Nearly one in five NCAA athletes report experiencing abusive coaching, supervision
Key takeaways:
- Among 3,317 NCAA athletes from 2021 to 2022, 18.6% reported experiencing abusive coaching styles or supervision.
- Athletes from team sports and athletes with disabilities were most likely to report abuse.
According to a survey of 3,317 collegiate athletes from 2021 to 2022, 18.6% of athletes reported experiencing abusive coaching styles or supervision, with disabled athletes and team sport athletes most likely to experience abusive coaching.
Researchers found no statistically significant association between athlete race, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation and likelihood of experiencing abusive coaching. However, they found many athletes from historically underrepresented groups, such as women, athletes who were “non-white” and athletes with disabilities, reported feeling a lack of respect for their autonomy and well-being from their coaches.
“Ultimately, athletes have needs that go beyond the playing field or court, and it's our job to help support their well-being, not just sport performance, as best we can,” Jeffrey J. Milroy, MPH, PhD, director of the Center for Athlete Well-Being at University of North Carolina Greensboro, told Healio. “The research we conduct helps us understand the unique needs of the athlete. It also helps us understand the importance of community around those athletes and how coaches can serve an important role in that athlete's life.”
According to the study, athletes completed the 2021 to 2022 myPlaybook survey (Prevention Strategies), which included questions from the validated Tepper 2000 questionnaire, a 15-item survey on abusive supervision.
“myPlaybook was delivered over 10 years ago through funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse,” Milroy said. “myPlaybook has grown from targeting alcohol and other drug use to now include mental health, sexual violence prevention, sleep wellness, as well as other important topics within collegiate athletics.”
Overall, 3,317 athletes had complete survey data on abusive vs. supportive coaching, while 1,926 athletes had complete data on other survey constructs, such as coaching leadership, athlete well-being and athlete autonomy.
After regression analysis, Milroy and colleagues found athletes from team sports (OR = 1.1; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) and athletes with self-identified disabilities (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31) were most likely to experience abusive coaching.
Milroy and colleagues found no statistically significant association between athlete race, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation and likelihood of experiencing abusive coaching. However, they noted athletes from equity-deserving groups, such as women, athletes who were “non-white” and athletes with disabilities, reported a lack of respect for their autonomy and well-being. They found female athletes were more likely to report their coaches had poor leadership skills and fostered a negative team culture.
According to survey results, coaches with harsh reactions (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09) and coaches with a heightened focus on team success (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28-1.69) and outcomes (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44) were more likely to be deemed abusive. Coaches who gave attention to athlete needs (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92) and input (OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1) and coaches who used respectful communication (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.77) were more likely to be deemed supportive.
Perspective
Back to Top
The retrospective study by Runquist and colleagues on NCAA athletes found that 18.6% of the athletes surveyed experience abusive coaching, with higher odds in team sports (OR=1.10) and among athletes with disabilities (OR=1.17). There was no notable differences across race, gender or sexual orientation.
Abusive coaching, or interpersonal violence, can be both verbal and nonverbal. Supportive coaching, which is characterized by respect and attentiveness, was linked to fewer abuse reports. It is essential to appreciate the perspective of the athlete’s health as the priority. However, it is also helpful to understand if variable coaching styles affect competitive outcomes.
Abusive coaching carries significant orthopedic risks. A “win-at-all-costs” approach often leads to overtraining, unreported injuries and delayed care, thereby increasing the likelihood of acute injuries, as well as chronic issues, such as stress fractures. These dangers are amplified in team sports, where physical demands and peer pressure intensify. Athletes with disabilities, who may face unique biomechanical challenges, are especially vulnerable.
Supportive coaching is intuitively a better approach for athletes’ overall health, particularly for their mental state. Encouraging athletes to report injuries or health concerns early and adhere to recovery protocols may reduce long-term musculoskeletal damage, preserving joint and bone health. However, this study presents a critical gap: How do coaching styles influence wins and losses? Abusive coaching might produce short-term victories, but the potential trade-off, ie, higher injury rates, could undermine long-term team performance.
Supportive coaching, which is often seen as less aggressive, raises concerns about an athlete’s ability to perform in high-stakes situations. This perspective oversimplifies the issue. Supportive coaching can blend rigor with trust, and enhance both the athletes’ health and results, while not lowering performance standards. A supportive coach can demand excellence while building trust and pushing athletes to their limits in a way that inspires rather than intimidates.
Future research should explore how coaching styles influence win-loss records, athlete performance and injury rates. A more precise definition of abusive vs. supportive coaching also should be established. The Tepper Scale used in this study was designed to assess abusive supervisor behavior in the workplace, which may correlate less effectively with the sports environment.
From an orthopedic viewpoint, athletes without overuse injuries or chronic pain are better positioned for consistent, enduring success. The orthopedic community must advocate for practices that safeguard and promote the physical and mental health of athletes while recognizing that true success combines well-being with victories.
Collapse
Read more about