Nearly 1 in 5 college athletes reports some form of abusive supervision—defined as sustained hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours—by their coaches, reveals an analysis of survey responses, involving National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes, and published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
While there is no evidence of vulnerability according to race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender, athletes with disabilities and those participating in team sports seem to be most at risk, the findings indicate.
Athletes view their coaches as role models, which makes their interactions susceptible to supervised abuse, say the researchers.
"While transformational leadership can inspire players and impart valuable life lessons that positively impact athletes' play and contribute to their development, an unethical leader can severely negatively affect an athlete's mental health, quality of life, and wellbeing in adulthood," they point out.
Given that most coaches identify as White, male, cisgender, able-bodied and straight, the researchers wanted to find out if race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and disability, were distinguishing features of abusive coach supervision.
They drew on data from the 2021–22 myPlaybook survey administered by the University of North Carolina Greensboro Institute to Promote Athlete Health & Wellness in collaboration with Stanford University's Sports Equity Lab. The dataset included 4337 NCAA athletes from 123 universities across the USA.
The validated Tepper 2000 questionnaire was adapted to ask respondents whether they had experienced certain abusive coaching behaviours, with each answer ranging from 1 to 5, representing frequency.
Four additional questionnaires probed athlete autonomy, team culture, perceived coach leadership skills and care for their athlete's wellbeing.
In all, 3317 respondents provided complete data on abusive supervision and 1926 (58%) provided complete data on this plus the areas covered by the other 4 questionnaires.
Most respondents (89%; 2959) were aged between 18 and 21, and male respondents made up 57% (1891) of the total.
Sexual orientation was reported as predominantly straight (3125). And as only 19 identifed themselves as non-binary, transgender, or 'other', their number was too small to be statistically meaningful, and they were excluded from the analysis.
Some 81% (2689) of respondents were involved in non-lean sports—where leanness is not considered a competitive advantage—and about 75% (2480) participated in team sports.
Around three quarters of participants shared the same gender as their coach: 1844 male–male pairs; 660 female–female pairs.
Of the total number of respondents, 2699 reported no abusive supervision, but 618 (nearly 19%) said they had experienced it.
There was no significant age difference between those who reported abuse and those who didn't. And gender identity analysis revealed that while women were slightly more likely to report abuse, this wasn't statistically significant.
Race/ethnicity data indicated that nearly two thirds (2162) of participants were White, but there was no significant difference between the different racial groups in terms of reporting abuse.
After accounting for potentially influential factors, significant differences were noted in the type of sport played as team sports participants were 10% more likely to report abusive supervision than their peers who participated in individual sports.
And non-lean sports participants reported more abusive supervision than those participating in lean sports, although this didn't reach statistical significance.
The prevalence of disability was just under 3% (88), and after accounting for potentially influential factors, those reporting a disability were 17% more likely to say they had experienced abusive supervision than their able bodied peers.
Coach behaviours indicative of concern for the athlete's wellbeing were associated with a lower risk of abusive supervision reports.
Coaches who reacted harshly and who focused predominantly on team success/outcomes were deemed more abusive, with a 24%-47% heightened risk of an abusive supervision report.
On the other hand, those who were attentive to, and respectful of, their athletes' needs and efforts; who were demonstrably accountable; and who regularly communicated respectfully with their athletes were deemed more supportive. Their risk of being reported as abusive was around 35% lower.
The researchers acknowledge that the survey responses reflect just one point in time, and would not have captured those who discontinued their sporting careers because of the abuse they endured.
And the findings might not be applicable to other age groups, sports organisations, or athletes worldwide, they add.
But they nevertheless comment: "Overall, these findings are concerning as we know from prior research the role abusive coaching plays in psychological, training, performance and academic outcomes in comparison with coaches who use a more athlete-centred and humanistic approach."
They continue: "Promoting positive coaching strategies that prioritise athlete wellbeing, motivation and teamwork is essential to protecting collegiate athletes and facilitating their development.
"Therefore, NCAA member institutions should consider a nationwide policy that mandates the implementation of a standardised educational programme and training created by the NCAA e-learning team for coaches to recognise and address abusive supervision behaviours while recognising and amplifying supportive supervision behaviours."
They conclude: "Ultimately, dealing with this problem is crucial for safeguarding NCAA athletes, particularly those from equity-deserving groups. Further solutions-focused research is necessary to advance the goal of fostering a safe sporting environment for collegiate athletes to thrive both on and off the field."
