Perceptions of justice involving disciplinary decisions for a star player in an intercollegiate team sport setting were investigated. Male and female intercollegiate athletes (N = 142) at a midsized southeastern university responded to one of sixteen scenarios and reported perceptions of fairness for the punished athlete and teammates, perceptions of procedural fairness for the punished athlete and teammates, and whether the punishment was likely to deter future misconduct by the punished athlete and teammates. The results indicated that athletes perceived consistently applied punishment as more fair to all team members than they did conditional punishment; consistently applied punishment was perceived as more likely to deter future misconduct for all team members than was conditional punishment; severe punishment was perceived as more likely to deter future misconduct to the punished athlete than was moderate punishment; and punishment that appropriately matches the severity of the violation was perceived as more fair than punishment that was overly for the violation severity.