Next Article in Journal
Correctional Education and Reintegration: A Qualitative Study of Young Ex-Offenders in Cape Flats
Previous Article in Journal
Challenges in Studying Youth and the Influence of Far-Right Populism
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Pursuit of Social Justice Through Sport for Development Organizations in the United States
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Youth
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/youth5020048
youth-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Student-Athletes’ Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Coach Trust, Organizational Support, and the Impact on Team Commitment in Collegiate Sports

by
Keunsu Han
1 and
Jaehyun Ha
2,*
1
Department of Kinesiology, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA
2
College of Physical Education, Keimyung University, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Youth 2025, 5(2), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020048
Submission received: 3 April 2025 / Revised: 6 May 2025 / Accepted: 13 May 2025 / Published: 14 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Justice Youth Development through Sport and Physical Activity)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Collegiate sports serve as a powerful platform for advancing youth development and social engagement, contributing not only to athletic growth but also to personal development, teamwork, and social justice among student-athletes. This study explores the relationships among procedural justice, coach trust, perceived organizational support (POS), and team commitment in collegiate athletes. A self-reported questionnaire administered to college athletes collected 285 usable responses. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized relationships. The findings reveal that higher perceptions of procedural justice are significantly associated with greater team commitment, increased coach trust, and higher POS. Additionally, coach trust positively influences both team commitment and POS. However, no significant relationship was found between POS and team commitment, indicating that POS alone may not be a direct predictor of athlete commitment without the presence of mediating factors. These findings highlight the pivotal role of procedural justice, coach trust, and POS in shaping team commitment among collegiate athletes, underscoring the importance of fair decision-making and relational trust in fostering youth development and reflecting the broader influence of behavioral and social dynamics in collegiate sport settings.

1. Introduction

Collegiate sports represent a vital component of the student-athlete experience, shaping not only athletic development but also personal growth, teamwork, and social engagement. Beyond the individual level, collegiate athletics influence broader institutional culture, community identity, and financial ecosystems within higher education (Hazzaa et al., 2018; Hill, 2023). In the United States, this dynamic environment is primarily governed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which plays a central role in promoting competitive equity and supporting the holistic development of student-athletes.
The NCAA recorded its highest participation levels in the 2021–2022 academic year, with over 520,000 student-athletes competing across member institutions, marking an increase of nearly 30,000 from the previous year (NCAA, 2022). This growth highlights the expanding role and importance of collegiate sports within higher education. Concurrently, collegiate sports demand significant financial investments. According to the NCAA’s 2024 financial statements, total expenditures for collegiate athletic programs reached approximately $3.86 billion, encompassing distributions, grants, scholarships, event operations, and administrative costs (NCAA, 2024). Within the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), median institutional expenses in 2023 were approximately $97.5 million, with figures varying from $21.1 million to $274.9 million per institution (NCAA, 2024). These figures not only reflect the substantial financial commitments necessary to maintain competitive collegiate sports programs but also point to the complexity of the funding mechanisms that support them.
Institutions finance these programs through diverse revenue streams, including ticket sales, media and broadcasting rights, corporate sponsorships, philanthropic donations, and revenue distributions from athletic conferences. However, financial self-sufficiency is rare, especially for athletic departments outside the Power Five conferences. Many programs—particularly those in lower NCAA divisions or non-revenue-generating sports—depend heavily on institutional support in the form of student fees, tuition reallocations, and state appropriations (Garthwaite et al., 2020; NCAA, 2024). This dual reliance on both self-generated revenues and internal subsidies reflects the complex identity of collegiate athletics as both a commercial enterprise and a mission-driven component of the educational experience (Southall et al., 2015). Taken together, the scale of investment and the diversity of funding sources highlight the unique position of collegiate athletics—not only as a financial enterprise but also as a deeply embedded cultural institution.
Beyond their financial implications, collegiate sports have considerable cultural resonance within American society, cultivating extensive and passionate fan bases (Beyer & Hannah, 2000; Hubka & Coombs, 2023). A 2023 national survey indicated that approximately 70% of Americans identify as sports fans, with collegiate football being particularly popular (St. Bonaventure University, 2023). Further, a 2024 survey reported that 43% of Americans identified as college basketball fans (Statista, 2024), while a separate 2024 market analysis revealed that approximately one-third of the U.S. population actively follows collegiate sports (Marketing Brew, 2024). Regionally, college football maintains especially strong popularity in the Southern United States, accounting for 40% of its fan base, followed by 22% in the Midwest (Playfly Sports, 2024). Notably, this widespread popularity often contrasts with the demographics of the athletes themselves, as Black student-athletes are overrepresented in high-profile sports like Division I FBS football and basketball compared to their proportion in the general student body and among fan bases (Harper, 2018; Kyaw, 2023). These data illustrate the substantial cultural impact and widespread appeal of collegiate athletics.
Although the NCAA model has been the subject of ongoing scrutiny, with continued debate surrounding its efficacy and integrity—including concerns about player safety, the balance between academics and athletics for student-athletes, overcommercialization, and funding equity (Bass et al., 2015)—collegiate athletics continue to play a significant role in the personal and professional development of student-athletes. These programs provide opportunities to enhance athletic skills, foster character development, and cultivate teamwork (R. E. Smith & Smoll, 2002; Watson, 2020). Additionally, collegiate sports bolster institutional prestige, promote student engagement, and support financial stability (Cooper & Weight, 2011), while also enhancing public visibility and serving as a major channel through which institutions engage with prospective students, parents, alumni, and society at large (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Given the competitive nature of collegiate athletics, fostering environments that enhance athlete satisfaction, retention, and performance is critical to sustaining successful athletic programs (Han & Ha, 2024).
A central psychological element underpinning individual and team success in collegiate athletics is team commitment. Beyond physical skill and strategic execution, psychological and social dynamics—specifically procedural justice, trust in coaches, and perceived organizational support (POS)—significantly shape athlete commitment (Heuzé et al., 2006; Kerwin et al., 2015; H. D. Kim & Cruz, 2016). Procedural justice has long been recognized as a critical component in organizational settings, including sport contexts, due to its influence on how individuals evaluate fairness in decision-making processes. Early conceptualizations of procedural justice stem from the instrumental model proposed by Thibaut and Walker (1975), who distinguished between process control (individuals’ ability to influence procedures) and decision control (influence over outcomes). Their research showed that people view procedures as fairer when they are given a voice in the process, suggesting that procedural control is closely tied to perceptions of fairness because it maximizes individuals’ chances of achieving favorable outcomes.
Building upon this foundation, Bies and Shapiro (1988) introduced a distinction between structural justice, such as having a voice in the process, and informational justice, which involves receiving justifications for decisions. Their findings demonstrated that providing explanations influenced fairness judgments independently of voice, leading to the recognition that informational justice, although sometimes grouped with interactional justice, deserves to be considered a separate category due to its distinct contribution to perceptions of fairness.
Despite earlier foundational contributions, Konovsky (2000) argued that subsequent research on procedural justice, while productive in examining organizational outcomes, lacked theoretical integration and critical reflection on its underlying assumptions. In particular, many studies have been noted to tacitly assume that employees—or organizational stakeholders more broadly—respond to fairness interventions freely and transparently. Without acknowledging the constraints these individuals may face, such as power imbalances or institutional pressures, researchers risk unintentionally reinforcing managerial perspectives at the expense of participant autonomy.
In sport contexts, procedural justice remains highly relevant. For athletes, perceptions of fairness in team-related decisions such as role assignments, playing time, and disciplinary actions are central to their sense of inclusion and motivation. When athletes perceive decision-making processes as fair and transparent, they are more likely to trust their coaches and feel supported by the organization, which in turn enhances their psychological commitment to the team and improves overall cohesion (De Backer et al., 2020; Mahony et al., 2010). Together, these findings underscore the multifaceted nature of procedural justice, encompassing control, voice, justification, and perceived transparency. In the context of collegiate sports, understanding and promoting procedural justice can play a crucial role in athlete satisfaction, trust in leadership, and long-term team commitment.
Trust in coaches plays a pivotal role within this framework. Trust is defined as athletes’ confidence in their coaches’ intentions, competencies, and consistency in decision-making, and it profoundly shapes emotional bonding, motivation, and performance outcomes (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Rhind & Jowett, 2012). Athletes who trust their coaches exhibit positive attitudes toward training and contribute to creating a supportive training environment, which ultimately enhances team performance (Kao et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2025). Effective communication between coaches and athletes, particularly during training and competitive events, further reinforces this trust. However, without an established foundation of mutual trust, optimal athlete performance is difficult to achieve. Hence, fostering trust emerges as a fundamental responsibility for coaches aiming to maximize athlete potential (Choi et al., 2020).
Previous research consistently supports the critical significance of trust. For example, Kwon (2009) identified employees’ trust in their supervisors as instrumental in shaping perceptions of justice regarding evaluations and rewards. Similarly, Simon and Stürmer (2003) demonstrated that supervisors’ interactional justice significantly influences team members’ willingness to actively participate and commit to organizational objectives. Additionally, Korsgaard and Roberson (1995) argued that fair performance evaluation processes directly enhance employees’ trust in management, reinforcing the necessity of procedural fairness in building trustful relationships. Hwang (2011) further posited that harmonious coach–athlete relationships, underpinned by mutual respect and trust, contribute significantly to enhancing organizational effectiveness, reflected in improved athlete satisfaction and team commitment. Moreover, Kwon (2009) highlighted that trust in leadership exerts a greater impact on organizational commitment and job satisfaction compared to other factors such as job performance or altruism, underscoring trust’s overarching influence within organizational contexts.
Complementing trust and procedural justice, perceived organizational support (POS)—athletes’ beliefs about the degree to which their organization values their contributions and cares about their welfare—has emerged as another crucial determinant of athlete commitment. This perceived support contributes significantly to athletes’ psychological safety, intrinsic motivation, and sense of belonging within their teams, consequently strengthening commitment and reducing turnover intentions (Eisenberger et al., 1986; K. Y. Kim et al., 2022; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998). In the sports context, research consistently finds robust relationships between high levels of POS and enhanced athlete motivation, team satisfaction, and overall engagement (Pack, 2005; Park & Kim, 2024).
Further studies indicate that athletes perceiving robust organizational support—including comprehensive support from coaching staff, administrative personnel, and ample institutional resources—demonstrate heightened loyalty and dedication to their teams (Allen & Meyer, 1990). This phenomenon aligns closely with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which argues that individuals who perceive beneficial organizational treatment are motivated to reciprocate through increased effort, loyalty, and sustained commitment. Empirical research within collegiate sports confirms this reciprocal relationship, showing student-athletes who sense institutional support display stronger emotional connections and long-term commitment to their teams (A. B. Smith et al., 2019).
Additionally, POS significantly influences psychological safety, team cohesion, and organizational justice perceptions, thereby reinforcing team commitment. Athletes who perceive a supportive organizational environment feel safer and more engaged in their team’s culture, reducing intentions to leave and enhancing overall team stability and continuity (Malkoc & Dal, 2020; Shore & Wayne, 1993).
The interrelationships among procedural justice, coach trust, and perceived organizational support collectively underline critical psychological and social dimensions that sustain athlete commitment. Previous literature underscores that procedural justice strongly motivates athletes to uphold team values and remain committed (Ben-Ari et al., 2006). Trust in leadership consistently emerges as a predictor of enhanced performance and commitment outcomes in both athletic and traditional organizational environments. Furthermore, the synergistic interplay between trust and organizational support facilitates overall team effectiveness, fostering athlete development and retention (Dirks, 2000; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Legood et al., 2021).
Addressing gaps within existing scholarship, this study simultaneously examines procedural justice, coach trust, and POS to offer insights that benefit coaches, administrators, and policymakers in enhancing fairness, trust, and organizational support in collegiate sports settings. The following hypotheses guide this investigation:
H1. 
Student-athletes with higher perceptions of procedural justice will demonstrate greater team commitment.
H2. 
Higher perceptions of procedural justice will be positively associated with coach trust among student-athletes.
H3. 
Higher perceptions of procedural justice will be positively associated with perceived organizational support (POS) among student-athletes.
H4. 
Coach trust will be positively associated with student-athletes’ team commitment.
H5. 
Coach trust will be positively associated with perceived organizational support (POS) among student-athletes.
H6. 
Perceived organizational support (POS) will be positively associated with student-athletes’ team commitment.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Collegiate athletes were recruited as participants using a non-probability sampling method, specifically convenience sampling. An online survey was distributed via email to student-athletes from 12 NCAA Division I institutions, including both Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) programs, yielding a total of 298 responses. After being informed of the study’s purpose, only those who voluntarily consented completed a self-assessment questionnaire. Thirteen responses were excluded due to invalid or inappropriate answers, leaving 285 valid questionnaires for final analysis. Table 1 summarizes the participants’ demographic characteristics, including gender, race, academic standing, scholarship status, and NCAA division.

2.2. Instrumentation

The survey used in this study included four main constructs: procedural justice, trust in the coach, perceived organizational support (POS), and team commitment. These variables were adapted from prior research with demonstrated validity and reliability to suit the specific aims and context of this study. A panel of experts consisting of five sport management professors, five current collegiate coaches, and five former NCAA student-athletes pursuing graduate studies reviewed the instrument to assess content validity. Based on their feedback, revisions were made to clarify item wording for better comprehension, ensure alignment with collegiate sport contexts, and improve consistency of terminology across constructs. The final questionnaire was self-administered and employed a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).
To assess procedural justice, three items were adapted from S. Kim et al. (2024). An example item is, “You were fairly rewarded based on your skill level”. Coach trust was measured using three items modified from Dirks (2000), such as, “If I shared my problems with the coach, I know he would respond constructively and caringly”. Perceived organizational support was evaluated with three items adapted from Eisenberger et al. (1986); for example, “My team provides help when I have a problem”. Team commitment was measured using three items adapted from Turner and Chelladurai (2005), including, “I do feel a strong loyalty to my team”. All items were reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure alignment with the specific objectives and context of the study.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 29.0 and AMOS version 29.0, employing a series of statistical procedures to assess the study variables. Frequency analysis was first conducted to describe the demographic characteristics of the participants. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were then calculated for all key variables. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationships among variables and to check for potential multicollinearity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify the underlying factor structure and assess the appropriateness of the measurement items. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha to determine the internal consistency of each construct. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was subsequently conducted to assess construct validity, including convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized relationships among procedural justice, coach trust, perceived organizational support, and team commitment in the context of collegiate student-athletes.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Correlation Between Variables and Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for all variables included in the study. Correlation values ranged from 0.184 to 0.368, all of which were statistically significant. Although the variables were moderately correlated, they remained distinct constructs, as all correlation coefficients were well below the ±0.85 threshold suggested by Kline (2023), indicating no evidence of multicollinearity.

3.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the 12 items assessing procedural justice, coach trust, perceived organizational support, and team commitment, using principal component analysis with varimax extraction and direct oblimin rotation. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.766, indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant (χ2 = 2080.920, p < 0.001), further supporting the appropriateness of the dataset for EFA (Hair et al., 2019). As presented in Table 3, all 12 items loaded onto four distinct factors with Eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, accounting for 81.064% of the total variance.
All 12 items were retained and grouped into four distinct factors, each consisting of three items: procedural justice, coach trust, perceived organizational support, and team commitment. Factor loadings ranged from 0.837 to 0.948, indicating strong item–factor associations. Specifically, factor loadings were as follows: procedural justice (0.837–0.874), coach trust (0.912–0.917), perceived organizational support (0.870–0.948), and team commitment (0.858–0.927). These results support the construct validity of the measurement model.
Reliability for each factor was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, with all coefficients exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), ranging from 0.842 to 0.917. These findings indicate that each set of items demonstrated strong internal consistency and reliability.

3.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To evaluate construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using multiple model fit indices. The measurement model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, with the following indices: χ2/df = 2.463 (118.236/48), GFI = 0.922, NFI = 0.944, CFI = 0.966, and RMSEA = 0.072. These values meet the recommended thresholds proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Browne and Cudeck (1993), indicating that the measurement model provides a satisfactory representation of the underlying constructs.
Table 4 presents the outcomes of the confirmatory factor analysis. To evaluate convergent validity, standardized factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR) were examined. The standardized loadings ranged from 0.736 to 0.966, while AVE values ranged from 0.807 to 0.880, and composite reliability values ranged from 0.925 to 0.956. These results surpass the recommended criteria established by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et al. (2019), which suggest that standardized loadings should be above 0.70, AVE should exceed 0.50, and composite reliability should be greater than 0.70. Based on these findings, the constructs used in this study demonstrate satisfactory convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was evaluated by analyzing the correlation coefficients between latent variables, the squared values of these correlations, and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct. The highest correlation coefficient observed was 0.393, and the corresponding maximum squared correlation was 0.154. This value is lower than the smallest AVE, which was 0.807. These results align with the guidelines provided by Kline (2023) and Fornell and Larcker (1981), which recommend that correlation coefficients remain below ±0.85 and that the squared correlations do not exceed the AVE. Based on these criteria, the constructs demonstrate adequate discriminant validity.

3.4. Testing the Research Hypotheses

The proposed structural model was tested to investigate the relationships among procedural justice, coach trust, perceived organizational support, and team commitment among college athletes. The results of model fit indices indicated the model fit to the sample data was a satisfactory fit within the recommended thresholds (χ2[48] = 118.236, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.463, GFI = 0.922, NFI = 0.944, CFI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.072).
Table 5 presents the path coefficient estimates for the relationships among latent variables within the proposed structural model. Procedural justice showed significant positive effects on team commitment (β = 0.341, t = 4.882), coach trust (β = 0.197, t = 2.947), and perceived organizational support (β = 0.294, t = 4.189), providing support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. In addition, coach trust was positively associated with both team commitment (β = 0.139, t = 2.230) and perceived organizational support (β = 0.228, t = 3.472), supporting Hypotheses 4 and 5. However, the path from perceived organizational support to team commitment was not statistically significant (β = 0.073, t = 1.072), and therefore, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among procedural justice, coach trust, perceived organizational support (POS), and team commitment among student-athletes competing in collegiate sports. The findings of this study significantly contribute to the literature by elucidating the multifaceted factors that shape team commitment among collegiate student-athletes, particularly focusing on procedural justice, coach trust, and POS.
The results underscore that procedural justice is a critical determinant of athletes’ commitment, confirming the hypothesis that fair and transparent decision-making processes enhance athletes’ perceptions of their roles and treatment within teams, subsequently boosting their commitment. This aligns with previous research suggesting that athletes’ perceptions of fairness significantly shape their psychological attachment and willingness to uphold team values (De Backer et al., 2020; Mahony et al., 2010).
Further supporting this viewpoint, the results indicate that procedural justice positively influences trust in coaches. Athletes who perceive fair decision-making practices are more likely to trust their coaches’ competencies and intentions, which subsequently contributes to their overall commitment. This finding resonates with earlier studies that have consistently demonstrated trust as a cornerstone in effective athlete–coach relationships (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Rhind & Jowett, 2012). Additionally, coach trust emerged as a significant predictor of both team commitment and POS, reinforcing prior evidence suggesting that trust fosters emotional bonding and motivates athletes to remain committed to their teams and organizations (Choi et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2025).
Interestingly, despite previous research indicating that POS plays a crucial role in enhancing organizational commitment (Pack, 2005; Park & Kim, 2024), this study found no direct significant relationship between POS and team commitment among collegiate student-athletes. This unexpected outcome may indicate that in the highly structured and competitive environment of collegiate sports teams, institutional support alone is insufficient to drive athlete commitment unless reinforced by other key relational factors, such as coach trust. Given the unique coach–athlete dynamic in collegiate sports, where athletes rely heavily on their coaches for guidance, motivation, and performance development, trust in coaching staff may serve as a more immediate and influential determinant of commitment. This finding diverges from prior studies that observed a strong connection between POS and commitment in organizational settings, suggesting that in collegiate athletics, the relationship may be context-dependent and contingent upon interpersonal trust and perceptions of procedural justice (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Malkoc & Dal, 2020).
Indeed, coach trust was positively associated with POS, suggesting a mediating role. Athletes who trusted their coaches perceived higher organizational support, thereby indirectly strengthening their team commitment. These insights underline the necessity of viewing POS within a broader framework that incorporates relational dynamics and justice perceptions rather than as a standalone predictor. Previous literature has supported this notion, indicating that relational factors significantly shape athletes’ experiences of support and commitment (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Legood et al., 2021).
The theoretical implications of these findings align closely with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which posits that individuals reciprocate favorable organizational treatment through increased commitment and effort. While procedural justice and coach trust significantly influenced team commitment, POS did not show a direct effect. This suggests that generalized perceptions of institutional support may be insufficient on their own to foster athlete commitment without more personal, relational connections—such as those formed with coaches or through fair treatment. This divergence may reflect the unique relational and performance-driven nature of the sport setting, where interpersonal dynamics—especially with coaches—often outweigh perceptions of abstract institutional support. In contrast to general organizational environments, where POS is typically a strong predictor of employee commitment, athletes may prioritize day-to-day trust, fairness, and feedback from coaches due to the intense interpersonal and team-based nature of competitive sports. These findings highlight the relational specificity of social exchange processes in collegiate athletics and suggest that fostering trust-based, immediate social exchanges may be more impactful than broad organizational messaging in this context. For collegiate sports administrators, these insights underscore the importance of investing in fair decision-making practices and strengthening coach–athlete relationships to enhance team cohesion, engagement, and athlete retention.
Practically, these findings offer meaningful guidance for coaches, athletic administrators, and sport policymakers who aim to foster stronger team cohesion and athlete commitment within collegiate sports. To support athletes’ psychological engagement and social integration, institutions should emphasize transparent and fair decision-making processes that enhance perceptions of procedural justice. Although general organizational support is important, the results indicate that relational trust, particularly between athletes and their coaches, has a more direct influence on team commitment in the collegiate sport environment. As a result, coach education programs should include more than technical training by integrating components that promote ethical leadership, behavioral consistency, and effective athlete-centered communication. These relational skills are essential for building trust and meeting collegiate athletes’ social and motivational needs. Additionally, creating structured channels for athlete feedback, establishing mentorship opportunities, and promoting open communication between athletes and coaching staff can further reinforce trust and organizational connection. By adopting these strategies, collegiate sport programs can cultivate a more supportive and inclusive team culture. This approach can ultimately enhance athlete satisfaction, strengthen team dynamics, improve performance, and support athlete retention, aligning with broader efforts to promote social justice, foster youth development, and advance overall well-being within collegiate sport contexts.
Beyond these practical implications, the findings should also be considered within the broader financial and cultural landscape of intercollegiate athletics. As noted in the introduction, collegiate sports carry significant economic and reputational weight for institutions, and they are deeply embedded in American culture. The results of this study—particularly the importance of procedural justice and coach trust in shaping student-athletes’ team commitment—underscore how essential it is for athletic departments not only to invest financially in facilities and resources but also to foster equitable and transparent team environments. Cultural expectations surrounding performance and institutional prestige may create additional pressure for student-athletes, making fair treatment and supportive leadership even more critical for their psychological well-being and sustained engagement. Thus, improving psychosocial factors like procedural fairness and trust is not just a matter of individual athlete development, but a strategic concern tied to the long-term cultural and financial success of athletic programs.
However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the use of a convenience sampling method may limit the generalizability of the findings to the wider population of collegiate student-athletes. The sample may not fully capture the diversity of experiences across institutions with varying cultural, geographic, or socioeconomic contexts. Additionally, this study did not account for potential differences based on race, gender, scholarship status, or social class—factors that are known to shape student-athletes’ experiences and perceptions in intercollegiate athletics. The absence of these demographic considerations may overlook important identity-based variations in perceptions of procedural justice, organizational support, coach trust, and team commitment. Furthermore, this study did not consider variations across NCAA divisions (I, II, III), power versus non-power conferences, or sport types, which may reflect distinct social structures, resource levels, and competitive environments. These structural and identity-based differences could significantly influence athletes’ psychosocial experiences and outcomes. Future research should examine how both institutional and demographic contexts shape these dynamics to provide a more nuanced and equitable understanding of student-athlete experiences.
Moreover, this study focused primarily on direct relationships among the key variables. Future research should expand on this by incorporating potential mediators and moderators such as athlete satisfaction, burnout, role clarity, team cohesion, and transfer intentions. These factors are central to understanding the complex interplay between psychological well-being, motivation, and behavioral outcomes in collegiate athletes. Exploring these relationships would align closely with the broader goals of the Special Issue, which seeks to illuminate how internal and external forces interact to shape sports participation and engagement.
Furthermore, future studies could benefit from examining emerging and external influences such as Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies, financial incentives, media exposure, and institutional pressures, which are increasingly relevant in the current collegiate sport landscape. These elements introduce new layers of psychological stress, identity negotiation, and behavioral adaptation that may influence the social dynamics between athletes, coaches, and athletic departments.
Finally, longitudinal or mixed-method approaches could offer richer insight into the evolving nature of athlete commitment and well-being over time. By addressing these limitations and embracing a broader, interdisciplinary perspective, future research can contribute to a more holistic understanding of the behavioral, social, and cultural forces that shape student-athlete experiences and outcomes in collegiate sport settings.

5. Conclusions

This study offers a meaningful contribution to understanding the behavioral and social dynamics that influence team commitment in collegiate sports, identifying key psychosocial factors relevant to youth development. By emphasizing the central roles of procedural justice and coach trust, the findings underscore the importance of fair treatment and strong interpersonal relationships in fostering commitment among student-athletes. Notably, the absence of a direct link between perceived organizational support and team commitment highlights the unique nature of collegiate athletics, where institutional support alone may fall short if not accompanied by strong relational trust. This insight carries significant implications for promoting social justice, equity, and athlete well-being within youth sport environments.
This finding reflects a distinct relational dynamic within sport environments, where daily interactions with coaches and perceptions of fairness carry more immediate psychological weight than generalized support from the broader organization. The study, therefore, advances social exchange theory by demonstrating its context-specific application in sport, where the athlete’s commitment is shaped more by direct, trust-based exchanges than by institutional structures.
Practically, the results point to the importance of prioritizing transparent and fair decision-making by clearly communicating team policies, involving athletes in discussions about role assignments and expectations, and ensuring consistent application of rules and disciplinary actions. For example, strengthening coach–athlete relationships can be achieved through regular one-on-one check-ins, ethical leadership practices that emphasize respect and accountability, and consistent, athlete-centered communication that acknowledges individual needs and contributions. These relational strategies can significantly enhance team cohesion, psychological engagement, and athlete retention. When athletes feel heard, valued, and treated fairly, they are more likely to invest emotionally in their teammates and the program, stay motivated during challenges, and remain committed to the team over time. Institutions should also foster environments that encourage athlete feedback, mentorship, and open dialogue by implementing practices such as regular team forums, peer mentoring programs, and structured opportunities for athletes to communicate openly with coaches and administrators. These efforts help build trust, promote inclusion, and ensure that athletes feel their voices are heard and respected.
Future research should examine variations across sports, divisions, and institutional types to further explore how structural and cultural contexts shape these dynamics. Investigating mediating and moderating variables such as athlete satisfaction, burnout, and identity, as well as external pressures like financial incentives and evolving athlete rights, will provide a more holistic understanding of student-athlete experiences. Longitudinal and mixed-method studies are especially important for capturing the evolving nature of trust, support, and commitment in the dynamic environment of collegiate sports.
By revealing the limits of POS as a direct predictor and emphasizing the relational context of collegiate sport, this study provides a timely and valuable perspective on how equitable practices and trust-based relationships foster social well-being and promote youth development through athletic participation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.H. and J.H.; Methodology, K.H. and J.H.; Data analysis, K.H. and J.H.; Writing—original draft, K.H. and J.H.; Writing—review and editing, K.H. and J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, because the initial submission of protocol #2026, “NCAA Athlete Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (PI: Han, Keunsu)” was exempt approved on Wednesday, May 10th 2023 by the Towson University IRB Committee. An Institutional Review Board typically grants exempt approval when research involves minimal risk and falls within specific federal categories, such as educational studies, anonymous surveys, or benign behavioral research with consenting adults.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical reasons.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the staff members in the athletic departments who supported and facilitated the data collection process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bass, J. R., Schaeperkoetter, C. C., & Bunds, K. S. (2015). The “front porch”: Examining the increasing interconnection of university and athletic department funding. ASHE Higher Education Report, 41(5), 1–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ben-Ari, R., Tsur, Y., & Har-Even, D. (2006). Procedural justice, stress appraisal, and athletes’ attitudes. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(1), 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. (2000). The cultural significance of athletics in U.S. higher education. Journal of Sport Management, 14(2), 105–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 676–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  7. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Testing structural equation models (K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long, Eds.; pp. 136–162). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  8. Choi, H., Jeong, Y., & Kim, S. K. (2020). The Relationship between Coaching Behavior and Athlete Burnout: Mediating Effects of Communication and the Coach-Athlete Relationship. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cooper, C., & Weight, E. (2011). Investigating NCAA administrator values in NCAA Division I athletic departments. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 4(1), 74–89. [Google Scholar]
  10. De Backer, M., Boen, F., Van Puyenbroeck, S., Reynders, B., Van Meervelt, K., & Vande Broek, G. (2020). Should team coaches care about justice? Perceived justice mediates the relation between coaches’ autonomy support and athletes’ satisfaction and self-rated progression. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(1), 27–43. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 1004–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Garthwaite, C., Keener, J., Notowidigdo, M. J., & Ozminkowski, N. F. (2020). Who profits from amateurism? Rent-sharing in modern college sports (NBER Working Paper No. 27734). National Bureau of Economic Research. Available online: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734 (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  15. Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA. [Google Scholar]
  16. Han, K., & Ha, J. (2024). Examining the relationship among organizational justice, athlete satisfaction, team commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in college athletes. Journal of Sport and Applied Science, 8(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Harper, S. R. (2018). Black male student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I college sports. USC Race and Equity Center. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hazzaa, R. N., Sonkeng, K., & Yoh, T. (2018). Antecedents and Consequences of Student-Athletes’ Contentment with Academic Services. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 11(1), 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Heuzé, J. P., Raimbault, N., & Fontayne, P. (2006). Relationships between cohesion, collective efficacy and performance in professional basketball teams: An examination of mediating effects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(1), 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hill, C. (2023). Collegiate athletics impact on academic performance. Integrated Studies, 502, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hubka, O., & Coombs, H. V. (2023). The culture of American collegiate athletics: An ethnographic study from a European perspective. Utah Journal of Communication, 2(1), 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hwang, M. (2011). The effects of leadership of women’s soccer coaches on trust in coaches, team cohesion, and organizational effectiveness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chungnam National University]. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kao, S.-F., Hsieh, M.-H., & Lee, P.-L. (2017). Coaching competency and trust in coach in sport teams. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(3), 319–327. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kerwin, S., Jordan, J. S., & Turner, B. A. (2015). Organizational justice and conflict: Do perceptions of fairness influence disagreement and athlete commitment? Sport Management Review, 18(3), 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, H. D., & Cruz, A. (2016). The influence of coaches’ leadership styles on athletes’ satisfaction and team cohesion: A meta-analytic approach. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(6), 900–909. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim, K. Y., Eisenberger, R., Takeuchi, R., & Baik, K. (2022). Organizational-level perceived support enhances organizational profitability. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2176–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, S., Alahmad, M. E., Oh, T., & Love, A. (2024). Athletic justice: Scale development and validation. Heliyon, 10(2), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  32. Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation. Journal of Management, 21, 657–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kwon, A. (2009). A study on the mediating effects of trust between hotel employees’ justice perception and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Tourism Management Research, 13(2), 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kyaw, A. ((2023,, March 28)). Report: Racial and gender hiring practices in college athletics is concerning. Diverse: Issues in higher education. Available online: https://www.diverseeducation.com/sports/article/15380682/report-racial-and-gender-hiring-practices-in-college-athletics-is-concerning (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  36. Lee, S., Kwon, S., & Lee, D. (2025). The effects of perceived trust in coach on performance in soccer teams: Mediating role of team climate. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. Advance online publication. [Google Scholar]
  37. Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2021). A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership-performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mahony, D. F., Hums, M. A., Andrew, D. P. S., & Dittmore, S. W. (2010). Organizational justice in sport. Sport Management Review, 13(2), 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malkoc, N., & Dal, S. (2020). The relationship between perceived manager support and work commitments of sports instructors. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(7), 395–402. [Google Scholar]
  40. Marketing Brew. (2024). Interest in college sports is on the rise. Available online: https://www.marketingbrew.com/stories/2024/03/05/interest-in-college-sports-is-on-the-rise (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  41. NCAA. (2022). NCAA student-athletes surpass 520,000, set new record. Available online: https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/12/5/media-center-ncaa-student-athletes-surpass-520-000-set-new-record.aspx (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  42. NCAA. (2024). NCAA financial statement 2024. Available online: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2023-24NCAAFIN_FinancialStatement.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  43. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pack, S. M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of perceived organizational support for NCAA athletic administrators [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. [Google Scholar]
  45. Park, J., & Kim, J. (2024). The Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support, Work Engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Customer Orientation in the Public Sports Organizations Context. Behavioral Sciences, 14(3), 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Playfly Sports. (2024). College football fan demographics. Available online: https://playfly.com/app/uploads/2024/03/FINAL_Playfly-Fan-Score_CFB2023.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  47. Rhind, D. J. A., & Jowett, S. (2012). Development of the Coach-Athlete Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire (CARM-Q). International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(1), 121–137. [Google Scholar]
  48. Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 127–156. [Google Scholar]
  49. Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life: College sports and educational values. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Simon, B., & Stürmer, S. (2003). Respect for group members: Intragroup determinants of collective identification and group-serving behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Smith, A. B., Taylor, E. A., Siegele, J. A., & Hardin, R. (2019). NCAA Division I senior woman administrators’ perceptions of barriers to career mobility. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 12(1), 479–504. [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (2002). Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective. Kendall/Hunt Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  54. Southall, R. M., Eckard, E. W., Nagel, M. S., & Randall, M. H. (2015). Athletic success and NCAA profit-athletes’ adjusted graduation gaps. Sociology of Sport Journal, 32(4), 395–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Statista. (2024). Share of U.S. population identifying as college basketball fans. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1498283/college-basketball-fans-us/ (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  56. St. Bonaventure University. (2023). 70% of Americans identify as sports fans. Available online: https://www.sbu.edu/news/news-items/2023/02/03/st.-bonaventure-siena-research-survey-reveals-70-of-americans-are-sports-fans-21-avid-football-clearly-king (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  57. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  58. Turner, B. A., & Chelladurai, C. (2005). Organizational and occupational commitment, intention to leave, and perceived performance of intercollegiate coaches. Journal of Sport Management, 19(2), 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Watson, D. L. (2020). College sports and athlete development: Historical perspectives and modern challenges. In M. Hutchinson (Ed.), The collegiate athlete experience (pp. 25–41). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Demographic profile.
Table 1. Demographic profile.
Demographic InformationClassificationFrequency (N = 285)Percent (%)
GenderMale15554.4
Female12845.6
RaceWhite/Caucasian16557.9
African American9232.3
Hispanic217.4
Native American31.1
Asian American10.4
Other31.1
School YearFreshman7225.3
Sophomore7426.0
Junior7024.6
Senior6322.1
Graduate Student62.1
ScholarshipNO15755.1
Partial Aid10336.1
Full Aid258.8
DivisionI17862.5
II8128.4
III269.1
Table 2. Results of Correlation Values and Descriptive Statistics.
Table 2. Results of Correlation Values and Descriptive Statistics.
Factor123MSD
1. Procedural Justice 3.640.588
2. Coach Trust292 ** 4.050.577
3. POS184 **0.236 ** 3.850.854
4. Team Commitment0.368 **0.219 **0.216 **3.630.587
** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability.
Table 3. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability.
ItemsFactor Loading
Coach Trust 10.9170.1520.0140.153
Coach Trust 20.9130.1040.0410.115
Coach Trust 30.9120.0150.1610.015
Team Commitment 10.0770.9290.1490.086
Team Commitment 20.1210.8670.1860.120
Team Commitment 30.0680.8580.1470.053
Procedural Justice 10.0830.1560.8740.065
Procedural Justice 20.0520.2130.8470.127
Procedural Justice 30.0740.1100.8370.171
POS 10.0290.0710.1580.870
POS 20.0310.1140.0780.848
POS 30.2340.0580.1190.848
Reliability0.9170.8940.8520.842
Eigenvalue4.2472.1661.8331.482
Variance35.38918.04715.27912.349
Table 4. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and AVE.
Table 4. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and AVE.
ItemsEstimateStd. EstimateS. E.C. R.AVE
Procedural Justice 11.0000.770 0.811
Procedural Justice 21.0420.8380.07713.481 ***
Procedural Justice 31.0120.8290.07413.416 ***
Coach Trust 11.0000.857 0.816
Coach Trust 21.1850.9190.05820.268 ***
Coach Trust 31.0670.8860.05519.457 ***
POS 11.0000.736 0.807
POS 21.2170.8440.09612.651 ***
POS 31.0330.8270.08212.576 ***
Team Commitment 11.0000.779 0.880
Team Commitment 21.2750.9660.07417.151 ***
Team Commitment 31.0890.8470.06815.953 ***
*** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Results of Path Coefficients.
Table 5. Results of Path Coefficients.
PathβS. E.t
H1Procedural Justice ➔ Team Commitment0.341 ***0.0714.882Accept
H2Procedural Justice ➔ Coach Trust0.197 **0.1002.947Accept
H3Procedural Justice ➔ POS0.294 ***0.0644.189Accept
H4Coach Trust ➔ Team Commitment0.139 *0.0422.230Accept
H5Coach Trust ➔ POS0.228 ***0.0403.472Accept
H6POS ➔ Team Commitment0.0730.0761.072Reject
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001, POS (Perceived Organizational Support).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Han, K.; Ha, J. Student-Athletes’ Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Coach Trust, Organizational Support, and the Impact on Team Commitment in Collegiate Sports. Youth 2025, 5, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020048

AMA Style

Han K, Ha J. Student-Athletes’ Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Coach Trust, Organizational Support, and the Impact on Team Commitment in Collegiate Sports. Youth. 2025; 5(2):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Han, Keunsu, and Jaehyun Ha. 2025. "Student-Athletes’ Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Coach Trust, Organizational Support, and the Impact on Team Commitment in Collegiate Sports" Youth 5, no. 2: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020048

APA Style

Han, K., & Ha, J. (2025). Student-Athletes’ Perceptions of Procedural Justice, Coach Trust, Organizational Support, and the Impact on Team Commitment in Collegiate Sports. Youth, 5(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020048

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop