Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2016. / Background: Iliotibial band friction syndrome is a common dysfunction seen in athletes. Athletes develop biomechanical changes yet still continue with their sport. However, this syndrome limits their ability to participate at peak performance. This study determined which participants benefitted in terms of biomechanical and clinical outcomes in one of four groups: ankle joint, superior tibio-fibular joint, sacroiliac joint or a combination manipulation group (which contained any two of the three joint restrictions). Methods: This Durban University of Technology Institutional Research and Ethics Committee approved prospective clinical trial, utilised stratified sampling, with 48 participants across four groups: ankle (14); superior tibio-fibular (11), sacroiliac (12) and combination (11). The participants underwent six treatments in three weeks. Data collection occurred before consultations one, three, five and seven. The data included primary measures of the knee score questionnaire (KSQ), the algometer, the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the secondary measures of the Feiss line, the heel leg alignment, bilateral leg length, Q angle and tibio-femoral angle. All data was computed utilising the ANOVA testing, with a p-value <0.05 being significant and a 95% confidence interval. Pearson’s correlations were completed for intragroup associations between primary and secondary outcome measures. Results: The intragroup analysis revealed that all groups had significant changes in the KSQ and VAS, with the exception of the sacroiliac joint manipulation group (KSQ outcome not significant). Intergroup analysis revealed no differences between the groups with the exception of the combination group, which showed a significant increase in the tibio-femoral angle. Most commonly, the Pearson’s correlation revealed that changes in leg length were related to differences in primary outcome measures, irrespective of the group being tested. Conclusion: The outcomes of this study indicated that manipulation of the distal kinematic chain improved alignment and clinical outcomes to a greater degree than manipulating proximal restrictions. It is suggested with caution (due to limited sample size) that patients should first have their distal kinematic chain manipulated before more proximal joints are manipulated to achieve better outcomes. / M