SMGT 503 Case Analysis Instructions You Will Analyze 5 ✓ Solved

SMGT 503 Case Analysis Instructions You will analyze 5 –

SMGT 503 Case Analysis Instructions You will analyze 5 cases during this course. Each case analysis should be 5–7 pages and follow current APA guidelines, with a title page and reference page in APA formatting.

The basic guidelines for analyzing ethical cases are as follows:

1. Issues
   • What are the major moral or ethical issues raised by the case?
   • What are the major factual issues raised by the case?
   • What are the major conceptual issues raised by this case?
   • Who are the major stakeholders in this case?
   • How are the issues in this case related to making ethical decisions?
2. Options
   • What are the major views on the conceptual issues raised by this case?
   • What are the main alternative actions or policies that might be followed in responding to the ethical issues in this case?
   • What facts are unknown or disputed that might be relevant to deciding this case (may require research to determine some facts)?
3. Ethical Arguments
   • Determine which of the four moral standards (egoism, natural law, utilitarianism, and respect for persons) apply to this case.
   • Identify the moral principles that can be invoked to support a conclusion as to what ought to be done ethically in this case or similar cases.
   • Determine whether the different moral standards yield converging or diverging judgments about what ought to be done.
4. Decision or Conclusion
   • Decide which of the identified options you would recommend or judge to be the ethically best way to deal with the issue presented in this case based upon which option has the strongest ethical reasons behind it.
   • Determine how a critic of your position might try to argue against it using other ethical reasons, and present a rebuttal or counter-argument in defense of your judgment.
   • Include a scripture to support your decision.

Guidelines for Preparing Ethical Case Analyses: It is useful to discuss your case with at least one other person before you sit down to write up your case analysis. Following your case discussion, you are required to prepare a short analysis of the case in which you develop and defend your own ethical analysis of the case. The purpose of these reports is to give you a chance to work out your own view about the issues raised by each case and to practice the procedure for analyzing ethical dilemmas. It is important that you include biblical references to defend your stance.

Each Case Analysis is designed to be submitted in a form that reflects APA guidelines, including title page and references, and should be filed according to your module/week schedule.

Paper For Above Instructions

Ethical case analysis in sport management demands a structured framework that blends normative theory, stakeholder analysis, and practical decision-making. The following paper presents a rigorous, APA-aligned approach to analyzing five cases commonly encountered in SMGT courses, followed by exemplar analyses that illustrate how to apply these guidelines. Throughout, the analysis integrates ethical theories (such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) with stakeholder considerations and biblical principles to yield ethically reasoned conclusions.

Framework and rationale. A robust ethical case analysis begins with identifying moral, factual, and conceptual issues; mapping stakeholders; and clarifying how these issues influence ethical decision-making. Beauchamp and Childress (2019) anchor many sports and health contexts in a principled approach to autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, which can be adapted to sport contexts where confidentiality, welfare, and fairness are central. Velasquez et al. (2015) provide a practical, case-based lens that complements principlism with contextual analysis. In parallel, Treviño and Nelson (2017) emphasize ethical leadership and organizational culture, critical in five-case analyses where organizational incentives may affect decisions. Integrated, this framework supports transparent judgment development and defensible conclusions.

The five cases are approached with the following consistent method. First, articulate issues: determine the ethical, factual, and conceptual questions that drive the case, identify stakeholders, and relate issues to decision-making processes. Second, examine options: survey competing viewpoints and potential actions, noting unknowns and research needs. Third, construct ethical arguments: apply moral standards (e.g., utilitarianism, respect for persons, and elements of natural law or egoism where relevant) and articulate the underlying moral principles that justify or contest chosen actions. Fourth, decide and defend: select the ethically best option, anticipate objections, provide rebuttals, and ground your decision in both theory and scripture. This approach aligns with Beauchamp & Childress (2019), Shaw & Barry (2010), and Cran & Matten (2016) who emphasize coherent argumentation and the integration of ethical frameworks with real-world contexts.

Case 1: Sponsorship and integrity in collegiate sport. Issues include potential conflicts of interest when a university accepts sponsorship from a betting company. Major ethical concerns involve the impact on youth fans, community trust, and the integrity of competition. Factual issues include the amount of funding, promotional practices, and compliance with league regulations. Conceptual issues center on the line between commercial benefit and public trust. Stakeholders include athletes, coaching staff, administration, fans, sponsors, and alumni. Options range from accepting the sponsorship with strict advertising controls to declining sponsorship entirely or seeking alternatives with higher ethical safety. Applying utilitarian principles, the ethically best option is one that maximizes overall welfare, including student-athlete welfare and public trust, while minimizing harm from gambling influences. From a biblical perspective, Proverbs 11:1 notes that dishonest scales are an abhorrence to the Lord, underscoring integrity as foundational to decisions. If the sponsorship creates a perception of compromise in fairness, the recommendation would favor stronger controls or rejection to preserve trust and moral legitimacy (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; Holy Bible, NIV, 1984).

Case 2: Doping policy versus medical necessity in performance enhancement. Issues involve the tension between athlete health and competitive advantage. Factual questions concern medical justification, testing accuracy, and long-term risks. Conceptual issues include whether health protection supersedes performance aims. Stakeholders are athletes, medical staff, coaches, governing bodies, and fans. Options include strict anti-doping enforcement, medically supervised exceptions, or alternative performance-support policies that do not risk health. Ethical analysis using utilitarian and deontological lenses suggests the policy should prioritize athlete welfare and equal treatment. A critique could argue for medical exceptions under harm-reduction logic; the rebuttal would emphasize fundamental rights to health and fair competition. Scriptural support might cite biblical admonitions about harming one’s body and the call to stewardship (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). (Velasquez et al., 2015; Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; Singer, 2011).

Case 3: Data privacy and athlete monitoring. Issues cover consent, scope of data collection, and potential misuse of wearable information. Factual issues include who has access to data, how data are stored, and potential for discrimination. Conceptual concerns center on autonomy and the right to privacy in a team setting. Stakeholders include athletes, medical staff, coaches, administrators, and sponsors. Options range from robust informed consent and minimal data collection to comprehensive monitoring with transparent governance. A rational ethical approach uses respect for persons (autonomy) and nonmaleficence to limit data collection to purpose-specific measures while ensuring opt-out provisions. Biblical perspectives emphasize honesty and respect for others as caretaking responsibilities (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Case 4: Equity and access to sport facilities and opportunities. Issues involve gender equity, resource distribution, and opportunity justice. Factual questions address funding formulas, scheduling, and access disparities. Conceptual issues include distributive justice and fairness in competitive contexts. Stakeholders include athletes across genders, coaching staff, administrators, fans, and communities. Options include targeted investment to close gaps, policy reforms to ensure equity, or performance-based allocations that require accountability. A deontological reading emphasizes fairness and obligations to treat all athletes with equal respect, while a utilitarian view weighs overall welfare gains. Scripture supports a call to justice and fairness (Micah 6:8; Isaiah 1:17). (Crane & Matten, 2016; Shaw & Barry, 2010).

Case 5: Mental health and welfare of athletes in high-pressure environments. Issues concern stigma, access to mental health resources, and competitive culture. Factual questions include availability of services, confidentiality, and program funding. Conceptual issues engage with the duty of care and the limits of competition-driven stress. Stakeholders include athletes, coaches, medical staff, families, and program administrators. Options involve expanding confidential services, embedding mental health professionals within programs, or policy reforms to balance performance pressures with wellness. Ethical reasoning draws on utilitarian and virtue ethics to prioritize welfare and character development. Biblical guidance emphasizes compassion, support, and stewardship (Luke 6:31; Galatians 6:2). (Ferrell et al., 2019; Treviño & Nelson, 2017).

Scriptural integration. Across cases, the inclusion of scripture—such as Micah 6:8, Luke 6:31, and Proverbs 11:1—serves to anchor the ethical stance in shared moral commitments regarding justice, mercy, integrity, and humility. While scripture is not a substitute for empirical analysis, it provides a normative compass for evaluating competing goods and harms (Holy Bible, NIV, 1984).

Conclusion. A rigorous five-case analysis requires a disciplined process that blends normative theory, factual inquiry, stakeholder analysis, and reflection on moral commitments. The framework described here supports transparent decision-making with clear justification, consideration of counterarguments, and incorporation of scriptural guidance where appropriate. By applying this approach consistently, students and practitioners can articulate ethically defensible positions that balance health, fairness, and public trust in sport management.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Velasquez, M. G., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2019). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (12th ed.). Cengage.
• Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, M. L. (2017). Managing Business Ethics (7th ed.). Wiley.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: A European Perspective (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2010). Moral Issues in Business (6th ed.). Cengage.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Aristotle. (2004). Nicomachean Ethics (W. D. Ross, Ed.; J. Barnes, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.
• Holy Bible, New International Version. (1984). Zondervan.