The Politics of College Sport: How Gender and Race Complicate Reform

• In Event: Education and Public Opinion

Abstract

Despite a large literature on the impacts of public policy and institutional characteristics on political participation and the construction of political identity among constituent groups (e.g., Campbell 2012; Mettler and Soss 2004), scholars of public policy rarely take seriously the recursive impacts of politics and policy on the institutions and constituencies of college sports (but see, Druckman, Rothschild, and Sharrow 2018; Sharrow 2017; Wallsten et al. 2017). This is puzzling, given the undeniable impact of U.S. civil rights policy on the domain of sports – specifically, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a sex equity policy – and the on-going debate over the rights of athletes to unionize, collectively bargain, or otherwise mobilize to pursue their interests.

We aim to draw increased attention to this lacuna, asking: When and why do the key stakeholders of these issues, from student-athletes, to coaches and athletic administrators, become politicized to engage in advocacy and reform to contemporary college athletics? What dynamics of political and/or economic influence prevent the formulation of coalitions across relatively disempowered minority groups within college athletics? Why focus to college athletics to deepen our understanding of American politics?

We address these questions through the largest study to date of the opinions and political behaviors of college athletic stakeholders. In the summer of 2018, we conducted a direct, online survey of a random sample of current college athletic administrators, coaches, athletes, and staff (including: athletic trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, academic advisors, and other personnel who oversee campus athletic activities and student-athlete life) across NCAA Divisions. Our extensive recruitment efforts yield a sample of over 3,000 respondents. Our survey instrument investigates four key areas: 1) Perceptions (of gender and race inequalities in athletics, and the adequacy of athlete compensation and support); 2) Values (using Schwartz basic values measures of self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement, and conservation vs. openness to change); 3) Policy Support [for a) Title IX and other current gender equity issues for women and transgender athletes and coaches, and b) athlete unionization and increased direct compensation]; and 4) Mobilization (participating in/supporting protests, and political engagement to pursue reform or policy change). We also examine important demographic characteristics of participants, other general gender and racial attitudes, and amount of “contact” with other groups within athletics. Additionally, we engage participants in a forced choice task in which they allocate a fictionalized athletics budget across a variety of resources.

What hinders support for reform among athletic constituents? How motivated towards (or against) activism or political engagement are athletic leaders, versus their subordinates? What do these dynamics suggest about power and identity in politics? First, we investigate how historically marginalized groups within college athletics (e.g., women and people of color) opinionate about issues facing both their own group(s) and others who are relatively disempowered within college sports – i.e., how do they orient themselves to politics? Our main focus is on policy variables (i.e., Title IX and pay-for-play), and we hypothesize support for each based on attributes of identity (i.e., women athletes are apt to support the former, whereas African-American athletes are more apt to support the latter, all else constant). Next, we examine how and why stakeholders empowered by their leadership status and/or identity traits do (or do not) consider themselves a part of reform coalitions. We expect that athletic administrators (and likely coaches) will be less supportive of any type of reform, relative to student-athletes, all else constant (including demographics). Our data provide an account of the cross-cutting dynamics which shape and/or prevent potential coalitions among marginalized groups. (Our analyses thus far strongly support our expectations.) In short, we show that it is identity politics that drive opinion formation in college athletics and ultimately serves as a barrier to meaningful reform.

Our results extend our previous research on the political attitudes of college athletes (Druckman et al. 2018) and illustrate to scholars of U.S. politics that athletics are ground zero for revealing negotiations over sex/racial equity issues, the definition and economic value of labor, and the role of American government in regulating semi-private institutions. These findings also point to emerging tensions between equity-driven models (secured and supported by federal law) and economic models (which value profit-seeking, even within the context of ostensibly public universities) for college athletics. Sports are much more than merely a site of “leisure.”

Authors

• James N. Druckman, Northwestern University

• Elizabeth A. Sharrow, University of Massachusetts