The financial well-being of retired professional athletes: debunking the myth about financial irresponsibility
Purpose This research aims to investigate the financial well-being (FWB) of retired male athletes in major professional North American team sports. Framed around Kempson’s (2017) FWB Model, the aim of this research is (1) to identify the key drivers that influence how retired athletes feel about their current financial situations and (2) to assess these findings in the context of how external constituents view the FWB of these athletes. The research addressed two questions: What is the current level of FWB for retired professional athletes? What are the key determinants that drive the FWB of retired professional athletes? Design/methodology/approach A primary survey of retired professional athletes (n = 65) provided the data for analysis. The sample of 65 retired professional athletes, primarily from the National Hockey League and the National Football League, is a unique sample of the hard-to-reach and small population of elite professional athletes who have high levels of wealth. Findings Results provide direction to professional sports leagues, players’ associations, players and player agents and/or advisors regarding the management of athlete wealth, both pre- and post-retirement. Originality/value Based on input directly from retired athletes, the findings dispute assertions of financial mismanagement on behalf of retired athletes and provide evidence that the opposite holds true in most cases, where retired athletes are satisfied about their finances.
Authors
- Norm O’Reilly (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7881-6059)
- Grant Laschowski
Institutions
- University of New England (US)
- Capital Group (United States) (US)
- New College (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Sport Business and Management An International Journal
- Published
- 2025-09-16
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1108/sbm-01-2025-0025
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 3.91