Latin American Baseball,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World. (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994). 29 John Bale, Sports Geography (London: Routledge, 2003). 30 Bale, The brawn drain, 68. 31 Ibid , 68. 32 Ibid , 68. 33 Ibid , 60. 34 Ibid , 64. 35 Ibid , 74-75. 36 Ibid, 77.

12 regardless of the number of the Canadian track and field student-athletes in the NCAA, their competitive ability was high, ranking among the best amateur track and field competitors in the world.

In fact, it is international student-athletes generally in track and field, not just Canadians, who appear to rank among the top athletes in the NCAA system. In 2003, Frank Litsky wrote in the New York Times that, “the NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships were designed to showcase America’s best collegiate talent. But at times, it seems much of the talent is from everywhere but the United States”. 37 Litsky’s article was a reaction to results at the 2003 NCAA DI Track and Field Championships where international student-athletes won 15 of 38 events, almost 40% of the events at the meet. 38

Data collected in 2010, after Bale’s initial documentation, indicated that the overall number of international student-athletes in the NCAA has nearly tripled between the 1999/2000 and 2008/09 academic years.39 Because the NCAA does not collect and organize statistics pertaining to its international student-athletes, it is assumed, but not known for certain, that the presence of international student-athletes in NCAA track and field has also increased.

Research also documented the migration of Kenyan track and field student-athletes to the NCAA DI. 40 In this research, Bale and Sang built on the Bale’s 1990’s data on the proportion of international student-athletes in NCAA DI. Specifically, their research explored the relationship, over time, between the number of Kenyan recruits to US universities and the global status of Kenyan athletics, the event-by-event participation of Kenyan recruits, and the cultural implications of foreign recruitment of athletes from low income countries.41 Their characterization of the sub-group of Kenyan student-athlete migrants in track and field was based

37 Frank Litsky, “Track and Field; Foreign Athletes’ Presence Is Felt at N.C.A.A. Meet,” New York Times (New York, NY), Jun. 16 2003. 38 Ibid. 39 Adam Love and Seungmo Kim, "Sport labor migration and collegiate sport in the United States: A typology of migrant athletes," Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 4, no. 9 (2011) : 91. 40 John Bale and Joe Sang, “Out of Africa: the ‘Development’ of Kenyan Athletics, Talent Migration and the Global Sports System,” in The Global Sports Arena: Athletic Talent Migration in an Interdependent World (Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1994), 200-205. 41 Ibid, 202-203

13 on an analysis of Bale’s original data. Considering the overall presence of elite athletes from Kenya, the authors interpreted the migration of Kenyan athletes to the NCAA in two ways: first, a form of cultural imperialism; and, second, the underdevelopment of local sporting resources in Kenya.42 This research asserted that elite sport development was the product of a series of different movement cultures that required a global systems approach to understand the impact of migration on national team development. 43

2.2.4 Restrictions on movement

The increase in demand, on the part of both athletes and nations, for the migration of sport- workers, has resulted variously in the loosening, restricting, and challenging of national and sport federation labour laws. The first of these cases to make its mark on the international sport community was the Belgian Football Association v Bosman .44 Bosman challenged the Belgian Football Association’s enforcement of FIFA’s regulations restricting player transfers.45 The Court of Justice of the European Union found that FIFA’s regulations, allowing restrictions on the transfer of players between clubs, was a violation of Article 39(1) of the Treaty of Rome by restricting the freedom of movement of players and their right to make a living. 46 While the court’s decision in Bosman was influential, it is rare that International Sport Federations are found accountable to national and international law. To address the legality, and the hurdles that often exist in sport labour migration, many countries have adopted sport-worker specific laws to facilitate the migration of athletes, recognizing them as specialized workers and simplifying visa issuance procedures.47

Amateur sport migration, specifically to the NCAA, has seen a tightening of regulations to control the number of international students entering these US university athletics programs. As international student-athlete migration accelerated during the 1950s, the NCAA attempted to place restrictions on the numbers of international student-athletes entering the US university

42 Ibid, 203-204. 43 Ibid, 205. 44 “Belgian Football Association v Jean-Marc Bosman” (European Court of Justice, 1996). 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Sage, Globalizing Sport , 70-71.

14 system by introducing NCAA By-Law 4-1-(f)(2) in the 1960s. 48 NCAA By-Law 4-1-(f)(2) restricted the eligibility of international student-athletes by designating each year after their nineteenth birthday prior to matriculation from an NCAA member institution, to count as a one year of varsity competition. 49 These years accumulated regardless of whether the international student-athlete had or had not entered the NCAA system. 50 With a strict four-year eligibility rule for all student-athletes in the NCAA, the rule limited international student-athletes’ years of eligibility disproportionally to those of athletes who were US citizens.

In 1973, Howard University took the NCAA to court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief based on the broad claim that the applicable NCAA rules and procedures denied athletes equal protection and due process as required by the United States Constitution. 51 The District Court of Columbia ruled in favour of Howard University, declaring that the NCAA’s Foreign-Student Rule constituted a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 52 The Court also declared that future enforcement of the Foreign-Student Rule by NCAA was permanently enjoined. 53

Today there is no limitation on the number of international student-athletes in the NCAA. However, the tension concerning the high proportion of non-US athletes in the US university sport system is still prevalent. In 2012, the National Junior College Athletic Association implemented new restrictions on the gross number of international student-athletes permitted on teams. 54 The new rule capped the number of international student-athletes to one quarter of the available positions on sports teams. 55 After the New York State Attorney General’s Civil Bureau

48 “Howard University v National Collegiate Athletic Association” (Legal Case, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1973). 49 Ibid. 50 This rule also applied to international students who were enrolled in NCAA institutions who were red-shirted for a varsity season. Often first and second year student-athletes in the NCAA are red-shirted allowing for further skill development. 51 “Howard University v National Collegiate Athletic Association” (1973). 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Steve Wieberg, "Junior colleges approve limiting participation of foreign Athletes," USA Today , June. 12 2011. 55 Ibid.

15 launched an investigation in February 2015, this rule was repealed with no subsequent replacement limiting the number of international student athletes.56

While the legal landscape may appear to be more accommodating to international student- athletes, the NCAA’s strict amateur code regulations continue to preclude many international student-athletes from competing in NCAA sports. Recent documentation indicates that international student-athletes are responsible for 90% of the NCAA amateur code violations. 57 To assist international student-athletes, the NCAA Eligibility Centre advises all international student-athletes to register with them as soon as the possibility of becoming an NCAA athlete presents itself. 58

2.3 Why the NCAA? Factors driving international student-athlete migration

In addition to focusing on the frequency of student-athlete migration, research has also considered the motivation for many international student-athletes who chose to compete in NCAA sports. Bale developed detailed lists of reasons why international student-athletes choose to migrate to the NCAA for track and field through. These lists included: athletic scholarships; climate and weather (the ability to train outdoors year-round), presence of friends; academic reputation; sporting facilities; coach influence; athletic reputation; competitive program; and cultural experience.59

Many of the factors identified by Bale in 1991 continue to motivate student-athletes today. 60 The NCAA continues to boast some of the highest caliber training facilities in the world, resulting in a strong attraction for international student-athletes who have less access to sophisticated

56 Brian Sharp, “Junior College scrap limits on foreign athletes,” Democrat and Chronical (Rochester, NY), Mar. 30, 2015. 57 Michelle Brutlag Hosick, "International prospective student-athletes pose challenges," NCAA.org , last modified November 1, 2010, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/international-prospective-student- athletes-pose-challenges. 58 Ibid. 59 Bale, The brawn drain, 105-116. 60 Nicole R Letawsky, Raymond G Schneider, Paul M Pedersen, Carolyn J Palmer, “Factors influencing the college selection process of student-athletes: Are their factors similar to non-athletes?” College Student Journal 37, no. 4 (2003) : 604.

16 facilities in their own countries.61 This factor is compounded by the fact that many of the international student-athletes migrating to the NCAA have reached a high level of performance as juniors. Not only are these student-athletes seeking top training facilities, but also elite training environments. The lack of such opportunities in their own countries continues to be an important motivator. 62

Temporal pressures have also been cited as motivating factors for student-athlete migration to the US for NCAA sport, given the limited length of the average track and field athlete’s career. While the sport of track and field is comprised of a variety of events, that include all three somatotypes, most athletes reach their athletic prime during their mid-twenties to early thirties. 63 This age range begins right after university careers end, making most track and field athletes’ interuniversity track and field career a crucial time of athletic development.

Temporal pressures were also addressed by Bale as motivating factors for Canadian track and field athletes to migrate to the NCAA. Bale’s research indicated that some migrating student- athletes wanted to utilize the NCAA as a platform to further their progression into senior national level careers after competing in the NCAA. 64 More recent research by Wells in 2009, contradicts Bale’s findings indicating that some student-athletes view their time in the NCAA as a means to an end. 65 Canadian athletes interviewed by Wells considered their participation in NCAA track and field, whether or not they received a scholarship, as their goal; it represented the pinnacle stage of their athletic careers and they had no intention of pursuing the sport after their university careers.66

While Bale and Wells found differing personal motivations on the part of their respective athlete samples, both sample groups of athletes shared the view that the NCAA was the top competitive

61 David Pierce, Nels Popp, and Brad Meadows, "Qualitative analysis of international student-athlete perspectives on recruitment and transitioning into American College sport," The Sport Journal 14., no. 1 (2011). 62 Nels Popp, Mary A. Hums, and T.C. Greenwell, "Do international student-athletes view the purpose of sport differently than United States student-athletes at NCAA Division I universities?" Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 2, (2009) : 93-110. 63 Richard Schulz and Christine Curnow, “Peak Performance and Age Among Superathletes: Track and Field, Swimming, Baseball, Tennis, and Golf,” Journal of Gerontology 43, no. 5 (1988). 64 Bale, The brawn drain , 104. 65 Cassandra Wells, “Canadian student-athletes in the NCAA,” (master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 2009). 66 Ibid, 40.

17 league at the interuniversity level. Regardless of whether their career athletic goals were long- term or short-term, the status of NCAA competition as the best option was a strong attraction for student-athlete migrants. 67 In the context of track and field, there are no non-professional track and field leagues internationally that rival the competitive level of NCAA DI track and field. The NCAA provides, by far, the largest non-professional competitive league in the world for track and field.

The perceived elite nature of the NCAA holds even more significance in light of the intensification of high performance sport culture. The intensification and increased professionalization of high performance sport since the 1970’s, has motivated athletes in many sports to develop younger, train longer and at higher intensities, with a focus on rank as an indicator of success. 68 This shift, and the pressures exerted on athletes since that time, have been cited not only as contributing to the increase in athlete migration generally, but also as an encouragement to use performance enhancing drugs, to endure overtraining, and to compete with injuries. 69

Regardless of the motivations behind international student-athletes’ decisions to migrate to the US to compete in NCAA sports, the recruitment process is also significant. Athletic recruiting to the NCAA ranges from informal chance meetings to heavily structured recruiting efforts. There is a great deal of pressure on coaching staff to attract top athletes to their programs, and recruiting occurs across a number of channels. Current and past athletes from NCAA teams, and other supporters and boosters associated with NCAA institutions are, along with the coaching staff, active in the recruiting process. Communications with NCAA university sport programs on behalf of an athlete – for example, by an athlete’s parents, teachers, agents and club coaches – can also be part of the recruitment and migration process. Building on the work conducted by Meyer’s regarding bridgeheads 70 , Elliot and Maguire use the term “bridgehead contacts” when

67 Ibid, 33. 68 Connor and Griffin, "The Muscle Trade,” 286; James Connor, “The athlete as widget: how exploitation explains elite sport,” Sport in Society 12, no. 10 (2009) : 1369. 69 James Connor, “Towards a sociology of drugs in sport,” Sport in Society 12, no. 3 (2009) : 333. 70 J-B Meyer, “Network approach versus brain drain: Lessons from the Diaspora,” International Migration (Geneva Switzerland) 39, no. 5 (2001).

18 describing informal contacts with individuals who facilitate the migration process for international student-athletes. Bridgehead contacts have often migrated themselves, thus falling under the classification of returnee , and therefore understand the process. With this knowledge, bridgehead contacts commonly take on the role of middlemen, resulting in what Elliott and Maguire describe as, “a series of informal interdependent networks of social relationships”. 71

2.4 The commodification of the international student-athlete

It is not only student-athletes who face the pressure of producing winning performances and teams, but also their coaches and academic institutions. Winning an NCAA championship not only solidifies the jobs of university staff, but may also have an impact on the ability of a US university to attract new applicants. The economic value of an NCAA championship and high performing teams has placed a great deal of pressure on coaches to recruit top student-athletes.

Job security for NCAA coaches, particularly in DI, is often directly linked to the success of their sport programs. 72 This pressure has made recruiting a mandatory aspect of NCAA coaches’ jobs, often resulting in considerable resources and time being invested into boosting team competitiveness. Rather than waiting for the next star walk-on, now a rarity in the NCAA, coaches scout athletes across the world to fill their rosters. 73

The strong focus on recruiting has led to many questionable tactics engaged in by coaches and staff in order to secure a student-athlete’s commitment to their program. 74 A survey of 10,000 student-athletes across 244 NCAA universities who were recruited for their respective sports found:

• 42% consumed alcohol on their recruiting visits; • 35% participated in drinking contests; and,

71 Elliott and Maguire, "Thinking outside of the box,” 492. 72 Marc Tracy, "Coaching Carousel Spins Ever Faster,” New York Times (New York, New York), Dec. 1, 2015. 73 Bale, The brawn drain , 13-17. 74 Letawsky, Schneider, Pedersen, and Palmer, “Factors influencing the college selection process,” 604-610.

• 51% were involved in at least one alcohol related activity. 75

Other research on student-athlete recruitment identified the practice of lowering entrance standards and the use of probationary periods for incoming student-athletes who did not meet the academic requirements for admission. 76

The economic value of talented athletes extends beyond their direct relationship to job security for coaching staff. Talented athletes in the NCAA, especially in the case of football and basketball, are the foundation of a multi-billion dollar per year industry. 77 While track and field may not be a high income generating sport for many NCAA intuitions (unless they have recruited the next Usain Bolt), the value of talented athletes is in the legacy and pipelines developed as a result of their recruitment. 78 When talented athletes are recruited, they have also been credited with increasing competitive standards in their events as competitors, and with boosting training quality and the motivation of their teammates. 79

Further economic benefits for top level NCAA sport programs include a potential increase in out-of-state and international student applicants to a university.80 Mixon et al., showed that the higher the NCAA division of an educational institution (D1-D4) the higher the number of out-of- state student applicants. Mixon and Ressler similarly showed that the success of athletic programs was also significantly correlated to out-of-state migration. 81 Mixon and Ressler also identified a significant correlation between higher NCAA divisions and higher tuition costs. Referring to this process as “tuition price discrimination,” Mixon and Ressler stated that the attraction of successful, high level NCAA division athletic programs for general student

75 Kathleen Hill, Kelly M Burch-Ragan, and Denise Y Yates, “Current and future issues and trends facing student athletes and athletic programs,” New Directions for Student Services 93, (2001) : 68, citing: Welch Suggs, “79% of College Athletes Experience Hazing, Survey Finds,” Chronicle of Higher Education , September 3, 1999, 83. 76 Hill, Burch-Ragan, and Yates, “Current and future issues and trends facing student athletes and athletic programs,” 66. 77 Lindsay J. Rosenthal, “From Regulating Organization to Multi-Billion Dollar Business: The NCAA is Commercializing the Amateur Competition it has Taken Almost a Century to Create,” Seaton Hall Journal of Sports Law 13, no. 2 (2003). 78 Bale, The brawn drain , 68-72 . 79 Bob Hersh, “Keeping Track,” Track and Field News 31, no. 4 (1978) : 16. 80 Franklin G. Mixon Jr and Yu Hsing, "College student migration and human capital theory: A research note," Education Economics 2, no. 1 (1994) : 65-73. 81 Franklin G. Mixon Jr and Rand W. Ressler, "An empirical note on the impact of college athletics on tuition revenues," Applied Economics Letters 2, no. 10 (1995) : 386.

20 populations, particularly out-of-state students, permitted these institutions to increase tuition because the of the higher demand for admission. 82 Stronger sports team performances not only attracted students to US universities, but also perpetuate sport related consumerism by these students once they were accepted. 83

2.5 Impacts of NCAA participation on International Student-Athletes

Research on the migration of international student-athletes to the NCAA has also addressed the experiences of those athletes while competing in the NCAA. For Canadian student-athletes participating in the NCAA, finances were cited as one of their greatest concern. 84 Financial struggles associated with high-performance sport is not exclusively an NCAA issue, nor is it a new issue faced by athletes participating in high level sport. Research has indicated that since the 1970’s, access to sport, particularly high-performance sport, has become strained as the expectation of full-time training has become a norm, impacting the financial viability of high- performance sport, particularly for those from lower socioeconomic statuses. 85

The availability and prestige of NCAA athletic scholarships is a significant attraction for international student-athletes. While many Canadian student-athletes migrate to the NCAA for various sports each year, research by Dyck indicates that the number, and more importantly, value of many athletic scholarships received by Canadian student-athletes is not as high as publically perceived. 86 NCAA bylaws cap the number of annual scholarships permitted for each team at a member institution. 87 To work within this mandated cap, coaches commonly split scholarships into halves and quarters in order to offer more money to a higher proportion of

82 Ibid, 386. 83 Taylor Branch, The Cartel: Inside the Rise and Imminent Fall of the NCAA , (San Francisco, California: Byliner Inc., 2011). 84 Pierce, Popp, and Meadows, "Qualitative analysis of international student-athlete perspectives on recruitment and transitioning into American College sport". 85 Rob Beamish, "Towards a Socio-Cultural Profile of Canada's High Performance Athletes," International Review for the Sociology of Sport 27, no. 4 (1992) : 286. 86 Noel Dyck, "Athletic scholarships and the politics of child rearing in Canada," Anthropological Notebooks 12, no. 2 (2006) : 76. 87 NCAA. “2009-10 NCAA Division 1 Manual. Article 15.5.3.1.2,” NCAApublications.com, last modified July 1, 2009, http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D110.pdf.

21 athletes on their teams. 88 This financial reality may explain findings from research such as that by Le Crom, et al., who found that scholarship support alone is not significantly related to retention in NCAA sport programs. 89

In addition to financial struggles, the time demands of NCAA training programs has also proven to be a struggle for student-athletes attempting to balance academic work and athletics. The difficulty in achieving a balance has been documented as a contributing factor to the early drop out by student-athletes from their programs of study. 90 The high demands of some NCAA sports programs have also been associated with high rates of student-athlete burnout from sport. Dyck’s research indicates that many of the top junior athletes migrating to the NCAA never return to their sport after university.91

While international student-athletes often fail to return to national level sports in their home country after university, perhaps associated with NCAA burnout, it could also be explained by Wells’ research that recognized differences in the long-term goals of Canadian student-athletes in the NCAA. 92 Furthermore, research by Stambulova, et al., suggests that the specific transition from junior to senior level sport, separate and apart from any mitigating factors, is difficult for most athletes. 93 During this time of transition, athletes face various challenges and demands that they must reconcile and balance in order to successfully move from junior to senior level competition. 94

Beyond dropout, burnout and a poor record of return to senior national sport participation in their home country, there has also been a long-standing issue regarding the quality of education

88 William G. Bowen and Sarah A. Levin, Reclaiming the game: College sports and educational values (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011). 89 Le Crom, Carrie L., Beverly J. Warren, Henry T. Clark, Joseph Marolla and Paul Gerber, "Factors contributing to student-athlete retention," Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 2, no. 1 (2009) : 14-24. 90 Julie A. Perrelli, “Factors involved of why student–athletes withdraw from collegiate athletics,” unpublished master’s thesis, Springfield College, 2004. 91 Dyck, “Athletic scholarships and the politics of child rearing in Canada,” 65-78. 92 Wells, “Canadian student-athletes in the NCAA.” 93 Natalia Stambulova, Dorothee Alfermann, Traci Statler and Jean Cote, "ISSP position stand: Career development and transitions of athletes," International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 7, no. 4 (2009) : 405. 94 Specifically, Stambulova cited five demands that arise during the transition from junior to senior level sport: balancing sport goals with other life goals and reorganizing lifestyles; determining one’s individual path in sport; coping with the pressures of selection; winning prestige among peers and coaches; and coping with relationship problems, at pg. 405

22 received by many student-athletes participating in the NCAA. The poor quality of education received by many student-athletes in the NCAA has also been severely criticized by US scholars, particularly in the case of African American student-athletes. 95 A long standing issue specifically affecting international student-athletes is the transferability, to their home country, of the degrees received while competing in the NCAA. 96

Further criticism of the NCAA reaches well beyond the issues of finances, burnout, dropout, retention and educational rigor. When comparing the experiences of Canadian track and field athletes who migrated to the NCAA with those who stayed in Canada, Wells provided the following list of criticisms, found in the research literature, about the negative aspects and impacts of the NCAA: unethical recruiting practices; academic dishonesty; eligibility infractions; drugs and doping violations; racist mascots; gender inequalities and sexual harassment; gambling; poor graduation rates; and physical and sexual abuse. 97

The experience of international student-athletes in the NCAA is layered and unique in a variety of ways, many of which stem from the cultural or ethnic backgrounds of the student-athletes who migrate. Ballinger claimed that African student-athletes competing in the NCAA, “have been threatened on many occasions with deportation if they don’t do as they are told, if they don’t race in every meet that comes along”. 98 Work highlighting the exploitation and racialized experiences of student-athletes in the NCAA shows the importance of contextualizing research findings in order to appropriately represent the varied experience that occur within sub-groups such as track and field student-athlete migrants.

2.6 Canada’s response to student-athlete migration to the NCAA

Those at the forefront of Canadian interuniversity sport, such as Leo MacPherson, former president of the CIS, now U Sport, believe that the talent drain resulting from the migration of

95 Bowen and Levin, Reclaiming the Game ; Billy Hawkins, The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports, and Predominantly White NCAA Institutions , (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). 96 Bale, The brawn drain , 169. 97 Wells, “Canadian student-athletes in the NCAA,” 8. 98 Lee Ballinger, In Your Face! Sports for Love or Money, (Chicago: Vanguard, 1981), 60.

Canadian student-athletes to the NCAA has decreased the quality of play in Canadian interuniversity sports. 99

The impact of student-athlete migration to the NCAA is more significant than just having athletes absent from Canadian competitive sport. Prior to migrating to the NCAA, student- athletes must ensure they remain eligible for NCAA participation, a process that has complicated the financial support for junior development athletics in Canada. The impact of NCAA amateur code regulations on Canadian junior athletics funding is one of the most fundamental impacts of the Americanization of Canadian sport culture. 100 In order to remain eligible to compete in the US/NCAA system, Canadian athletes must ensure that the funding they receive as juniors does not violate the NCAA’s strict amateur regulations.

In order to remain eligible for NCAA sport participation athletes must retain an amateur status, which according to the NCAA means refraining from the following activities: 101

• Signing a contract with a professional team • Playing with professionals • Participating in tryouts or practices with a professional team • Accepting payments or preferential benefits for playing sports • Accepting prize money above your expenses • Accepting benefits from an agent or prospective agent • Agreeing to be represented by an agent • Delaying your full-time college enrollment to play in organized sports competitions

Since the publication of Bale’s research in the 1990’s Canadian interuniversity sport has attempted to change in ways that increase its attractiveness to young Canadian athletes. In the case of track and field, the CIS released a promotional document in 2008, titled CANADAfirst .

99 Scott Hasti, “CIS addresses competition within the NCAA,” The Carillon , last modified n.d. https://www.carillonregina.com/cis-addresses-competition-with-ncaa/. 100 Bruce Kidd, "How do we find our own voices in the “new world order”? A commentary on Americanization," Sociology of Sport Journal 8, no. 2 (1991) : 178-184. 101 NCAA, “Amateurism,” NCAA.com , last modified January 1, 2010, http://www.ncaa.org/amateurism.

The document was directed to prospective student-athletes and their parents. 102 CANADAfirst listed the advantages of choosing the CIS as a student-athlete, the forms of financial support available, and institution specific facts about the Canadian universities participating in the CIS.103

Specific improvements cited in CANADAfirst included: well-educated and highly knowledgeable coaches, a good balance between athletic and academic pursuits; strong team-oriented athletic programs that provide a high level of student-athlete enjoyment; national, provincial and university funding opportunities; and a focus on long-term athlete development allowing athletes to better prepare for Canadian National Championships and National Team selection. 104 In addition to listing the benefits of and improvements to the CIS system, CANADAfirst also addressed the potential educational shortcomings for those athletes who migrate to the NCAA. CANADAfirst targeted the glorified NCAA scholarships, discussing the true value of a scholarship where education is sometimes second rate, or worse, is not transferable to Canada. 105

In 2013, the CIS released a five year University Sport Strategic Plan outlining the goal for Canada to become a world leader in university sport. 106 In order to come closer to realizing this goal, the CIS listed four expected outcomes for the year 2018, along with key success indicators for each outcome and strategies for achievement. 107 The four expected outcomes listed in the Strategic Plan are: an effective expert driven and performing sport system; an enhanced competitive sports system; a more vibrant and visible sport system; and, a perception amongst CIS members that university sport in Canada is a significant contributor in the Canadian sport system. 108

102 CIS Sports, “CanadaFirst,” Canadian Interuniversity Sport , last modified September 1, 2008, http://english.cis- sic.ca. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 U Sports, “By-Laws Policies and Procedures,” Usports.ca , last modified September 1, 2017, https://usports.ca/hq/by-laws-policies-procedures. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid.

While not represented as a direct response to NCAA migration, the University Sport Strategic Plan reads as a long-term plan for a harmonized high-performance sport development. The plan focuses on increasing the level of competition, balancing the dual role of student and athlete, increasing marketing and promotional efforts geared towards junior level athletes and the general public, and more generally increasing the presence of the CIS across the country through media and community engagement. 109

The CIS/U Sports has also been more direct in its efforts to persuade Canadian student-athletes that the NCAA is not the best choice for interuniversity sport. The hidden costs of the NCAA system are addressed on the CIS website in a 2007 publication comparing Canadian and US institutions and documenting the financial implications of a student-athlete’s decision. 110 The Canada vs USA publication, outlines all of the cost of living and ancillary costs incurred as an international student attending NCAA institutions, and it outlines the difference in financial resources and preferable tax treatment available to Canadian student-athletes who remain in Canada compared those who choose the US. 111 Excluding tuition and material costs, the difference between the average cost of attending a Canadian institution versus an NCAA D1 institution, is C$58,861 less in Canada per student.112

The CIS also publishes the financial assistance, through universities, provincial sport organizations and national sport organizations, that is available to student-athletes who remain in Canada. At the university level, CIS member institutions gave scholarships to 44% of all CIS student-athletes accounting, on average, for 52% of tuition and fees in the 2013/2014 academic year.113

109 Ibid. 110 L Krukowska, M. Christie, T. Akinwekomi, M. Muruganathan, X. Huang, and H. Song, “Canada vs. U.S.A: The financial implications of the choice,” Canadian Interuniversity Sport, last modified July 2007, http://english.cis sic.ca/information/members_info/pdfs /pdf_research_and_stats/july2007CanadavsUSAresearchfinal.pdf. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. This difference in costs was based on the assumption that the student would be receiving the Millennium Bursary for three out of four years. 113 Ontario University Athletics, “Athletic Scholarships: CIS Schools Provided $16M To Student-Athletes In 2013- 14,” Oua.ca , last modified May 26, 2015, http://www.oua.ca/general/2014-15/scholarships.

At the provincial level, each Provincial Sport Organization has different funding provisions for its respective sport. In Ontario, Athletics Ontario has partnered with the provincial government to provide athlete assistance through the Quest for Gold Lottery Program. Quest for Gold funds are generated through lottery ticket purchases and divided among the top ranked 23 male and female track and field athletes in the province who apply for the funding, with an additional 8 cards allotted for injury, illness and/or pregnancy.114 Developed by the Ministry of Health Promotion, and now managed by the Ministry for Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Quest for Gold program was designed to encourage athletes to remain in Canada, specifically in this case Ontario.

While this funding opportunity is a great resource for junior and senior level athletes, it has traditionally only been available to those athletes who choose not to attend an NCAA university. According to NCAA bylaws, an Ontario student-athlete who accepts this funding would violate their NCAA-defined amateur status. 115 If an Ontario athlete were to receive Quest for Gold funding, and subsequently migrated to the NCAA, the athlete may be required to return all funds received to Athletics Ontario in order to re-establish their amateur status. 116 Recently, Athletics Ontario changed its policy barring athletes who intend to compete at an NCAA university from accepting funding. Rather, it is now up to the athlete whether he/she will put his/her amateur status in jeopardy.

At the federal level, there are more opportunities for NCAA bound Canadian student-athletes to receive funding that does not conflict with a student-athlete’s amateur athletic status. Athletics Canada, the National Sport Governing Body for track and field in Canada, has adjusted its funding scheme to accommodate the NCAA amateur bylaws. 117 In fact, Athletics Canada has an athlete assistance funding package called NCAA Cards . These are allocated on a pro-rated basis

114 Athletics Ontario, “ Quest for Gold – Ontario Athlete Assistance Program 2014-2015,” Athleticsontario.ca, last modified November 11, 2014, http://athleticsontario.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Athletics-Ontario-Q4G- Criteria-FINAL.pdf. 115 NCAA, “Amateurism”. 116 Ibid. 117 Athletics Ontario, “ Quest for Gold – Ontario Athlete Assistance Program 2014-2015.”

27 to athletes who have NCAA or other foreign university obligations. 118 Athletes who receive an NCAA Card are given seasonal funding during the months of May, June, July and August. Prior to receiving an NCAA Card , the recipient must have written permission from their foreign educational institution and commit to a training and competition program with Athletics Canada staff. Included in this competition program is participation at the Canadian Senior National Championships. This NCAA amendment in Canadian track and field funding represents an attempt by Athletics Canada to maintain some control over high performance Canadian athletes, control that is typically lost while an athlete is participating at an NCAA institution.

The tension associated with high performance in sport and retaining Canada’s best athletes in Canada is also visible at the national political level where sport has been tied to the development of national identities. The call to sports to help develop national identity is well documented in Canada. Denis Coderre, former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport (1999-2001) made the point in his first speech, stating, “high performance athletes are Canadian heroes … And that’s why the Government of Canada as a whole is working to encourage the kind of climate in high performance sport that will help achieve that goal”.119 Sport as a cultural institution, and achievement in high performance sport, is seen by many as a significant contributor, “to the vitality, vibrancy and international profile of a nation”. 120

Increased media coverage of international sporting events has resulted in criticism from both media and some sectors of the public regarding poor results achieved by Canadian athletes at international competitions.121 Thibault and Babiak cite the 2000 Sydney Olympics, 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and 2004 Athens Olympics as examples of events with high levels of media coverage where Canada’s poor medal counts led to, “a public (or media) outcry about how little

118 Athletics Canada, “2015-2016 Athlete Assistance Program (AAP) Policy Olympic Stream,” Athletics. ca, last modified n.d., http://athletics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2015-16_CardingCriteria_EN.pdf. 119 Lucie Thibault and Kathy Babiak, “Organizational Changes in Canada’s Sport System: Toward an Athlete- Centred Approach,” European Sport Management Quarterly 5, no. 2 (2005) : 121. 120 Mick Green, “Integrating Macro-and Meso-Level Approaches: Comparative Analysis of Elite Sport Development in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom,” European Sport Management Quarterly 5, no. 2 (2005) : 144. 121 Thibault and Babiak, “Organizational Changes in Canada’s Sport System,” 115-116.

28 funding was invested in amateur sport in Canada,” putting pressure on the Canadian government to ensure that athlete care and support was addressed.122

The Canadian Sports Review Panel was set up in 2004 to determine in which sports Canadian athletes had the best chance of winning medals at the 2008-2012 Olympics. The Canadian Government’s Sport Excellence Strategy was designed to address podium results at the Olympic and Paralympic Games, results which the Federal government stated were, “essential in defining Canada as a leading nation in sport”. 123 Formative evaluations that took place in 2016 indicate that the Sports Excellence Strategy was successful in achieving increases in overall national performance at the Olympic and Paralympic Games and World Championship in Olympic and Paralympic sports. In winter sports, Canada is now near the top of all nations, whereas in summer sports, Canada has risen from 19 th place in 2012, to 17 th in 2014. 124

In the case of track and field, international sport success and interuniversity competition are linked in that there is a temporal connection between the athletic development occurring during an athlete’s interuniversity career and the typical international competitive career span. This temporal connection creates something of a turf war over Canadian athletes and the retention of control over athlete development.

2.7 Summary

Bale’s migration research employed the sport of track and field as a case study to provide an in- depth look at the supply and demand patterns of athlete migration to the NCAA. 125 During the period of time between World War II and 1991, Bale showed that international student-athlete migration was increasing, particularly in case of Canadian student-athletes. 126 Since Bale’s

122 Ibid, 116. 123 Government of Canada, “Sport Excellence Strategy: Achieving Podium Results at Olympic and Paralympic Games,” Heritage Canada , last modified August, 2005, http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH24-15- 2005E.pdf. 124 The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated, “Canadian Sport Policy (2012) Formative Evaluation and Thematic Review of Physical Literacy and LTAD,” Sport Information Resource Centre , last modified September 1, 2016. http://sirc.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/CSP_documents /tsgi_pim_formeval_csp_themrev_final_report.pdf, 64. 125 Bale, The brawn drain , 66-93. 126 Ibid, 72-77.

NCAA DI track and field specific research, there has been no further mapping and data documentation of this specific sport involving Canadian student-athletes.

While other research has addressed the movement of student-athletes on an international scale, Canadian specific and track and field specific research has been limited to smaller scale studies focusing on student-athletes’ experiences, motivations for migration, and the impacts of NCAA participation. These studies afforded insights into the student-athletes’ experiences, but have done so without an understanding of how representative those experiences are because of the absence of data on the rate at which Canadian student-athletes have continued migrate to NCAA since the 1990’s.

With open borders, strong incentives, and an increase in the value of athletic potential as a commodity, research on athletic sub-groups is still of interest to researchers interested in the various tangents of sport migration. This interest, in the case of track in field, is also shared by Provincial and National track and field organizations. Canadian funding programs have taken to adapting to the flow of student-athlete migration towards the NCAA rather than fighting it as was done in the past. And, with these changes in policy have come increases in the success that the Canadian National Track and Field Team has achieved on the international stage.

But, with these changes, decisions, successes, we also know that there can be a hidden price tag associated with migration to the NCAA. That some athletes have experienced burnout, abuse, financial strain, received poor educations and that some end their careers earlier than intended. There are also prices to be paid by those student-athletes who stay in Canada and compete in the University Sport system. The impacts of talent loss, such as that experienced across a variety of professional fields, might be a concern in track and field, but we do not have the data currently available to find the answers to these questions.

Chapter 3: Methods

This thesis seeks to define the sub-group of student-athletes who have migrated from Canada to the NCAA to compete in track and field in the NCAA DI. In order to define the scope of this thesis and determine the data available for collection, a pilot study was conducted during the thesis proposal defense stage of this master’s thesis. This methods section outlines the pilot study and the subsequent sub-subgroup scope, student-athlete data that was collected, and the descriptive techniques used to analyze the data.

3.1 Pilot Study

As of 2012, there were 33 NCAA DI conferences with a total of 332 institutions belonging to the DI. The large volume of institutions in the NCAA DI restricted the scope of this study to only reviewing the DI, rather than the entire NCAA system.

Prior to engaging in mass data collection regarding Canadian track and field student-athletes competing in the NCAA DI, a sample of 50 NCAA DI institutions were assessed to determine what student-athlete specific information was available to be collected. Archived information available prior to 2005/06 was not consistently accessible from the archived records accessible on NCAA DI team athletics websites searched during the pilot study. Based on this sample of schools, the scope of data collected was limited to the 2005/06 – 2012/2013 academic years. Further, the list of available data that could be collected, discussed in greater detail below was generated.

3.2 Sub-Group

The sub-group this thesis focuses on is Canadian track and field student-athletes who competed in NCAA DI track and field between the 2005/2006 and 2012/2013 competitive seasons. The criteria for inclusion are dependent on the documentation concerning Canadian student-athletes in archived rosters available on NCAA DI university websites. As this study represents an attempt to capture the entire population of Canadian track and field student-athletes who migrated to NCAA DI universities, there are no grounds for excluding athletes.

For the NCAA DI universities that have separate rosters for cross-country teams and track and field teams, both rosters were searched for Canadian student-athletes. Similarly, for the few

31 universities that maintained separate rosters for indoor and outdoor track and field teams, both lists were searched for Canadian student-athletes.

As all of this information was publically available, thus no human research ethics protocol and approval was necessary, nor was it necessary to obtain consent from any of the athletes whose information was collected. In best efforts to protect the confidentiality of participants involved in this study, each athlete was recorded in a master list and assigned an identification number that was used to identify them in the data collection and analysis.

3.3 Data Collection

As noted above, all data collected for the purpose of this study is from the competitive seasons 2005/2006 up to and including 2012/2013. The data collected for this study start at the 2005/2006 competitive season because archived rosters began to be available online through NCAA DI university websites during that season. Earlier data would have required collection directly from university athletics departments, or from NCAA D1 Championships, which would have been available through resources such as Track and Field News .127

In addition to determining the number of Canadian student-athletes competing in track and field from online archived NCAA DI university track and field rosters, additional data available on the archived rosters were also collected. The additional data were selected based on their availability and relevance to the overall understanding of the group of athletes. All data collected are outlined and defined in Table 1. In addition to the NCAA DI university websites hosting the archived rosters, the following websites were also used to collect data that was not readily available on some university websites:

1. athletics.ca – Athletics Canada’s website posting rankings and performances 2. www.athletic.net - a track and field results management website that posts team and university performances for athletes in Canada and the United States of America.

127 Now available online at: www.trackandfieldnews.com, Track and Field News was formerly a print only product that was available through subscription.

Table 1: Data Collection Categories and Descriptions

Data Field Description and Rationale

NCAA-DI All NCAA DI universities (332 in 33 conferences) were recorded. The universities University included in this study represent one of the most competitive amateur track and field leagues in the world. The sheer number of post-secondary institutions in the United States, and that participate in the NCAA, have limited the scope of this study to a single division for the purposes of this thesis. Longitude and latitude are also recorded for each university to enable mapping of student-athlete migration from Canada to the NCAA DI. Athlete Collection of first and last name as identifier for further inquiry when referencing other Name databases. Athlete Based on the representation on the men’s/women’s rosters available on the NCAA D1 Sex university websites, for organizational purposes. Seasons Data collection began with the 2005/2006 academic year through to the 2012/13 academic year. Data was not consistently available before the 2005/06 on the online archived rosters available on NCAA DI university websites. Other The city, country and gender of other international athletes on every NCAA team where International a Canadian athlete was found was recorded to provide context for future studies to assess Athletes the relationship between Canadian student-athlete migration and international student- athlete migration. Based on these data it would be possible to determine the proportion of international student-athletes from Canada on a team. Competitive Redshirt ‘Freshman’ Status This designation was included after the initial collection of data to explore a potential trend in the Canadian student-athlete experience in the NCAA. In addition to recording the number of seasons a Canadian student-athlete competed in the NCAA this gives further information explaining why athletes may not be using all of their available NCAA eligibility. Entering ‘Freshman’ This designation is used to record a student athlete who enters an NCAA DI university and competes in his/her first season on the team. Redshirt Beyond redshirting ‘freshmen’ as a team strategy, athletes are also redshirted based on injuries that occur during the season, and readiness issues that may be associated with academic success. Competing This designation is used for all athletes who are competing beyond their entering year in NCAA DI. Event Type Distance All running events over 800 meters. Sprints/hurdles All running events under 800 meters including hurdles. Jumps High jump, long jump, triple jump, and pole vault. Throws Multi Events All pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlons, with the addition of any athlete that did both a running and a field event, but not specifically one of the full multi events. Year of Birth Basic collection as an identifier for further inquiry when referencing other databases. These data were collected specifically to understand the national brackets consisting of youth, junior, or senior levels. Year of Study Using both YOS and TYC (described next) there is the potential for the data to be used in further studies to analyze the athletic career paths of this sub group. How many years

they participate, how many years of eligibility they use during their NCAA career. Total Years Often, due to injury, transferring, academic probation, or red-shirting, athletes do not Competing finish all four years of their eligibility. Collecting this information provides a useful data point for context to determine actual time spent competing in the NCAA. Predicted Predicted date of graduation provides a rough estimate on the potential return of athletes Graduation to Canada. The predicted date of graduation is based off on the final competition year Date recorded on the NCAA university website – the value will always be rounded to 4 years from the initial start year recorded. Program of NCAA athletes’ educational programs are critiqued aspects of NCAA sports. Collecting Study the program of study of track and field athletes permits comparison with other sports, and a deeper understanding of the nature of an NCAA career for this subgroup of athletes. These data will vary greatly between universities. Hometown Recording the hometown of athletes not only enables migration to be tracked geographically, but also affords insight into Canadian junior track and field development hubs. Longitude and latitude was also recorded for each hometown to enable the mapping of student-athlete migration from Canada to NCAA DI. Post NCAA Each athlete was checked to determine whether or not they competed after their time in Competition NCAA DI. This information was collected primarily through the websites listed above in order to establish if there were any times/distances recorded for any of the athletes after the 2012/13 season. In some instances, general Google searches and social media were used as resources to collect these data. Sr. National These data were collected from the same sources as the post NCAA data in order to Level team provide context for the level of competition student-athletes are achieving after their participation migration to the NCAA. Specifically, team rosters for the 2012 and 2016 Olympics and the 2013 and 2015 World Athletic Championships were recorded from Athletics Canada and cross referenced with NCAA DI data to better understand the composition of national teams, specifically the presence of the sub-group of student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI. Size of the CIS Data were recorded from U Sport rosters for the 2016/2017 track and field seasons to provide a comparative sample against which the size of the sub-group of student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI could be compared to understand the size of the sub- group. 3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Descriptive Research and Social Network Analysis

In collecting data to better define the sub-group of Canadian track and field student-athletes, this study uses sports geography to examine migration patterns between origin and destination.

Bale and Maguire both acknowledge that the first step in sport migration studies, “is simply to map the information to show the pattern of migratory flows between origin and destination”. 128 This initial ground work provides a foundation for the alternative approaches to complement the

128 Bale and Maguire, The Global Sports Arena, 6-9.

34 work produced by mapping. While mapping is typically weakly related to a theoretical base, it defines the parameters to better understand the groups under study.

In The Brawn Drain , Bale described the extent of foreign recruiting in the United States across a variety of sports. 129 He described the value of descriptive techniques to outline the presence of international student-athletes in the US university system in order to, “provide those involved in debates about foreign recruiting with harder facts”. 130 After broadly outlining the number of international student-athletes participating in NCAA sports, Bale specifically focused on track and field athletes. Bale mapped and tracked the number of international student-athletes, providing a broad perspective on the presence of these athletes in the NCAA system. 131 His analysis included their geographic origins and their campus destinations. With this quantitative framework, Bale then conducted analyses of their recruiting experiences, using interviews, and surveys to discover the attitudes and experiences of both international student-athletes and the coaches actively recruiting them.

To fill this gap in data available to sport and geography research communities, Bale asked the following questions: 132

1. What is the extent of foreign recruiting to the athletic departments of American universities? 2. Have the numbers involved grown over time? 3. Where do such recruits come from? 4. And which institutions act as hosts?

He continued, asking: 133

5. How are student athletes recruited? 6. How do they adjust to life in the US? 7. Are they exploited – or do they do the exploiting? 8. What are their experiences, educational, social, and athletic? 9. What happens to them after they complete their eligibility?

129 Bale, The brawn drain , 65. 130 Ibid, 65. 131 Ibid, 93. 132 Ibid, 5. 133 Ibid, 5.

This study replicates the first four research questions, and attempts to expand the data by addressing question number nine in terms of post-NCAA track and field careers.

This study employs an exploratory descriptive research method. While descriptive methods are not able to establish causal relationships, they do enable the reduction of large data sets into useful numerical representations. 134 The goal of descriptive research is to describe a phenomenon and its characteristics rather than attempting to determine how or why something has happened. Typically, descriptive research employs the use of frequencies, percentages, averages, or other statistical analyses to determine relationships and provide comparisons.

Descriptive research is foundational to experimental research, or research seeking to draw correlations. Prior to theorizing about X, we need to know what X is. 135

This research is intended to provide data regarding the who, where, and when of Canadian track and field student-athlete migration – in order to better facilitate the contextual understanding of the current situation, and to facilitate future research by providing a foundation from which further inquiry can be made.

Collected data were organized graphically and geographically to provide a visual display of Canadian track and field student-athlete migration to the NCAA DI. Using the data, a profile of this student-athlete sub-group was developed to better explain the basic features, movement and long-term sport involvement of this group.

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets were used to organize the data by each of the categories listed above. The data were interpreted to indicate the general characteristics that define this sub-group and their migration choices, and specifically the rate of migration, change in migration over time, migration locations, migration by event groups, and migration from specific Canadian regions, to specific regions in the United States. The final stage of data analysis includes a comparison between the number of student-athletes who participate in sport post-NCAA DI involvement,

134 Kris E Berg and Richard W Latin, Essentials of Research Methods in Health, Physical Education, Exercise Science and Recreation, Second Edition (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004) : 65. 135 Jean Ivey, “Is descriptive research worth doing?” Pediatric Nursing 42 no. 4 (2016) :189.

36 and their impact on Canadian senior national track and field team participation.

Some of the data collected, such as year of birth and program, were not included in the analysis described above. For the purposes of defining this group, it was their time involved within the NCAA DI and their involvement within track and field post-NCAA involvement that was of interest. Birth year in this regard was less important to the organization of data than year of entry and year of predicted graduation. With regard to program of study, while attempts were made to collect this data, there were many instances where this information was either not available, or not available in a manner that allowed degree types to be easily coded for Excel analysis. For example, some programs were named broadly as “Arts” or “Sciences”, and in some cases just stating “undergrad” with no specificity as to the program.

Analysis of the data includes visual representations of the data using the latitudes and longitudes of athletes’ hometowns and NCAA university locations in order to develop high level images of migration flows. Using MaxMind’s GeoLiteCity, an open source data and application programming interface, the data were mapped and represented as a collective and then broken down by year, and by province. 136

136 This product includes GeoLite2 data created by MaxMind, available for public use online: http://www.maxmind.com.

Chapter 5: Results and Analysis 5.1 General Population Statistics

The Master List of all data collected is attached at Appendix 1.

5.1.1 Overall Group Size and Context

Table 2 indicates that a total of 562 Canadian track and field student-athletes migrated to the NCAA DI between the 2005/06 to 2012/13 academic years. Of these 562 athletes 59% were female and 41% were male. To put this number in context, Table 3 shows that 1977 student- athletes participated in track and field in the U Sport (Canadian) system in 2016/17. While it is misleading to suggest that student-athletes who migrated to NCAA DI between 2005/06 – 2012/13 accounted for 28.4% of the size of the U Sport track and field system, comparing these two values does give context to the body of migrating student-athletes.

As these data were collected over an eight-year period, and student-athletes have approximately 4-5 years to complete their university athletic eligibility, the average number of Canadian student-athletes who were absent from the U Sport system each year due to migration to the NCAA DI was approximately 200 athletes. Based on the values provided in Table 3, 200 student-athletes would have the overall impact of adding one small conference to the U Sport track and field system. What is interesting, and what is developed later in this results section is the athletic ability of those student-athletes who decided to migrate to the NCAA.

Of the total group of 562 student-athletes documented to have migrated between 2005/06 and 2012/13, Table 2 and Figure 1 show that 352 student-athletes were from Ontario, 88 from British Columbia, 37 from Alberta, 25 from Quebec, 19 from Nova Scotia, 18 from Saskatchewan, 12 from Manitoba, eight from New Brunswick, and two from Newfoundland and Labrador. No student-athletes migrated to the NCAA DI from Prince Edward Island, or from the territories.

While the province of Ontario has a larger overall population than Canada’s other provinces, student-athlete from Ontario make up more than half of the student-athletes choosing to migrate to the NCAA DI. Of the track and field student-athletes who migrated, 63% were from Ontario, followed by 16% from the British Columbia. Track and field student-athlete migration from the

38 remaining provinces, with the exclusion of Prince Edward Island where there was no migration, did not exceed 7% and being as low as .03% for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Table 2: Total Canadian track and field student-athlete migration data – by conference and event

* Both the Sunbelt and Patriot conferences had student-athletes that I could not confirm were in fact track and field athletes. There is no event group recorded for either of these students; they are however included in the overall total and their province is recorded. Both of these students were also on other teams at their respective universities and it is my best estimate that they were wrongly included on track and field rosters.

Table 3: Total student-athletes competing in U Sports in 2016/17 compared with the total number of student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI

U Sport Conference TotalCompeting Total Migrated Migrated % 2016/17 2005/06 - 2012/13 Ontario University 798 352 44% Athletics Atlantic University 339 29 8.5% Sport Canada West 524 154 29%

RESQ 316 26 8%

Total 1977 562 28.4%

Figure 1: Total number of Canadian track and field student-athletes in NCAA DI between 2005/06 and 2012/13 by Province

Total Canadian Track and Field Student-Athletes in NCAA DI between 2005/06 - 2012/13 by Domicile Province

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 ON BC AB QUB NS SK MAN NB NFL PEI

Table 2 also indicates that over half of the Canadian student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA for track and field went to just seven of the 33 NCAA DI conferences. While this information is interesting, conferences are not an appropriate measure by which to describe movement when speaking specifically about geographical regions, as conferences themselves are not strictly representative of a geographical space. Some conferences are also higher in terms of their competitive status which can result in universities from less competitive conferences joining a conference not associated with their university’s geographical location. The competitive status of a specific sports team within a conference is a more difficult judgement to make because universities are members of conferences and not individual teams. If a university has a football program that is particularly strong, and they petition or are invited to join a more competitive

40 conference, all of the other university sports at that university will also move. This precise situation occurred with some of the universities in this sample – they started in one conference and moved to another. All conference memberships in this study are based on membership from 2012/13. When using these data in the future this will be an important temporal reference to keep in mind.

Table 4 adds the column of “university” to the information presented in Table 3, and enables a clearer understanding of the destinations for the highest numbers of Canadian student-athletes. While the Big East is ranked number one in Table 3, Table 4 shows that Louisville, the member of the Big East conference with the highest number of Canadian student-athletes is ranked 16 th out of 40 for the NCAA DI institution most attended by Canadian student-athletes participating in track and field, with a total of eight students in attendance.

The 562 Canadian student-athletes documented in this study migrated to 174 different NCAA DI universities between 2005/06 – 2012/13. The 10 universities with the highest number of Canadian student track and field athletes are:

1. Cornell – 16 student-athletes 2. Tulsa – 15 student-athletes 3. Dartmouth – 14 student-athletes 4. Georgia State – 12 student-athletes 5. Idaho – 12 student-athletes 6. Eastern Michigan – 10 student-athletes 7. Rice – 9 student-athletes 8. Detroit Mercy – 9 student-athletes 9. Texas Arlington – 9 student-athletes 10. Hawaii Manoa – 9 student-athletes

In total, 115 Canadian student-athletes attended the Top 10 universities, accounting for 20% of the total number of student-athlete migrants documented over the period from 2005/06 – 2012/13. This group of universities is an excellent demonstration of the multitude of factors that are potentially at play for Canadians when determining where to attend university for track and field, NCAA DI or otherwise.

Table 4: Top 40 NCAA DI universities attended by Canadian track and field student-athletes between 2005/06 – 2012/13

This top 40 list of universities is geographically diverse. The West and far-West are represented by Idaho and Hawaii Manoa; the South is represented by Rice, Georgia State and Texas Arlington; the Mid-West is represented by Tulsa; and the North-East is represented by Cornell, Dartmouth, Eastern Michigan, and Detroit Mercy. The geographical spread of the top

42 universities indicates that there is not an overall national migration trend to a specific geographical region of the United Stated for track and field competition. Meaning that to understand Canadian student-athlete migration, it is necessary consider the provincial level (province of origin of athletes) in order to identify any potential trends (see below).

Table 5 shows the same set of universities organized by their National Universities Ranking by US News and World Report .137 For the purposes of Table 5, the rank of NCAA DI institutions was changed from 1-40 to 1-12, to account for the universities that all had the same number of Canadian migrants attend. For example, Rice, Detroit Mercy, Texas Arlington, and Hawaii Manoa all had nine students attend, and were all correspondingly given the same rank of seven.

From the results in Table 5 it is evident that there are three pockets of higher concentrations of Canadian track and field student-athletes. These three pockets are first, around NCAA DI universities ranked in the top 15 of all universities in the United States; second, at universities ranked around 86 th ; and third, at universities ranked 287 th and above, including those universities that are not ranked in the 310 universities included in the US News and World Report table.

To attend one of the top 15 universities in the United States, an athlete must be academically strong. While many athletic departments will have some influence when it comes to recruiting a top student-athlete (e.g., admitting a student-athlete with a lower academic average), the top tier universities also have a strong legacy of academic achievement and a relatively small number of students that are accepted each year. Cornell and Dartmouth are Ivy League universities, and were among the top three universities attended by Canadian student track and field athletes. This suggests that the academic reputation is an important factor for some Canadian student-athletes competing in track and field. In support of this point, Table 5 indicates that 17% of the Canadian student track and field athletes who migrated to NCAA DI during the eight-year period of the study went to universities that ranked in the top 50 of US universities.

137 US News, “National Universities Rankings,” USnews.com, last modified 2017, https://www.usnews.com/best- colleges/rankings/national-universities.

Table 5: Academic Rank of Top 40 NCAA DI institutions attended by Canadian student-athletes

While academic reputation may be seen as a partial explanation, it is clearly not a rule when considering the remainder of the 40 most attended universities by Canadian student track and field athletes (i.e., those outside of the top 50 ranked universities). Of these, seven were ranked between 51-100, 10 were between 101-200, and the remaining eight were ranked 202 or above.

While not all 174 NCAA DI institutions were assessed to determine their academic rank, based on the 40 NCAA DI universities most attended by Canadian student-athletes competing in track and field, 24% attended NCAA DI institutions ranked outside the top 100 universities in the United States.

Interestingly, of the 10 most attended NCAA universities by Canadian student-athletes, five were ranked in the top 24 universities in the United States (Dartmouth, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame and Detroit Mercy), and four were ranked below 168 th (Hawaii Manoa, Idaho, Louisville, and Eastern Michigan) The second most attended university, Tulsa, was ranked in the middle of the pack, at 86 th . The fourth highest attended university, Georgia State, was not ranked.

These polarized results suggest that there may be no clear patterns to Canadian student-athlete decision making, and also that their experiences and the potential academic benefits resulting from their decision to migrate to the NCAA DI, may vary widely.

5.1.2 Student-Athlete Migration by Event Group

More than half of all Canadian student track and field athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI during the eight years represented in this study were distance runners. Figure 2 shows the proportion, by event type, for the 562 athletes in this study. Distance running (53%) was followed by sprints/hurdles (22%), throws (11%), jumps (8%), and multi-events (6%).

Viewing these results raises the question of whether there is more opportunity, or a higher interest among distance runners to migrate to the NCAA DI when compared with other events. While it is interesting that distance runners account for such a high percentage of the Canadian student-athletes who migrated to the NCAA DI, for reasons outlined below it is almost more interesting that multi-event ranks the lowest of all of the event groups established by this study.

There is a pervasive belief about the NCAA held by members of the Canadian track and field community: it is that student-athletes who attend NCAA DI institutions are encouraged to be multi-eventers in order to generate higher point totals at conference meets. While this may be true, it does not appear to impact most of the student-athletes migrating from Canada.

And while it is surprising that distance running is as high as recorded, distance running in track and field tends to be a larger event group because of the fall cross-country season, prior to indoor championships. In the U Sport systems, it is common for the cross-country runners to compete with the track and field team in distance events after their cross-country season has ended. While this may be the same in NCAA DI, there may be some athletes in the NCAA who do in fact specialize in some of the longer distances (rather than also running cross-country) because NCAA DI track and field teams generally tend to be larger and have more depth in each event group than U Sports teams.

The throwing, jumping and multi-event groups are typically smaller groups and therefore their representation in Figure 2 is not surprising. These last three event groups are typically much smaller, and usually only have a training group of five to six athletes on the larger competitive U Sports teams.

Figure 2: Canadian student-athletes in the NCAA DI by event type

The top universities for each of these event groups in terms of the number of Canadian students who attended, were as follows:

Distance: Tulsa (12); Georgia State (11); Idaho (8); and North Carolina, Wake Forest, Campbell, Villanova, and Tennessee-Chattanooga (each with 7)

Sprints/hurdles: Cornell (7); Utah (5); and Idaho, Rice, Harvard, Texas-Arlington and Syracuse (each with 4)

Throws: DePaul (6); and Washington, Hawaii Manoa and Central Michigan (each with 4)

Jumps: Dartmouth (3); and Hawaii Manoa, Cornell, Indiana, Boston University, Washington State, Toledo and Kansa State (each with 2)

Multi events: Dartmouth, Texas-Arlington, Nevada – Las Vegas and Holy Cross (each with 2)

Each event type has the potential to serve as a pipeline, regardless of the province that student- athletes migrate from, because most athletes in track and field are aware of the athletes who compete in their event group, especially the field and multi events. When considering the overall attendance of Canadian student-athletes by event type, is it interesting to note how limited their distribution is over the 174 NCAA DI institutions with Canadian student-athletes.

The distribution of Canadian student track and field athletes across NCAA DI institutions by event type was as follows:

• Multi-eventers were present at 33 of the 174 institutions;

• Throwers were present at 40 of the 174 institutions;

• Jumpers were present at 35 of the 174 institutions;

• Sprinters were present at 70 of the 174 institutions;

• Distance runners were present at 125 of the 174 institutions;

With regard to this distribution, it is interesting to note that at universities where there was more than one Canadian athlete (112 universities) there were no instances where a Canadian thrower, jumper or multi-eventer was the only event type at a university. This means that there was always at least two Canadians attending a university where a thrower, jumper, and/or multi- eventer was present, and at least one of those other Canadians was from a different event group. Sprinter/hurdlers and distance runners were the only event types to exist exclusively in NCAA DI universities where there was more than one athlete. This organization of Canadian student- athletes by event type indicates that event specific pipelines many be stronger for student- athletes competing in sprints/hurdles and distance running when compared to field event and multi-event athletes. The presence of another Canadian may have been a stronger attraction for Canadian student-athletes who compete in field events and multi-events.

5.2 Migration

5.2.1 Change in Number within the NCAA DI per Year – Overall

Table 6 and Figure 3 show the season-by-season change in the number of Canadian student- athletes participating in track and field in NCAA DI. In addition to showing the overall number, Table 6 and Figure 3 show the number of student-athletes who: enter, enter and redshirt, enter and compete, and further quantifies those Canadian student-athletes who are continuing to compete from previous years, including returnees who are listed as a redshirt or who did not have a record of competing, most likely as a result of injury.

Table 6: Number of Canadian track and field student-athletes in the NCAA DI between 2006- 2013

Figure 3: Total number of Canadian track and field student-athletes in the NCAA DI per year (2006-2013)

The numbers in Table 6 indicate a steady increase in the total overall number of Canadian student-athletes in NCAA DI. The total amount declined between 2009/10 and 2010/11, and then after a small increase in 2011/12, there was a decrease of 15 Canadian student-athletes in 2012/13.

Fluctuations in overall number are to be expected with a track and field sub-group where there is a constant three to five-year turnover of athletes as the window of competition is limited by student-athlete eligibility and degree timelines. The departure of a group of senior student- athletes each year is part of the of the ebb and flow consistent with this and many other interuniversity sports.

The competitive status categories in column one of Table 6 (entering and competing, entering redshirt etc.) are important because they show not only the rate of entry, but also in what capacity Canadian student-athletes are participating. While the total number of Canadian student- athletes in the NCAA DI dipped in 2012/13, the number of Canadian student-athletes entering the NCAA in 2011/12 was particularly high (67), nine more than any of the preceding documented years, and eight more than in 2012/13. This increase in the number of student- athletes may be a reflection of a group of senior athletes retiring from sport. After this spike in recruitment, the totals for 2012/13 are still 15 student-athletes less, showing an overall loss in the number of Canadians.

Overall trends in Canadian track and field student-athlete migration indicate that this sub-group of student-athletes are steadily increasing. Over the eight seasons of this study, the overall number of student-athletes present in NCAA DI has increased by 72 athletes. Figure 4 shows the overall increasing trend in the number of Canadian track and field student-athletes migrating to the NCAA DI.

The descriptive category of redshirt is also an interesting departure from commonly held stereotypes about NCAA DI participation regarding freshman not competing in their first year of on the team. In fact, after the 2006/07 season, Canadian student-athletes were just as likely to be a redshirt as a sophomore, junior and senior as they were as a freshman.

Figure 4: Number of Canadian track and field student-athletes entering the NCAA DI per year (2005/06 – 2012/13)

5.2.2 Migration Maps

Migration maps were made for each Canadian province for each year of data collection. This resulted in seven maps for each province. The section is organized first with maps arranged by year, and then arranged province.

In the migration maps, the following four terms are used to describe the geographical regions of the United States:

• The West;

• The Midwest;

• The South; and

• The North East

The West is from the Pacific to the eastern borders of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. The Midwest is from the western borders of North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas to the eastern border of Ohio. The South is from the western border of Texas to the eastern seaboard of Florida, with a northern border of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maryland. The North East is the remaining states from Pennsylvania to the Atlantic and north of Maryland. Hawaii is recognized separately from these geographical regions, and no student-athletes migrated to Alaska.

5.2.3 Migration Maps by Year

During the 2005/06 academic year there were 130 active Canadian track and field student- athletes who had migrated to the NCAA DI. Figure 5 indicates that Canadian track and field student-athletes in 2005/06 came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario. The majority of the athletes migrated to the North East and Southeast regions of the NCAA.

During the 2006/07 academic year Canada there were 170 active Canadian track and field student-athletes in NCAA DI, 40 more than the previous year. Figure 6 indicates that Canadian track and field student-athletes in 2006/07 again came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario. There is an increase in the number of track and field student-athletes from Alberta and Saskatchewan.

During the 2007/08 academic year, there were 187 active Canadian track and field student- athletes in NCAA DI, an increase of 17 from the previous year. Figure 7 indicates that Canadian track and field student-athletes in 2007/08 again came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario. The majority of the athletes migrated to the North East and Southeast regions of the NCAA. There is an increase in the number of student-athletes from almost every province, with more athletes from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The increase in the number of student-athletes moving from British Columbia to the Eastern regions and student-athletes from Ontario moving to the West region is continuing as more athletes migrate to the opposite coast. There is a clear pattern of student-athletes from Ontario migrating to universities in the Northeast. There has also been a distinct increase in athletes migrating to Kansas and a number of athletes going to the Southeast region, to universities such as Georgia and Georgia State.

During the 2008/09 academic year there were 198 active Canadian track and field student- athletes in NCAA DI, an increase of 11 athletes from the previous year. Figure 8 indicates that Canadian athletes migrating in 2008/09 again came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario, with an increase in those from Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. The migration patterns for track and field student-athletes from British Columbia trend more to the West region. There are also deeper lines originated from British Columbia, indicating that there are multiple athletes migrating to similar places. There is a decrease in the number of athletes from Ontario to the

West region with short dark lines indicating the continuing pattern from Ontario to the Northeast region.

During the 2009/10 academic year there were 203 track and field student-athletes from Canada in NCAA DI, an increase of five athletes from the previous year. Figure 9 indicates that they again came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario, with an increase in those from Alberta and Quebec. Distance does not seem to be a discouraging factor for student-athletes migrating during 2009/10, with migration patterns extending to opposite sides of North America. A pattern emerged for both British Columbia and Ontario student migrating from different parts of the province to the same NCAA university.

During the 2010/11 academic year, 206 active Canadian track and field student-athletes were in NCAA DI, an overall increase of three athletes from the previous prior. Figure 10 indicates that they again came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario , with an increase in the number of athletes from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Nova Scotia. In several provinces, there is a pattern of athletes from different hometown locations migrating to the same universities (e.g., British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario).

Depending on hometown location, distance may be a discouraging factor for Canadian student- athletes during 2010/11, with those from British Columbia tending to move to the West region. There are also deeper lines originating from British Columbia, indicating that there are multiple athletes migrating to similar places. There is also a decrease in the number of track and field student-athletes from Ontario moving to the West region with short dark lines continuing to the Northeast region.

During the 2011/12 academic year, 217 active Canadian track and field student-athletes were in NCAA DI, an increase of nine from the previous year. This was the highest number of Canadian track and field student-athletes during the period of study.

Figure 11 indicates that the student-athletes again came mostly from British Columbia and Ontario. There is an increase in the number of athletes migrating from Quebec and a decrease in those from Nova Scotia.

Depending on hometown location, distance continues to be a potential factor for student-athletes migrating during 2011/12. The migration patterns from British Columbia tend more to the West region, and deeper lines indicate multiple athletes migrating to similar places. Fewer athletes from Ontario moved to the West region with short dark lines continuing to the Northeast region.

During the 2012/13 academic year there were 202 active Canadian track and field student- athletes in NCAA DI, a decrease of 15 from the previous year. This was the first decrease during the course of the study.

Figure 12 indicates again that the athletes in 2012/13 are mostly from British Columbia and Ontario , with an increase in number of athletes from Quebec and a decrease in athletes from Nova Scotia. The distance and direction patterns continue from the previous year, with British Columbia athletes primarily going to the West, Ontario athletes primarily going to the Northeast, and athletes continuing to cluster at specific universities.

Figure 5: Canadian track and field student-athlete migration across Canada during the 2005/06 academic year