The Big Business of College Sports: The Era of Professional Student Athletes

After four years of debate, the National Collegiate Athletic Association agreed in January 2000 to accept what high school principals said about their courses, rather than to continue judging courses through the clearinghouse. Mr. Nathan presents several lessons we can learn from this experience. EDUCATORS and students recently won an important and instructive victory. They succeeded in convincing the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the organization that runs college sports, to change procedures that were frustrating high school educators, parents, and students throughout the nation. Here, after some quick background, are seven lessons from this struggle. For many years, college sports has been a quagmire. Accompanying news stories about dramatic victories in football or basketball have been stories about college athletes who have modest academic skills. At one point, newspapers focused on a star college athlete who, when asked what he would do with a large professional contract, said he intended to hire someone to help him learn to read. Members of Congress warned university presidents that they needed to clean up their sports programs or Congress would intervene. College sports is a huge business. 1997 budget of the NCAA included more than $247 million in revenue, much of that money coming from television contracts.1 Neither universities nor the NCAA wanted Congress stepping in. So the NCAA adopted new regulations, requiring that prospective college athletes attain certain grade-point averages and scores on standardized tests. organization decided that it would determine which high school courses met its new standards. NCAA awarded a multimillion- dollar contract to the American College Testing (ACT) Program to establish a clearinghouse to deal with high school students and to review courses in English, social studies, math, and science at every American high school. NCAA/ACT collaboration did not do a stellar job. It told some National Merit Scholars and class valedictorians that they were not eligible for participation in college sports because they hadn't taken enough high school courses deemed acceptable by the NCAA.2 Superintendents and principals across the nation found that the ACT staff treated them with disdain and disrespect. One superintendent wrote: As disagreements surfaced and became more severe and as clearinghouse representatives became more arrogant in their dealings with school leaders, we began to question their practices. . . . NCAA cost us money, frustrated deserving students, and confused the community.3 Dozens of articles have described the problems created by the NCAA and its ACT-operated clearinghouse. And many educators asked, Who are the NCAA and the ACT to judge our courses? Indeed, that became a central question for those challenging the NCAA. After four years of debate, the NCAA agreed in January 2000 to accept what high school principals said about their courses, rather than to continue judging courses through the clearinghouse. Here are several lessons we can learn from this experience. 1. Journalists can be marvelous allies for school reformers. Based on documented problems throughout the nation, the New York Times and USA Today featured editorials challenging the NCAA. Times editorial concluded, The NCAA should be promoting educational innovation, not obstructing it.4 USA Today insisted, Until the NCAA gets out of the business of deciding course content, all high school students will continue to lose out.5 Other newspapers from New York to California carried stories about local students with stellar academic records who were encountering problems with the NCAA. These articles bothered the NCAA in a way that almost nothing else did. NCAA officials are sensitive about bad publicity, and journalists are eager to write stories about deserving young people being mistreated by a giant bureaucracy. …

IntroductionThe transition out of competitive sport comes with a range of psychosocial challenges for athletes, particularly when retirement is involuntary (e.g., due to injury). Little is known about the health of former athletes who often manage prior injuries and changing biopsychosocial factors.PurposeIdentify the unique experiences of varsity athletes during college and as they transition to life after college sports and determine the facilitators, barriers, and needs of college varsity athletes to engage in a physically active and healthy lifestyle after competitive sport retirement.MethodsThirty former college varsity athletes (15F, 15M; mean age 23 ± 1 yrs; BMI: 26 ± 4 kg/m2) who finished competing approximately 2 weeks to 2 years prior participated in semi-structured, qualitative interviews asking open-ended questions describing their experiences as college athletes and their transition to life after college sports. Interview topics centered on physical and psychological health, physical activity and exercise, diet, the overall transition experience including ways in which athletes felt well equipped or poorly equipped for life after sport, and what could have facilitated their transition to life after collegiate athletics. Researchers conducted coding and thematic analysis using an iterative and collaborative approach until no new themes were constructed.FindingsMost athletes participated in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I (87%) or III (10%) sports. Athletes represented a variety of sports with Volleyball (N = 7), Soccer (N = 6), and Track & Field (N = 6) more common than others. Three main themes were constructed: (1) College athlete uniqueness; (2) Transitioning to life after college sport; and 3) Empowering former athletes to live more healthfully. Despite many unique and beneficial experiences of college athletes, the highly scheduled lives of college athletes led to a post-retirement loss of structure and support, negatively impacting those without a clear post-college sports plan and social network. Former athletes described pain and soreness that often lessened or resolved after a few months of no longer competing in sports. Athletes expressed how they could have been empowered to live more healthfully in the transition away from college athletics including guidance on nutrition, managing prior injuries, and exercising for general health rather than sports performance.DiscussionCompetitive athletes have unique experiences that both equip and challenge them as they transition away from structured sport environments and the associated support systems. Former athletes identified several key factors that may facilitate a healthier transition, including guidance on exercising for general health, managing pain and prior injuries, nutrition, and social support. Understanding the needs of athletes transitioning out of competitive sport will better equip healthcare providers to counsel, educate, and treat athletes for optimal long-term health.

Sports nutritionists fuel the competitive edge

Reviewed by: The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports, and Predominantly White NCAA Institutions by Billy Hawkins Alvin Curette Jr., Doctoral Student Billy Hawkins. The New Plantation: Black Athletes, College Sports, and Predominantly White NCAA Institutions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 242 pp. Paperback: $27.62. ISBN: 978-1137035349. In The New Plantation, Billy Hawkins examines the relationship between predominantly white National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I institutions and black male athletes and discusses how the economic, political, social and cultural structures within colleges and athletic departments shape the experiences of these young men. Ultimately, the author’s goal is to position the experiences of black male athletes at NCAA Division I predominantly white institutions (PWIs) within the historical and social context of American capitalistic exploitation of the black body (e.g., slavery and sharecropping). Hawkins asserts that the “intercollegiate athletic industrial complex” at PWIs and the “prison industrial complex” are new plantation models that have been redesigned to exploit black bodies for economic gain (p. 83). The book opens with a historical account of the educational experiences of black people, dating back to ancient African civilization. Hawkins states that education has been valued in the black community throughout history; however, he highlights the use of American colonialism and slavery in stripping blacks of their educational rights. Also, the book chronicles the importance of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in educating blacks since the 1800s and recognizes HBCUs as the main collegiate venues through which black athletes competed in the late 19th century. Nevertheless, Hawkins argues that HBCUs struggle to recruit high-profile athletes in the 21st century because their athletic budgets and facilities pale in comparison to predominantly white NCAA Division I institutions. Additionally, he suggests that unless HBCUs increase their “commercialization (i.e., corporate sponsorship, media rights sales…),” prominent black male athletes will continue to attend PWIs (p. 30). Hawkins uses two concepts to illustrate the relationship between black male athletes and PWIs. First, internal colonialism, a system through which a subordinate minority group is transplanted to a foreign land and is controlled by a dominant group, is used to demonstrate the oppressive relationship between black male athletes and athletic departments at PWIs. Internal colonialism requires the colonizer (NCAA and PWIs) to be characterized as superior to the colonized (black male athletes). In addition, the colonizer believes that their elevated position is legitimate, and the colonized accept their inferior status. The author suggests that the colonizer-colonized relationship exists because athletes rely upon PWIs to increase their chances for upward social mobility (e.g., degree attainment and/or becoming a professional athlete), while the NCAA and athletic departments believe they have the right to profit from athletes’ labor. Secondly, Hawkins compares the experiences of black male athletes to oscillating migrant laborers. As do migrant laborers, black male athletes sell their skills to buyers and leave their communities with “hopes of improving their financial conditions back at home” (p.126). In both cases, the transplanted groups are forced to adapt to a new cultural environment, which devalues their native culture. Moreover, the buyer (e.g., NCAA and athletic departments) holds the power to make decisions and profits from cheap labor. Hawkins suggests that black males freely relinquish their individual rights to predominantly white NCAA Division I institutions because many view athletics as their only way out of poverty. Similarly, Conchas (2006) found that despite high school students’ participation in a college-preparatory career academy, low-income black males continued to place a higher value on collegiate football and basketball, perceiving degree attainment as a back-up plan. Though the book acknowledges individual racism encountered by black males at PWIs, the main focus is on the covert institutional racism that is carried out by the NCAA and athletic departments. Hawkins’ objective is to characterize the NCAA and athletic departments at Division I PWIs as racist organizations that exploit black male athletes for economic gain. This claim is supported by tables that display the large revenues reported by the top NCAA Division I football and basketball programs and data that show that black males comprise the majority of NCAA Division I basketball and football...

In general there is a lack of information describing the components and structure of drug education and prevention programs (DEPP) for college student athletes. While concern about the prevalence of drug abuse among college student athletes has increased, a relative lack of clarity remains regarding what elements of drug education prevention programs have been successful or unsuccessful in this setting. In an effort to address this issue at Oregon State University a two-credit ten-week DEPP was implemented as a requirement for all collegiate athletes. This article describes the evaluation of this program. Altogether 635 student athletes from three National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division One universities provided data in this two-year evaluation project. Participants were student athletes from Oregon State University (OSU), a Mid-Western University (MWU), and another Pacific North-Western University (PNWU). Pre- and post-test data were collected regarding knowledge about drugs, attitudes toward drug use, drug use, and decision-making factors. Students at OSU and MWU were enrolled in a structured DEPP, and the third group from PNWU was used as a control and did not receive regular instruction. The baseline data taken before the drug education course indicated that athletes at OSU, MWU, and PNWU were no different in their knowledge of drugs, attitudes toward drugs, or perception of the value of drug education in preventing drug abuse among student athletes. However, the data at the end of the ten-week course revealed many significant improvements among OSU and MWU students athletes, in knowledge, attitude related to performance enhancing drugs and recreational drugs, and perceptions of drug education. At the end of the course 88 percent of the participating OSU athletes agreed that drug education can be effective in preventing drug abuse among student athletes.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an American college sports league that is popular in the United States and even around the world. It includes many different kinds of sports, and almost all have a high level. Basketball is one of the representative sports in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There is an annual sports championship that is the most popular in America and is held in March of each year. National Collegiate Athletic Association sports events have a very high degree of attention and a very strong mass base. Not only the basketball is a popular sport in National Collegiate Athletic Association, track and field are also popular. In addition to basketball and track and field, the National Collegiate Athletic Association also includes other sports such as football, baseball and others and they are all concerned and loved by people. Alcohol abuse among college students is a serious public health problem that plagues many American college students. This situation also leads to serious illnesses associated with alcohol for adolescents. More than just disease, the act of drinking alcohol is likely to lead to future alcohol dependence in adolescents. Student athletes have an even more serious alcohol abuse problem. This article mainly studies the National Collegiate Athletic Association's use of different marketing methods to solve the long-standing problem of alcohol abuse by college athletes. Furthermore, through marketing to eliminate the negative impact and make college students pay more attention to the problem of alcohol abuse, so that they can get better athletic performance, academic performance and physical health, and also enable them to effectively avoid criminal problems that may be caused by drinking.

MYLES Brand, a fellow former university president, is a friend of mine. He is, I believe, a person of unquestioned integrity and high principle. But as president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), he has been asked to fend off an unruly mob with a switch. In the present environment for collegiate sports, his chances for success are slight, at best. What Brand and the NCAA face today is a very real arms race, one fueled by an insatiable appetite on the part of students, alumni, and the general public for college athletic success. Fiscal restraint is not frequently in evidence. New, multimillion-dollar facilities now seem to be the rule, rather than the exception. As Brand has told me, Institutions hold mortgages on burgeoning facility expansion that represents on average 20% of intercollegiate athletics spending. Too few understand that only a handful of major intercollegiate athletic programs actually make money (fewer than 15 at last count). Meanwhile, the rest struggle to break even. Despite television income, growing ticket revenues, and contributions from supporters, big-time college athletics is a high-risk business. Let us not forget that marquee football and basketball coaches are paid millions of dollars a year, many times over what is allotted to outstanding faculty members and administrators. Not too many years ago, the million-dollar coach was a rarity. That is no longer the case, with at least 50 of the Football Bowl of NCAA Division I (formerly Division I-A) head coaches annually earning $1 million or more. There were five in 1999. Coaches at the Bowl Subdivision schools are making an average of more than $950,000 a year. Brand has said that the salaries of million-dollar coaches have averaged 3.1% of the schools' football budgets. University of Alabama paid Nick Saban $4 million a year to return the Crimson Tide to the glory days of legendary coach Bear Bryant. Saban is being paid 9% of the Alabama football budget. Too many athletic departments rely on some form of university subsidy, a sore point with faculty members and elected state officials. A growing number of elected federal officials believe that athletic departments have more influence than they should and need to be reined in. Members of the House Ways and Means Committee are threatening to take action, because they believe college athletic programs have moved too far away from their original and intended purposes and in many instances are undercutting institutional missions. threat is real. Some members of Congress see today's major college football and basketball programs as professional-like in nature and substance and resent their tax-exempt status. Former University of Michigan President James Duderstadt has said repeatedly, The simplest way to characterize the problem with college sports is to recognize that it is a very profitable commercial entertainment business that is moving farther and farther away from the original academic purposes of the university. Any congressional intrusion is certain to be actively discouraged by college presidents and their trustees, who will argue that they are best able to regulate collegiate sports. And I believe a clear majority of the House and Senate members will be careful to end up on the right political side of the issue, because they realize the immense and growing popularity of college football and basketball with the voters. …

Division I men’s college athletics has become a mainstay in American culture. On Saturdays in the fall, people come together to watch their alma mater or a regional football powerhouse play their rival for bragging rights, generating prime marketing opportunities for beer, car, and fast food companies and millions of dollars in advertising revenue for broadcasters. Every spring, the entire country is engulfed in “March Madness” as the NCAA basketball tournament unfolds. People root for their own teams and wait with anticipation to see which mid-major team upsets a major power to become the “Cinderella Story” of the tournament. While amateur athletics emerged as a way to “enhance the educational experience of students1 ,” over time it has become a significant profit-generating venture. Universities are making millions of dollars off of their football and basketball programs, yet the student-athletes do not receive any compensation aside from free tuition and other perks (for those lucky enough to receive scholarships). Should college athletes who generate millions of dollars for their universities, for large corporations, and broadcasters, be paid? In the past few years, many journalists, lawyers, labor specialists, academics, and college athletes have begun to wrestle with this question. The goal of this thesis is to provide some historical context for this debate. This topic will give an historical viewpoint on the “pay for play” debate. It addresses the ethical compass of the NCAA as a governing body, the economics behind Division I Collegiate Football and Men’s Basketball, and the challenge universities face recruiting and retaining the best athletes. The economics behind intercollegiate athletics is the driving force behind the “pay for play” debate. This research explores the history of television contracts with particularuniversities, conferences, and the NCAA as a whole. In addition, it examines how money has challenged the ethical structure of the NCAA leading ultimately to the recent threat of unionization by college athletes, and the place of race and class in the debate over “pay for play”. Despite the recent boom in popularity on this issue, “pay for play” existed within Division I revenue generating sports (Men’s Basketball and Football) for over a century. Moreover, this history is relevant for understanding why the option of compensating these particular student-athletes is a more realistic possibility today rather than any other time since the Sanity Code. This report culminates with an in-depth discussion of possible policy changes for the NCAA to adopt, but ultimately suggesting a new, original model: The Distribution Model. This thesis will help to lay the foundation for a fair and just decision to be made on the “pay for play” argument in intercollegiate athletics.

Recent discussion amongst scholars and practitioners related to current issues in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I college athletics has focused on areas such as the widespread commercialization of amateur sports, consistent corruption within athletics departments at NCAA member institutions, extensive exploitation of student-athletes and the necessity of a “pay for play” employee compensation model for student-athletes (see, for example, Benedict & Keteyian, 2014; Branch, 2011; Huma & Staurowsky, 2012; Nocera & Strauss, 2016; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013; Staurowsky, Maxcy, Karcher, Southall, Berri, & Otto, 2015). However, there has been minimal scholarly and industry discourse on how to leverage some of the revenues generated at the NCAA, conference and individual athletics program levels in order to develop innovative and sustainable higher education solutions that would prepare all student-athletes for career and personal success after participation in college athletics. The primary objective of this journal article is to encourage a more informed conversation about important issues in college athletics in part by proposing several practical strategies that would improve the overall student-athlete experience and further align participation in college athletics with the core goals of institutions of higher education. This research note provides an overview of the college athletics business model at Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions within Division I of the NCAA. In addition, this article reviews the current NCAA Division I governance structure. An accurate knowledge of the business and governance realities within college athletics is essential to understanding that paying student-athletes an hourly wage or annual salary is actually not one of the main system issues or central student-athlete wellbeing priorities of advocates for student-athletes, athletics leaders and higher education administrators. This article analyzes the primary issues and areas in which key college athletics stakeholders presently seek change and improvement. This article also spotlights innovative, culturally relevant student-athlete career and professional development programs recently developed by the University of Central Florida, Oregon State University and Vanderbilt University. Finally, this article provides a series of recommendations for all stakeholders involved in college athletics to optimize the student-athlete academic and athletic experience and to improve the level of career preparedness of all student-athletes.

Since 2014, U.S. college athletes who are full-time students at their universities have sought recognition as employees of their universities, athletic conferences, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The athletes contend they are employees within the statutory meanings of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state labor laws. Colleges and the NCAA argue that the athletes’ relationship is primarily educational and outside the scope of employment. Petitions on behalf of athletes from Northwestern University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Southern California for recognition of employment within the meaning of the NLRA and formation of unions through the National Labor Relations Board enjoyed some success in the legal process, but none met its objective. Ongoing litigation concerning whether college athletes are employees within the meaning of the FLSA, the prospect of athletes who are enrolled at public universities—meaning their prospective employment would be governed by state, rather than federal, laws—and an emerging new economic framework in college sports with schools sharing revenue with athletes create several ways in which employment becomes more likely.

Sudden deaths of young competitive athletes are tragic events that continue to have a considerable impact on the lay and medical communities.1–17 These deaths are usually due to a variety of unsuspected cardiovascular diseases and have been reported with increasing frequency in both the United States and Europe.1,5 Such deaths often assume a high public profile because of the youth of the victims and the generally held perception that trained athletes constitute the healthiest segment of society, with the deaths of well-known elite athletes often exaggerating this visibility. These counterintuitive events strike to the core of our sensibilities, periodically galvanizing discussion and action, and in the process raise practical and ethical issues related to detection of the responsible cardiovascular conditions. Preparticipation cardiovascular screening is the systematic practice of medically evaluating large, general populations of athletes before participation in sports for the purpose of identifying (or raising suspicion of) abnormalities that could provoke disease progression or sudden death.13,16 Indeed, identification of the relevant diseases may well prevent some instances of sudden death after temporary or permanent withdrawal from sports or targeted treatment interventions.15,17–21 In addition, the increasing awareness that automated external defibrillators (AEDs) may not always prove successful in the secondary prevention of sudden death for athletes with cardiovascular disease22 underscores the importance of preparticipation screening for the prospective identification of at-risk athletes and the prophylactic prevention of cardiac events during sports by selective disqualification. Although some critics have questioned the effectiveness of cardiovascular screening,23,24 overwhelming support for the principle of this public health initiative exists in both the medical and lay communities.13–16,25 The efficacy of the various athlete screening strategies is not easily resolved in the context of evidence-based investigative medicine. Recently, recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)16 and International …

"Doing Just What the Others Were Doing":The University of Kentucky Wildcats and the Debate over Commercialized College Athletics, 1946–1954 Chad Carlson (bio) University administrators, professors, coaches, sportswriters, boosters, fans, and athletes have debated amateurism in college athletics since the end of the nineteenth century. These debates came to a head following World War II, as interested parties discussed eligibility rules and the increasing "commercialism" of college athletics. In the midcentury, complaints about commercialism typically came when players were paid or universities accepted large sums of money for playing certain games, especially in the postseason, both of which ran against the ideal of amateurism. Of course, the ideal of amateurism—as defined by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and university administrators—has changed over time. After the war, "reform-minded educators and the NCAA attempted to eliminate the widespread illegal subsidies and academic manipulations practiced at member schools by establishing uniform national standards," historian Charles Martin has noted.1 The advocates of amateurism, especially university administrators at midwestern and northeastern institutions, won a major victory in 1948 when the NCAA instituted new rules regarding amateurism. The new Sanity Code, as it was called, was [End Page 525] hotly debated and ultimately lasted only a few years. While some universities, particularly private institutions such as the University of Chicago, the University of the South (Sewanee), and the Ivy League schools, decided to de-emphasize athletics, many other universities made the decision to emphasize athletics, especially as a way to generate revenue and build a national reputation.2 Some universities, especially in the South, fought against the new Sanity Code and ignored its rules, and many players desired to be paid for their work on the field or the court. In the 1940s and 1950s, as the University of Kentucky (UK) basketball and football programs rose to national prominence, the university and its players flouted the rules about "illegal" inducements and remuneration. The actions of UK players, especially on the basketball team, demonstrate clearly that many of them thought they should be paid for their work. UK administrators, coaches, and boosters agreed, not necessarily out of solidarity with their student-athletes but in order to win more games. Although the NCAA and most university administrators today oppose paying their "student-athletes" anything more than scholarships and living expenses as defined by the association, for a brief period following World War II at least some university administrators and coaches, including those at UK, were strong advocates of altering the amateur code. Few college athletics programs endured more turbulence during the immediate postwar years than the University of Kentucky. Between 1946 and 1954, the Wildcats experienced the highest of highs and weathered the lowest of lows, making the period among the most successful and most penalized that any program has ever experienced. In this nine-year stretch, the program's basketball team won one National Invitation Tournament (NIT), three NCAA championships, an Olympic gold medal, an Associated Press end-of-season number-one ranking (outside of its NIT and NCAA championships), and eight Southeastern Conference (SEC) championships. However, it served a one-year suspension for a gambling scandal involving three [End Page 526] All-Americans and two other starters and dealt with NCAA and SEC investigations on player eligibility. In addition, the Wildcat football team had unprecedented success while also testing NCAA eligibility policies and skirting rules about paying players. Like their counterparts at many other research institutions, university administrators and coaches at UK often joined with boosters and alumni in pushing the limits of NCAA regulations so that their school's athletic teams could succeed on the field and the court, thereby boosting the image of the university and, they hoped, increasing the bottom line. Two prominent figures in UK athletics at the time, the notoriously outspoken basketball coach Adolph Rupp and a rising star football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant, add another complicated layer to this turbulent period. Rupp, a native Kansan born to German immigrants, played basketball for the game's founder, Dr. James Naismith, and his successor, the legendary coach Dr. Forrest "Phog" Allen, at the University of Kansas. Rupp came east to begin his coaching career in Lexington...

Concern about interpersonal violence (IV) in sport is increasing, yet its implications remain poorly understood, particularly among currently competing college athletes. To document the self-reported prevalence of IV in college sports; identify associated risk factors; examine potential consequences associated with athletes' psychosocial well-being, emotional connection to their sport, and willingness to seek help; and explore the associations between IV reporting and perceived variations in coaching styles. This survey study analyzes results of the 2021 to 2022 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) myPlaybook survey, which was administered from July to December 2021 to 123 colleges and universities across the US. Participants were NCAA athletes aged 18 to 25 years who were current players on an NCAA-sanctioned team. Self-reported demographic characteristics (eg, athlete gender identity and sexual orientation) and perceived differences in supportive vs abusive coaching styles (eg, athlete autonomy, team culture, and extent of abusive supervision). The primary outcome was self-reported experiences of IV in sport during the college sports career of currently competing college athletes. Types of IV considered were physical abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and neglect or abandonment. Outcomes potentially affected by IV were assessed with 4 questionnaires. A total of 4119 athletes (mean [SD] age, 19.3 [1.5] years; 2302 males [55.9%]) completed the survey (response rate, 21.2%). One in 10 athletes (404 of 4119 [9.8%]) reported experiencing at least 1 type of IV during their college sports career, of whom two-thirds (267 [6.5%]) experienced IV within the past 6 weeks. On multivariable analysis, female gender identity (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% CI, 1.46-3.13), nonheterosexual sexual orientation (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01-2.42), increasing age beyond 18 years (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30), increasing year of NCAA eligibility beyond the first year (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.39), and participation in select sports (eg, volleyball: OR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.34-5.72]; ice hockey: OR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.17-6.95]) were independently associated with IV. When exposed to IV, college athletes reported experiencing consistently worse psychosocial outcomes, including increased burnout (mean difference on a 5-point Likert scale, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P < .001) and an expressed desire to consider quitting their sport (mean difference, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92; P < .001). They were not, however, less willing to seek help. Differences in coaching style were associated with differences in IV reporting. In risk-adjusted linear regression models, having a more supportive coach was associated with a 7.4 (95% CI, 6.4-8.4) absolute percentage point decrease in athletes' probability of reporting experiencing IV. In contrast, having a more abusive coach was associated with up to a 15.4 (95% CI, 13.8-17.1) absolute percentage point increase in athletes' probability of reporting experiencing IV. Results of this survey study suggest that IV is associated with marked changes in the psychosocial health and emotional well-being of college athletes, particularly those who identify as female and with nonheterosexual sexual orientations. Variations in coaching style have the potential to alter these associations. Ongoing efforts are needed to leverage the unique position that coaches hold to help reduce IV and create safe places where all college athletes can thrive.

The purpose of this manuscript is to examine racialized differences in National Collegiate Athletic Association athletes’ involvement in civic engagement, activism, and racial justice efforts during and post summer of 2020. The summer of 2020 was a period of widespread civil unrest regarding the prevalence of anti-Black racism and social injustice in the United States. International protests ensued, including several athletes across all levels of sport being engaged in efforts to change the current legal and political systems in the United States. One prominent group of activists and advocates during this period was college athletes. In 2021, the National Collegiate Athletic Association published a landmark report titled Student-Athlete Activism and Racial Justice Engagement Study . The study included 24,974 student athletes from all three divisions. The National Collegiate Athletic Association report provides insightful descriptive statistics, but what is missing is a nuanced theoretical analysis of the findings. Using critical race theory, colorblind racism, and a resistance typology, we explore the racialized meanings of the college athlete data and present implications for institutions of higher education, intercollegiate athletic programs, and college athletes.

Few traditions are as near and dear to the hearts of Americans as college athletics. The institution holds a special place in society because it reflects the ultimate convergence of those values that uniquely define the United States: loyalty, competitiveness, and pride. However, the notion of basic fairness seems to have been excluded along the way, as the commercialization of college athletics gave way to total dominance over the industry by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA promulgates sports rules and organizes collegiate-level championships, but its most influential role involves promoting “amateurism,” or the notion that student-athletes are not entitled to compensation because college athletics should be about the love of the game, not monetization. While amateurism may be touted as an honorable principle aimed at preserving the character of college athletics and its differences from professional sports, the principle is more difficult to justify at a time when the NCAA earns $1.1 billion per year in revenue, none of which is shared among student-athletes who work full-time and typically live below the poverty line. Last year, state legislators paused to consider whether any justification exists for continuing to adhere to the NCAA’s archaic system of denying compensation to student-athletes in light of the fact that “amateurism” holds no significance in a legal sense. Given the lack of any such justification, the California legislature became the first to explicitly defy the NCAA in passing the Fair Pay to Play Act in September of 2019. Since then, a number of states have followed suit by drafting nearly identical laws that would likewise have the effect of permitting student-athletes to earn compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Unsurprisingly, NCAA leadership vehemently condemned the movement at first, threatening to strip member institutions affected by the new legislation from the organization altogether. The NCAA has since reneged on its hostile position, making a public commitment to reform its policies so as to authorize paid endorsement opportunities for student-athletes on some level. However, the organization will undoubtedly attempt to minimize the impact of the Fair Pay to Play Act and its progeny whether through litigation or by crafting new restrictive policies ultimately aimed at nullifying the effects of new laws. Admittedly, the state-by-state approach to adopting a new stance on athlete compensation comes with a number of practical challenges, thereby providing fertile ground for the NCAA to launch powerful objections. This Comment aims to present a workable solution in the form of a comprehensive federal law, which would secure the rights of student-athletes to earn compensation for use of their NILs before the NCAA is given the opportunity to preempt the significance of that right. While several congressmen have drafted federal laws related to the topic of NIL rights in this context, this Comment identifies particular issues that have been overlooked at the state level thus far, recommending specific provisions that would not only embrace student-athletes’ rights in principle as a matter of basic fairness, but make those rights a practicable and economically feasible reality.