(Part 3) Concerns About Equity in Recruiting

Critics of the current recruiting system argue that it already disproportionately benefits wealthy, white students, particularly in non-revenue sports like crew, fencing, water polo, and lacrosse. These sports often serve as a pipeline for privileged students who receive significant admissions advantages, even when their academic qualifications are comparable to non-athletes. Recruiting in these sports often requires extensive financial resources to access training and competitions, meaning that only those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds can access these opportunities.

In revenue sports like football and basketball, there are still significant financial barriers that can impact the recruitment process. Although the scale and visibility of these sports are much higher, they still require substantial resources for athletes to gain the exposure and training needed to be competitive at the collegiate level. For example, athletes who participate in highly competitive youth football or basketball leagues often need to travel extensively, participate in elite training camps, and pay for private coaching all of which require financial resources that lower-income families may not have.

While football and basketball programs typically offer scholarships to athletes, the high cost of travel, elite training programs, and high-profile competitions can create an advantage for athletes from wealthier backgrounds. Wealthier families can afford to send their children to prestigious AAU basketball teams, private schools with strong athletic programs, or elite training camps that give them the exposure needed to secure scholarships. This is especially true in sports like basketball, volleyball, baseball and softball, where there is a clear divide between the athletes who get access to high-level competition and those who do not. While these sports are considered merit-based in terms of recruiting, access to the best training resources and exposure to college coaches still largely depends on the athlete’s financial means.

Even in revenue sports, athletic recruiting often reinforces the same inequalities found in non-revenue sports. Athletes from more privileged backgrounds are often recruited because they have had access to a wider array of training opportunities, leading to higher levels of competition and more refined skills. This can result in wealthier athletes being prioritized by college coaches, even if their athletic potential is not necessarily greater than that of athletes from lower-income backgrounds.

For instance, in football, athletes from wealthier families are more likely to attend specialized football camps that attract coaches from top colleges, giving them the exposure they need to secure scholarships. Likewise, top basketball players often participate in nationwide AAU tournaments, which are expensive to enter but provide key opportunities for exposure to recruiters. Athletes from less affluent backgrounds, while potentially equally talented, may miss out on these opportunities due to financial constraints. As a result, recruitment in these high-profile revenue sports can reflect and perpetuate socioeconomic disparities, even though these programs are often seen as more “meritocratic” compared to non-revenue sports.

Diversity in Revenue Sports

Affirmative action policies in college admissions and recruiting have historically been a way to ensure that athletes from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds could have an equal opportunity to participate in revenue sports. In sports like football and basketball, where Black athletes have historically dominated, affirmative action practices ensured that these athletes had a more equitable chance of being recruited, despite the financial barriers. The end of race-based admissions and recruiting could disrupt this balance and make it harder for athletes from underrepresented communities to break into top programs, especially if the focus shifts toward purely merit-based evaluations that prioritize other factors, like academic achievement or athletic performance without considering access to resources.

While football and basketball programs may not face the same level of scrutiny regarding equity as non-revenue sports, the elimination of race-based recruiting could lead to concerns that these programs may begin to recruit a less racially diverse pool of athletes, particularly if socioeconomic status becomes a bigger focus. The ruling might indirectly reduce the diversity of these programs by further favoring wealthier athletes who have had access to high-quality training and competition from a young age, and potentially limit the number of Black, Latino, and other underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in these sports.

Is a new model needed for scholarships and financial Aid in Revenue Sports?

In response to these challenges, colleges may need to reconsider how they allocate athletic scholarships in revenue sports to ensure that financial barriers do not disproportionately disadvantage athletes from underrepresented or lower-income backgrounds. Historically, football and basketball programs have offered full scholarships to athletes, but there are still gaps in how these scholarships are distributed. For instance, schools could offer more scholarships that focus on socioeconomic need in addition to athletic ability. By increasing the number of need-based athletic scholarships, colleges can help ensure that athletes from less privileged backgrounds still have access to top-tier athletic programs, even as race-based considerations are eliminated from the admissions and recruiting process.

The Pressure of Winning and Commercial Interests

Revenue sports are also driven by the commercial success of teams, with universities investing heavily in football and basketball programs in hopes of securing television deals, sponsorships, and ticket sales. These programs often face immense pressure to recruit athletes who can contribute immediately to a team’s success. As a result, recruiting tends to prioritize athletes who have already proven themselves in highly visible competitions. This focus on immediate success could, in some cases, further entrench inequities, as wealthier athletes tend to have access to high-level competitions that allow them to demonstrate their talents in front of college coaches.

As a result, the intense commercialization of these sports might inadvertently undermine diversity in college athletics, particularly if the wealth gap between athletes continues to grow. Colleges might be more likely to recruit athletes who come from elite prep schools or those who have had the financial means to attend, compete in travel and club sports,  prestigious training camps and travel to tournaments that are seen as essential for attracting the attention of top colleges.

Even in revenue sports, the end of affirmative action could have wide-ranging effects. While football and basketball programs tend to be more merit-based in terms of athletic performance, they are still influenced by financial inequalities that provide athletes from wealthier backgrounds with access to the resources and opportunities necessary for recruitment. The elimination of race-based recruitment could exacerbate these existing disparities, potentially reducing diversity in these programs if colleges do not adopt new strategies to recruit athletes from lower-income or underrepresented communities.

The Role of Race and Privilege in Recruiting

Athletic recruiting in college sports often mirrors broader societal patterns of racial and socioeconomic privilege. While college athletics recruiting can seem merit-based on the surface, there are underlying systems in place that may contribute to maintaining existing power structures. Wealthy, predominantly white students often have access to elite sports academies, private coaching, and high-level travel teams that are critical in developing athletic talent. These opportunities provide these athletes with an advantage, often making it easier for them to be recruited by top-tier schools, even if their athletic talent is comparable to that of students from less privileged backgrounds.

In non-revenue sports, such as lacrosse, fencing, or rowing, the recruitment process is especially shaped by financial privilege. Many top athletes in these sports are recruited from private schools and clubs that have significant financial backing. These programs often require extensive resources—such as expensive training, travel, and competition fees—which means only those from wealthier families have access to the necessary opportunities to excel. For example, schools like Harvard and Stanford have historically given preferential admissions treatment to athletes in these non-revenue sports, allowing them to gain spots in highly competitive academic programs despite not meeting the same academic standards as non-athletes. While this system has been justified by the contributions these athletes make to school spirit, sports culture, and school rankings, it also has the potential to reinforce socioeconomic and racial inequalities.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action has brought these practices into sharper focus, as the ruling limits the ability to use race as a factor in admissions decisions. This decision could expose how recruitment in some sports, particularly non-revenue sports, may be unintentionally perpetuating privilege. Athletes recruited through these sports, who often come from wealthy, predominantly white backgrounds, may be taking spots that could have gone to underrepresented students, including students of color, from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This creates a tension between colleges’ goals of maintaining a diverse student body and the inherent advantages provided by certain athletic recruitment practices.

As universities navigate this new legal landscape, they will likely need to reassess how their athletic recruitment programs contribute to or detract from campus diversity. This includes reevaluating the economic barriers that shape recruitment pipelines in both non-revenue and revenue sports. For example, in sports like lacrosse or fencing, athletes from wealthy backgrounds are often given an admissions advantage due to the high costs associated with participating in these sports. These athletes may come from schools and communities where they have had access to extensive resources, including private training, international competition, and specialized coaching factors that are not equally accessible to all prospective athletes.

Furthermore, the “legacy” model, where applicants with family ties to the institution receive preferential treatment, intersects with this issue. Many of the legacy students recruited into athletics come from families with significant financial resources, which can further exacerbate existing racial and socioeconomic disparities. As a result, there is growing concern that admissions through athletic recruitment may be unintentionally favoring privileged athletes and inadvertently excluding talented underrepresented groups from opportunities in collegiate sports.

As we look ahead to the new landscape,  colleges may need to explore ways to make their athletic recruiting processes more equitable. This could involve creating pathways for athletes from underserved communities to access recruitment opportunities, focusing on creating scholarship programs that target athletes from lower-income backgrounds, or expanding efforts to scout athletes who do not come from traditional recruitment pipelines. Additionally, universities may need to assess the effectiveness of current recruitment practices in non-revenue sports to ensure they are not disproportionately benefiting the already privileged, furthering the gap in representation within collegiate athletics.

Colleges and universities will have to balance their desire for athletic success with their obligation to foster a diverse and inclusive student body. In this post-affirmative action landscape, athletic recruiting will likely become a key area where these challenges come into play, and it will require ongoing effort and innovation to address inequities and create a fairer recruitment process for all students, regardless of background.

To learn more about PrepSearch and how I’ve helped over 1,700 students attend college through sports since 2007, please explore the rest of my website. For more information about my seminars for high schools and clubs, or to inquire about my recruiting advisory services, feel free to complete the contact form on my website at www.prepsearch.net.

If you know a prospective student-athlete in grades 8-12 who could benefit from additional free exposure to college coaches, have them download the new PrepSearch app today! It’s available in both the Apple App Store and Google Play Stores.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.prepssearchappsapp

https://apps.apple.com/app/prepsearch-app/id6738037970

EM