By Jenae Steele
Preceded by a hunger strike and the various on campus protests, more than 30 of the black football players at the University of Missouri shocked the nation by refusing to practice or play unless the University President resigned. If Mizzou had forfeited the game against BYU that following weekend it would have cost the university $1 million. However, two days after the players’ boycott and a day after their coach confirmed that the athletic staff and team backed their protest, both the president and the chancellor resigned. Although many applaud the black athletes for flexing their sociopolitical power, there are those that wonder how we got to this point and are worried that this will become a common occurrence. In fact, Missouri politicians proposed a bill that would have revoked the scholarships of athletes who replicated these actions. The bill failed, but it is clear that there are many concerned about whether athletes hold too much power and whether it holds the potential to be abusive. On the other hand, those impressed with the noble actions of the black athletes of Mizzou are interested in how to encourage student athletes to harness and use their influence on a day to day basis —allowing for athlete boycotts to only be used in dire situations, like Mizzou.
Daron Roberts, Founding Director of The University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Sports Leadership & Innovation, believes that Mizzou was a necessary anomaly — but there was a series of events that made the athlete boycott possible: “I think the first thing to remember is that there is an extensive historical backdrop to what happened last week. This is where Ferguson took place. There were several racially charged incidents prior to the hunger strike and the boycott.” This unique fact pattern that preceded the athletes’ actions prevents him from saying that this will start a trend. Roberts also recognized that the athletes at Mizzou are in an unusual place of power compared to others, “When we look at Mizzou as case study the football team, in general, generated $36.7 million. They were one of the highest generating teams. The head coach makes $3.75 million before bonuses. These young men have more influence than most students because they drive the economic machine. This story reached national spotlight, not after Johnathan butler started his hunger strike but after the football players sent the first supportive tweet in regards to ConcernedStudent1950. Their power comes from the economic productivity.”
Furthermore, it’s hard for Roberts to say whether that athlete boycott would have been successful without the support of their coach, but his support definitely made a tremendous impact: “There was a trifecta of support- the head coach, the athletic director, and the team. That was a rarity to see that combined support. I’m not sure we are going to see those stars aligned again across the country. Not to mention the head coach resigned this weekend due to health reasons.”
Needless to say, in the wake of social unrest, Roberts believes the black athletes at Mizzou exhibited model behavior, “I have a lot of admiration for the athletes that took on the responsibility that they did for being activists, especially in a time where we criticize student athletes for not being engaged. This is a great example to show how powerful they can be when they choose to exercise it.”
Roberts is doubtful that there are many other social issues that would inspire athletes to unite: “The hunger strike combined with the issue of race compelled them. I’m not sure if there are other issues that would strike the same chords with student athletes. I don’t know if they would get involved over rising student fees, for example.“ This same logic would apply in consideration for whether an abuse of power is a risk if athletes unite to push their own agendas on the University: “A faction of the players filed a suit to unionize. It includes the starting quarterback, and the coach opposed but not a single game was missed. I can’t explain why the players kept playing. After the decision was made, the players still kept playing, which is why I am pretty sure this will not spill over into issues like compensation.”
Are student-athletes an untapped resource for the student body, should we encourage more involvement from them on a regular basis? In response, Roberts had these insightful comments: “The problem is the athletic calendar is not friendly to those athletes with other interests. If you play a sport your schedule consists of class and your sport. There is very little time for anything else. In an ideal world, student athletes would be engaged in all stages. Not to say that every issue requires their involvement. A specific set of circumstances leads to student athlete involvement, and in the end it is their choice. In major division I college sports student athletes have a unique division of power that may not be present at other levels.”
As far as student agendas succeeding without athlete involvement, Roberts replied “It’s not a necessary condition for student-athletes to be involved in efforts for change, but especially in the Division 1 level, it is a more sufficient requirement in that change is more likely to happen when they are involved.”
In closing, Roberts calls for athletes and athletic departments to reflect on the events at Mizzou and be aware of their social responsibility: “Athletes have to leave the athletic bubble and go to campus. They have to understand that they are not just athletes, but they are a part of the university community. They have to be willing to go outside the confines of the perspective sports. Campus involvement has to be a priority, and it has to be supported by the athletic department. I hope athletes, coaches, and administrators use this opportunity to recognize how valuable leadership training is at the university level.”
Steele is a 3L in the University of Texas School of Law
