The three-game suspension of Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer has not only drawn criticism for being inadequate given the circumstances, but has cast a spotlight on the disparate punishments assessed players and coaches.
As Ohio State University head football coach Urban Meyer misses the first three games of this season due to suspension without pay, many individuals wonder why the punishment seemed to not fit the significant offense. In findings published last week, it was revealed that Meyer mishandled allegations of domestic abuse made against former assistant coach Zach Smith and publicly misstated his own knowledge of the situation.
Eight years prior, five Ohio State football players received five-game suspensions from the NCAA for selling items of memorabilia, including rings, awards and jerseys. They also received what was deemed to be improper benefits from a tattoo parlor. Additional penalties included repaying monies to charity.
Dr. Gerald Gurney, an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Oklahoma, said the disparity in how punishments are assessed is unquestionable. One of the courses he teaches is Ethical Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.
“The NCAA is nothing more than a trade association designed to protect the best interests of coaches, athletic directors, conference commissioners, administrators and themselves,” said Gurney.
Anita M. Moorman, a professor of sport administration at the University of Louisville agrees. She said it is clear that high profile coaches have significantly more protections and leverage in how violations or infractions impact them, especially if the punishment is being self-imposed by the university.
“The athlete/university relationship affords virtually no leverage or protection to the athlete,” said Moorman. “There is no legal or policy mechanism at work that would enable athletes to demand a seat at the table basically before punishment or discipline is imposed. Moreover, the athletes also do not have access to significant financial and media resources from which they can attempt to shape public perceptions and obtain legal advice.”
