Get In The Game: The NCAA And Its Role In Perpetuating Systemic Coaching Abuse

by Brookelynn Stone, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

For over a century, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA” or the “Association”) has served as the supervisory body for collegiate sports in the United States.¹ It determines athletic eligibility, regulates participation, and oversees compliance efforts across its three divisions.² The NCAA’s three guiding principles—academic success, student-welfare, and fairness—reflect a mission to protect and support student-athletes.³ Yet, for many athletes, their lived experiences tell a different story. Instead of protection, they encountered mental, physical, and emotional abuse at the hands of their coaches and institutional staff.⁴

In recent years, numerous current and former players have come forward alleging that their coaches engaged in abusive conduct, prompting lawsuits against both their universities and the NCAA.⁵ Despite these allegations, the NCAA has repeatedly evaded legal responsibility for protecting student-athletes from abusive coaching techniques and other harms by relying on a “hands-off approach,” which delegates enforcement to individual member institutions.⁶ While the NCAA has demonstrated a capacity to regulate conduct when faced with public scrutiny or litigation, its interventions have been largely advisory.⁷ This decentralized approach has produced inconsistent protections and fostered a culture of abuse across collegiate sports.⁸

This article argues that the NCAA must adopt a mandatory, association-wide code of conduct to address abusive coaching, as the current framework fails to safeguard student-athletes adequately. Part II provides historical background on the NCAA’s role and its evolution as a regulatory body, including its adoption of concussion-protocol guidelines following a landmark class-action settlement. Part III discusses the NCAA’s lack of oversight regarding abusive coaching, the consequences of this regulatory gap, and proposes a framework for a standardized code of conduct. Finally, Part IV concludes by reaffirming the urgent need for the NCAA to establish a universal standard code of conduct with enforceable protections, ensuring that student-athletes are not left vulnerable to systemic abuse.

II. Background

The NCAA is a member-led organization founded in 1906 in response to public outcry over the alarming number and severity of injuries and deaths resulting from college football.⁹ Its original purpose was to restore order and safety to collegiate athletics by standardizing the rules of play and creating oversight mechanisms to reduce violence in sports.¹⁰ Following World War II, the NCAA’s influence expanded further with the implementation of the “Sanity Code,” which regulated financial aid, recruitment, and academic standards.¹¹ This moment marked the NCAA’s pivotal shift from simply enforcing rules of play to acting as a central regulator and defender of amateurism, promoting education and integrity over commercial gain.¹² Yet even as the NCAA positioned itself as a guardian of student-athlete welfare, it was simultaneously building a billion-dollar enterprise on their labor while providing little protection from abusive coaching and institutional neglect.¹³

Over time, the NCAA has grown immensely, and it now governs more than 500,000 student-athletes across nearly 1,100 member schools.¹⁴ It regulates recruiting, eligibility, and academic performance.¹⁵ In these areas, the NCAA has adopted binding rules for member institutions to follow.¹⁶ However, this selective approach to regulation has created significant gaps—particularly in areas concerning athlete safety and coaching conduct—where oversight remains inconsistent or nonexistent.

A. The NCAA’s Governance Structure & Its Implications for Student-Athlete Welfare

To understand the scope of the NCAA’s authority, it is necessary to first examine how the organization governs itself and delegates power to its members. The NCAA’s governance model is intentionally decentralized, allowing it to shift responsibility and enforcement to its member institutions.¹⁷ Although complex, this structure reveals how decisions concerning the welfare of student-athletes can either be advanced or stalled, depending on how authority is distributed.

The NCAA is divided into three divisions, each operating under its own legislative framework.¹⁸ Nevertheless, issues that affect collegiate sports across the board, such as health, safety, or eligibility, require a unified, association-wide response.¹⁹ Committees composed of representatives from all three divisions develop policy recommendations, while ultimate authority rests with the NCAA Board of Governors, which establishes policies binding on every division.²⁰ The Board’s prior actions demonstrate its ability to exercise sweeping power. For example, it once prohibited schools from hosting championship events in states that displayed the Confederate flag, illustrating that the NCAA can act decisively when moral or reputational concerns arise.²¹

Changes involving legislation, however, require each division to act and participate in the legislative process.²² The Association-wide committees propose formal policy changes that each division’s legislative body must vote on.²³ This group is primarily responsible for addressing issues impacting the health and safety of student-athletes.²⁴

The NCAA’s Constitution codified its commitment to student-athlete mental health and well-being, stating that “athletic programs shall be conducted…in a manner designed to protect, support and enhance the physical and mental health and safety of student-athletes.”²⁵ Despite this strong language, the NCAA’s Bylaws, manuals, and guidance documents remain silent on abusive coaching practices, even though such conduct directly undermines both the mental and physical well-being that its Constitution purports to safeguard.

The consequences of this structural inconsistency are exemplified in Doe v. NCAA.²⁶ In that case, current and former University of San Francisco baseball players filed a putative class action seeking to hold the NCAA accountable for widespread sexual abuse and harassment by coaches at member institutions.²⁷ Plaintiffs argued that the NCAA’s Constitution and Bylaws, combined with its authority to regulate coaches, demonstrated that the Association voluntarily assumed a duty of care to safeguard student-athletes.²⁸ The NCAA countered that its statements regarding student-athlete welfare were merely “aspirational” in nature and did not create any enforceable legal obligation.²⁹ The court agreed, granting the NCAA’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.³⁰

Recognizing this structural inconsistency is critical to understanding both why the NCAA should be held accountable and how it could feasibly implement a standard code of conduct to address abusive coaching practices. The following section examines how the NCAA has previously responded to external pressure by adopting binding safety protocols in addressing a related concern, concussion-related injuries, demonstrating that centralized reform is both possible and necessary.

B. In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Litigation

In 2011, a former Eastern Illinois University football player filed a putative class-action lawsuit against the NCAA for its failure to safeguard student-athletes from the known risks of concussions.³¹ The complaint asserted that the NCAA’s longstanding policy of allowing individual member institutions to create their own concussion-management protocols constituted systemic negligence and inaction.³² Similar class action lawsuits filed around the same time were later consolidated into multi-district litigation, In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Litigation.³³

After a lengthy mediation process, the parties reached a settlement agreement in 2019, which created a $70 million Medical Monitoring Fund to finance neurological screening and testing procedures for former student-athletes.³⁴ Additionally, it required the NCAA to implement substantive policy changes to its “return-to-play” guidelines for student athletes who sustain concussions or experience related symptoms.³⁵

The settlement sets out “member obligations” in Section IX, which include preseason baseline testing, physician clearance before return-to-play, the presence of medical personnel at competitions, concussion reporting processes, education for students, faculty, and staff, and information on academic accommodations.³⁶ Member institutions seeking to insulate themselves from liability for class-wide claims were required to certify, in writing, their compliance with these concussion management standards.³⁷ To facilitate compliance, the NCAA published a Concussion Safety Protocol Checklist and a Protocol Template that schools could adopt or modify to meet institutional needs, but emphasized that it is simply “guidance.”³⁸

In 2020, shortly after the settlement, all three NCAA divisions passed emergency or “noncontroversial” legislation mandating that active member institutions “report all instances of diagnosed sport-related concussions in student-athletes and their resolution to the NCAA on an annual basis pursuant to policies and procedures maintained by the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports.”³⁹ This legislation demonstrated the NCAA’s capacity to enact swift, association-wide policy changes when motivated to do so. The next section will argue that implementing a standard code of conduct, similar to the concussion initiative, is the bare minimum that student-athletes deserve.

III. Discussion

The timing of the concussion reforms reveals a consistent pattern: the NCAA’s safety initiatives have historically been reactive, rather than proactive. The concussion protocols were not the product of proactive concern for athlete welfare but of legal exposure and reputational risk. Nevertheless, the NCAA touted the settlement as being consistent with its mission, with then-Chief Legal Officer, Donald Remy, stating, “We are pleased the settlement is moving forward toward final approval. Student athlete well-being has always been our priority.”⁴⁰

Yet the NCAA continues to overlook athlete well-being, particularly in the context of coaching abuse. Member institutions are not able to properly handle abusive coaching reports and compliance when left to their own accord. This section seeks to reveal those issues and proposes a framework for the NCAA’s code of conduct, highlighting the importance of adoption and the risks involved.

A. Evidence: The NCAA’s Priority Is Not Student-Athlete Well-Being

A survey published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine revealed that nearly one-fifth of NCAA student-athletes in a cohort of 3,317 participants reported experiencing some form of abusive coaching behavior.⁴¹ The survey further found that athletes competing in team sports and those with disabilities faced significantly higher odds of such abuse compared to their peers.⁴² While this statistic may seem shocking to the average person, it is actually rather unsurprising to collegiate athletes. Institutions are often reluctant to acknowledge abusive coaching, and the absence of a uniform code of conduct allows these harmful practices to persist unchecked.⁴³

B. Established Instances of Abuse at Member Institutions

In 2019, The Cornell Daily Sun published an investigative report detailing a systemic pattern of mistreatment within Cornell University’s women’s softball program.⁴⁴ After Julie Farlow was appointed head coach in 2015, at least ten players quit the team between 2015 and 2019, citing an environment of fear and neglect.⁴⁵ Players described a culture of abuse ranging from a disregard for concussion protocols, mishandling of injuries, and insensitivity to athletes’ mental health.⁴⁶

Despite multiple reports to the athletics department, players received no meaningful response.⁴⁷ One current player at the time wrote, “For years now we have reported her utter disregard for mental and physical health and the athletic department has turned a blind eye.”⁴⁸ In response, then-Athletic Director Andy Noel publicly remarked, “If I deem it necessary, I take appropriate action.” However, no such action occurred until April 2025, when Coach Farlow abruptly departed the program mid-season.⁴⁹

Cornell’s experience is not an anomaly. At Colgate University, numerous former athletes and alumnae from the women’s lacrosse team described similarly abusive behavior by then-head coach Kathy Taylor.⁵⁰ Players alleged that Coach Taylor routinely bullied them, criticized their weight, disregarded their mental health, and pressured them to compete while injured.⁵¹ In 2023, a law firm representing several players formally requested that the University “conduct an immediate expedited, and independent investigation of Coach Taylor’s coaching tactics, with its findings made public[.]”⁵² While the University retained outside counsel to investigate, the final report was never released.⁵³ In fact, then-Director of Athletics, Nicki Moore, announced that Coach Taylor would remain in her position—effectively highlighting the University’s unwillingness to confront systemic abuse.⁵⁴

These cases reveal that coaching abuse in collegiate athletics is neither isolated nor incidental; rather, it is a widespread, systemic problem that is sustained by institutional cultures that prioritize reputation and competitive success over the welfare of student-athletes. Student-athletes are in a tough position, as they exist within a hierarchical structure in which their academic standing, playing time, scholarship, and even daily routines are controlled by their coaches and athletic departments. This unbalanced power dynamic leaves many student-athletes with little recourse other than to endure the abuse in silence for fear of retaliation or lost opportunities.

The NCAA’s persistent inaction allows this vicious cycle to continue. By deferring entirely to its member institutions, the Association effectively disclaims responsibility for the welfare of the student-athletes it vows to protect. As illustrated by the examples above, member institutions are failing to provide student-athletes with the level of care and accountability they deserve.

C. Standard Code of Conduct

To address this systemic gap and provide student-athletes with essential protection, the NCAA must adopt a standardized code of conduct with enforceable obligations for all member institutions. Doing so would provide student-athletes with clear behavioral expectations, consistent accountability measures, and uniform protections across divisions. The concussion litigation demonstrated that the NCAA’s delegation of safety responsibilities to its institutions has been largely ineffective. To achieve meaningful reform, the NCAA must move beyond its history of reactive policymaking and implement a proactive, standardized code of conduct that ensures consistent protection for student-athletes across all divisions.⁵⁵

The proposed code should start by explicitly defining “abusive coaching,” including physical abuse, emotional or psychological abuse, and neglect of injuries or medical needs. Clear definitions, accompanied by concrete examples, would reduce ambiguity and prevent institutions from minimizing or mischaracterizing harmful and abusive conduct, thereby setting a consistent, uniform standard across all divisions.

As with the NCAA’s concussion protocols, the code should emphasize mandatory education and prevention training.⁵⁶ Each member institution, along with its coaches, athletic staff, and student-athletes, should participate in annual programming addressing the recognition and reporting of abusive behavior, mental health awareness, and bystander intervention. The NCAA could deliver this training through online modules, in-person sessions, or campus visits from trained compliance officers. The focus should be on preventing and identifying abusive behavior, thereby reducing inconsistencies in how athletes are treated, and reinforcing the NCAA’s stated commitment to student welfare.

Furthermore, an effective reporting and investigation mechanism would ensure that member institutions are not allowed to cover up and continue the cycle of abuse. Both Cornell and Colgate are prime examples of what happens when each member institution is left to govern itself.⁵⁷ These member institutions prolonged the harm, subjecting many more student-athletes to abuse and ruining the game for those involved.⁵⁸

Instead, the NCAA should establish an independent, external investigative body to receive and review reports of abusive coaching, ensuring impartiality and reducing conflicts of interest. Member institutions would be required to report all allegations and outcomes to both the NCAA and the independent agency to demonstrate their compliance. Failure to cooperate or a substantiated finding of abuse should result in warnings, suspension, removal from athletic programs, and/or sanctions.

The NCAA already possesses the internal mechanisms necessary to implement meaningful reform; what remains is its willingness to act. The Board of Governors could initiate the process by recommending policy language and issuing formal guidance, after which an Association-wide committee could propose amendments for consideration and approval within each division.⁵⁹ As the concussion protocols demonstrated, all three divisions are capable of adopting uniform legislation when the issue implicates athlete safety.⁶⁰ The NCAA must move beyond its legacy of reactive policymaking and embrace a proactive framework that aligns its practices with its professed mission, and thereby begin to restore trust in a system that, for far too long, has failed to protect those it claims to serve.

D. Policy Gaps and the NCAA’s Loophole

It is difficult for student-athletes to succeed in their claims against the NCAA for negligence because, absent an explicit policy or code of conduct, courts are generally less likely to find that a duty exists.⁶¹ If the NCAA adopts a standard code of conduct, this could open the gate to litigation and strengthen plaintiffs’ arguments for negligence-based claims.

The Doe decision highlights the NCAA’s deliberate strategy and a central flaw in its governance structure.⁶² By characterizing its welfare provisions as nonbinding and outside the scope of its direct authority, the NCAA ensures that its role remains advisory rather than supervisory. Its decentralized framework effectively functions as a shield, allowing the Association to profit from its oversight role without assuming the corresponding duty of care. Imposing enforceable standards would create liability for the NCAA’s failure to act. Thus, by keeping its policies broad and “aspirational,” the NCAA protects itself, but at the expense of the athletes it claims to serve.

IV. Conclusion

Nearly one in five NCAA athletes has reported experiencing coaching abuse.⁶³ The risk of such abuse is not marginal but rather significant, reflecting a systemic and ongoing problem within collegiate athletics. The NCAA has watched silently from the sidelines, allowing member institutions to address these issues on their own, despite ample evidence that member institutions and their systems are inadequate to carry out these protections for student-athletes.⁶⁴ This failure of oversight underscores the urgent need for direct NCAA intervention and the adoption of a standardized, enforceable code of conduct.

The NCAA’s own Constitution declares, “athletic programs shall be conducted…in a manner designed to protect, support and enhance the physical and mental health and safety of student-athletes.”⁶⁵ The NCAA must stop hiding from the truth and deflecting responsibility, which has fostered a culture of toxicity to thrive within collegiate sports. The NCAA owes it to its student-athletes—the very foundation of its existence—to implement a uniform code of conduct that prevents harm and upholds its commitment to the welfare of its student-athletes.

Cover Photo by Abigail Keenan on Unsplash

Brookelynn Stone

References

1
History, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx [https://perma.cc/F3MU-BNUE] (last visited Oct. 1, 2025).
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Dylan McDevitt & Raphy Gendler, Softball Players Detail Years of Mistreatment by Coach, Neglect by Cornell Athletics, The Cornell Daily Sun, https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2019/05/softball-players-detail-years-of-mistreatment-by-coach-neglect-by-cornell-athletics [https://perma.cc/23T6-68HU] (last updated May 7, 2019 19:31 ET); see also The Maroon-News Staff, Live Updates: Kathy Taylor to Step Down Following Reports of Bullying, Mistreatment, The Colgate Maroon-News (March 21, 2023), https://thecolgatemaroonnews.com/41857/news/live-updates-university-issues-statement-regarding-reports-of-misconduct-by-womens-lacrosse-coach/?preview_id=41857[https://perma.cc/269E-CNKB].
5
Doe v. NCAA, No. 1:23-cv-00542-SEB-MJD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116341 (S.D. Ind. July 2, 2024).
6
Id.
7
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litig., 314 F.R.D. 580 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
8
McDevitt, supra note 4; The Maroon-News Staff, supra note 4.
9
History, supra note 1.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Generates Nearly $1.3 Billion in Revenue for 2022-23, ESPN (Feb. 1, 2024, 09:35 PM), https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39439274/ncaa-generates-nearly-13-billion-revenue-2022-23[https://perma.cc/CSR2-AMAP].
14
Overview, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/overview.aspx [https://perma.cc/76QE-6RAK] (last visited Sept. 30, 2025).
15
Id.
16
Michelle Brutlag Hosick, NCAA Adopts Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy, NCAA (June 30, 2021, 16:20 ET), https://www.ncaa.org/news/2021/6/30/ncaa-adopts-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy.aspx [https://perma.cc/Y8GY-U3YF].
17
How The NCAA Works, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/10/28/how-the-ncaa-works.aspx [https://perma.cc/3HQ6-GRVJ] (last visited Oct. 2, 2025).
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
NCAA CONST. art 1, § D.
26
Doe v. NCAA, No. 1:23-cv-00542-SEB-MJD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116341 (S.D. Ind. July 2, 2024)
27
Id. at 2-3.
28
Id. at 35-37.
29
Id. at 37.
30
Id. at 37-39.
31
Member Obligations for Participation in the NCAA Concussion Injury Class Action Settlement Release, Bricker Graydon(Apr. 14, 2020), https://www.brickergraydon.com/insights/publications/Member-obligations-for-participation-in-the-NCAA-concussion-injury-class-action-settlement-release [https://perma.cc/SFF2-Q9P8].
32
Jason Sosnik, Saving Face, Not Players: The NCAA’s Concussion Settlement, NYU JIPEL Blog (Nov. 17, 2014), https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/saving-face-not-players-the-ncaas-concussion-settlement/ [https://perma.cc/S2QU-NQAT].
33
Member Obligations, supra note 31.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Arrington Concussion Settlement: Important Deadline Around the Corner, Husch Blackwell (May 15, 2020), https://www.huschblackwell.com/newsandinsights/arrington-concussion-settlement-important-deadline-around-the-corner [https://perma.cc/AC37-S5AR].
38
Concussion Safety Protocol Management, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/7/20/concussion-safety-protocol-management.aspx [https://perma.cc/J4AK-MUPY] (last visited Oct. 2, 2025).
39
Concussion Reporting Process, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2020/5/19/concussion-reporting-process.aspx [https://perma.cc/8R7T-EB7B] (last visited Oct. 2, 2025).
40
NCAA Under Fire As Concussion Lawsuits Pour In, Goldwater Law Firm, https://goldwaterlawfirm.com/insights/ncaa-under-fire-as-concussion-lawsuits-pour-in/ [https://perma.cc/KWG4-5JGX] (last updated Aug. 18, 2025).
41
Runquist EB, Adenaiye OO & Sarzaeim M, et al., Associations of Abusive Supervision Among Collegiate Athletes From Equity-Deserving Groups, 59 Br. J. Sports Med. 1124 (2025), https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/59/16/1124 [https://perma.cc/TAK8-65KQ].
42
Id.
43
Doe v. NCAA, No. 1:23-cv-00542-SEB-MJD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116341 (S.D. Ind. July 2, 2024)
44
McDevitt, supra note 4.
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Alexis Rogers, Julie Farlow ’97 Leaves Midseason, Ending 10-Year Position as Softball Head Coach, The Cornell Daily Sun, https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2025/04/julie-farlow-97-leaves-midseason-ending-10-year-position-as-softball-head-coach [https://perma.cc/C8Y3-ASGK] (last updated Apr 25, 2025, 07:58 ET).
50
The Maroon-News Staff, supra note 4
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Member Obligations, supra note 31.
56
Concussion Reporting Process, supra note 39.
57
McDevitt, supra note 4; The Maroon-News Staff, supra note 4.
58
Id.
59
How the NCAA Works, supra note 17.
60
Concussion Reporting Process, supra note 39.
61
See generally Doe v. NCAA, No. 1:23-cv-00542-SEB-MJD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116341 (S.D. Ind. July 2, 2024).
62
Id.
63
Runquist, supra note 41.
64
See generally McDevitt, supra note 4; The Maroon-News Staff, supra note 4.
65
NCAA CONST. art 1, § D.