Attributions in sport beg the question “to what do you attribute success (or failure)?” They give insight into what motivational factors are most salient for the athlete in question. The cognitive model of Weiner (1974) classified attributions following success or failure in achievement-related events as the outcome of only 4 things: ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty. Roberts and Pascuzzi (1979) expanded Weiner’s model to include 6 more attributions they deemed relevant to sport (teamwork, psychological factors, practice, unstable ability, coaching, and officials). However, their model was developed with passive participants rather than actual athletes giving attributions for success and/or failure. This study attempts to evaluate the usefulness of the categories of attributions suggested by Roberts and Pascuzzi by recording actual attributions made by professional athletes immediately following competition. Conclusions of 61 different sporting events in 16 different sports were videotaped along with athlete interviews following the conclusion of each contest. Reasons for success or failure cited by competing athletes were categorized as attributions according to the existing model (N=244). However, 38 percent of attributions could not be classified into the categories provided by the 1979 model. Specifically, attributions related to strategy, technical and equipment issues, opponent’s ability, God, sponsorship, and audience effects comprised 38 percent of the total attributions (20% following wins and 18% following losses). Attributions made in basketball and motor racing specifically suggest that there may be the need for different models for different sports, as the situational relevance of any model is largely dependent on the nature of the sport and the outcome of the specific contest.