Keywords: collegiate athletes, equity-deserving, and coaching

Why is this study important?

Sports teach leadership, discipline, time management, and teamwork, among other values, all of which are essential skills for developing students’ success on and off the field of play (1) While the developmental advantages of participating in sport are widely acknowledged, abusive supervision in sports is an area of more recent concern in the United States (US) media, particularly in collegiate athletics where it is inherently derived from the power dynamic present between coaches and their athletes (2). This power dynamic can shape athletes’ well-being, sense of autonomy, and especially their performance (3–6).

Prior research has highlighted the role abusive coaching plays on psychological, training, performance, and academic outcomes when compared to coaches who use a more athlete centred and humanistic approach (7–9). However, less is known about how these dynamics vary across different athlete groups, particularly among equity-deserving athletes sport (i.e., non-White, female, non-heterosexual, and disabled) (4).

Our study aimed to bridge this gap by investigating abusive supervision in a diverse sample of collegiate athletes and exploring how factors like race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status influence athletes’ experiences of abusive supervision. By focusing on how coaching styles (supportive versus abusive) shape the experiences of these athletes, this study provides insight into fostering a safe sporting environment for collegiate athletes to thrive both on and off the field.

How did the study go about this?

To explore these questions, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2021-2022 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) myPlaybook survey, which included responses from 3,317 athletes. The survey captured self-reported demographics, sport type (team vs. individual, lean vs. non-lean), and multiple validated measures reflecting abusive and supportive coaching styles. Our team focused on comparing how athletes from different equity-deserving groups experienced abusive supervision and examined whether coach characteristics—such as their attentiveness to and respect for athletes’ needs and input—played a role in the prevalence of abusive behavior. We then used structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify associations, while controlling for confounding factors.

What did the study find?

Overall, we found that 18.6% of athletes reported experiencing some form of abusive supervision. Athletes with disabilities (OR=1.17, CI=1.04–1.31) and those participating in team sports (OR=1.10, CI=1.03–1.17) were associated with higher odds of experiencing abusive supervision. However, no significant differences in abusive supervision were found based on race/ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Still, we believe future studies with larger sample sizes of athletes from equity-deserving groups are needed to further explore the intersectional relationships analyzed in this study.

Furthermore, we found that coaches who demonstrated attentiveness to athletes’ needs (OR=0.82, CI=0.73–0.92) and showed respect for their input (OR=0.89, CI=0.80–1.00) were more likely to create a supportive environment, with lower odds of reported abusive supervision from athletes. Conversely, coaches who demonstrated harsh reactions (OR=1.06, CI=1.02-1.09) and a heightened focus on team success (OR=1.47, CI=1.28-1.69) and outcomes (OR=1.24, CI=1.07-1.44) were directly associated with increased reports of abuse supervision. 

What are the key take-home points?

1. Disability and Team Sports Matter: Athletes with disabilities and those participating in team sports were more likely to report abusive supervision, highlighting the need for targeted interventions in these groups.
2. Coaching Style is Crucial: Coaches who demonstrate attentiveness, respect, and open communication with their athletes create safer environments. Supportive coaching practices should be promoted as educational priorities for improving athlete well-being.
3. Impact of Abusive Supervision: Abusive coaching can severely affect athletes’ perceptions of their team culture, autonomy, and overall well-being. This stresses the importance of fostering supportive coaching environments at all levels of collegiate sports.

In conclusion, our study emphasises the need for ongoing research into the role of coaching style in the collegiate athlete experience. By focusing on coaching and leadership as safeguarding intervention points, particularly among collegiate athletes with disabilities and those participating in team sports (10-12), we may help to achieve the goal of providing safe sport environments for all athletes.

Author Information

Edward B. Runquist III, BS,1 Oluwasanmi O Adenaiye, MD, MSc,2 Mojdeh Sarzaeim, MD,3 Jeffery J. Milroy, DrPH,4 David L. Wyrick, PhD,4 **Yetsa A. Tuakli-Wosornu, MD, MPH5,6

1. Department of Sports Medicine, Drexel School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
3. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR
4. Institute to Promote Athlete Health & Wellness, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC
5. Departments of Medicine and Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
6. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT

References

1. Ault-Baker K, Blanton J, Pierce S. Student-athletes’ perceptions of relationship quality and life skills development. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2023;36. doi:10.1080/10413200.2023.2197970
2. Wachsmuth S, Jowett S, Harwood CG. Conflict among athletes and their coaches: what is the theory and research so far? Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;10(1):84-107. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2016.1184698
3. Rusbasan D, Collisson B, Ham E. Toxic coaching of collegiate student-athletes: burnout mediates the relation between school/sport conflict and commitment. Published online August 13, 2021:365. JIIA. 2021;14:365. https://csri-jiia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RA_2021_19.pdf
4. Gurgis JJ, Kerr G, Darnell S. ‘Safe sport is not for everyone’: equity-deserving athletes’ perspectives of, experiences and recommendations for safe sport. Front Psychol. 2022;13:832560. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.832560
5. Stirling AE. Understanding the use of emotionally abusive coaching practices. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2013;8(4):625-639. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.4.625
6. Stirling AE, Kerr GA. The perceived effects of elite athletes’ experiences of emotional abuse in the coach–athlete relationship. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2013;11(1):87-100. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2013.752173
7. Falcao W, Bloom G, Bennie A. Coaches’ experiences learning and applying the content of a humanistic coaching workshop in youth sport settings. Int Sport Coach J. 2017;4:279-290. doi:10.1123/iscj.2017-0027
8. Whitehead PM, Senecal G. Balance and mental health in NCAA Division I student-athletes: an existential humanistic view. Humanist Psychol. 2020;48(2):150-163. doi:10.1037/hum0000138
9. Zogg CK, Runquist EB, Amick M, et al. Experiences of interpersonal violence in sport and perceived coaching style among college athletes. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1):e2350248. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50248
10. Rutland EA, Suttiratana SC, da Silva Vieira S, Janarthanan R, Amick M, Tuakli-Wosornu YA. Para athletes’ perceptions of abuse: a qualitative study across three lower resourced countries. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(10):561-567. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104545
11. Tuakli-Wosornu YA, Kirby SL. Safeguarding reimagined: centering athletes’ rights and repositioning para sport to chart a new path. Front Psychol. 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815038.
12. Komaki JL, Tuakli-Wosornu YA. Using carrots not sticks to cultivate a culture of safeguarding in sport. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:625410. doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.625410