Earlier this month, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) released results of a months-long study analyzing the online harassment of college athletes. The investigation was a pilot study based on online comments made about athletes competing in Division I national title competitions and tournaments across seven sports: baseball, softball, FBS football, FCS football, basketball, gymnastics, and volleyball. This included contests such as the College Football National Championship, March Madness and the College World Series. The findings of the study showed that the both male and female athletes, coaches, officials, and team accounts observed had experienced 16 different types of harassment, ranging from accusations of doping to racism and homophobia.
From 2023 to 2024, 72,000 comments were flagged. Out of that sample, 5,000 (about 6.9%) were confirmed to be harassment across sites such as Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter) and Tik Tok. The NCAA found such remarks by partnering with Signify Group, a Dutch multinational corporation, and its artificial intelligence (AI) Threat Matrix service.
The most prevalent form of abuse was sexual, accounting for 18 percent of all harassment comments. According to the report, 80 percent of the observations recorded were directed towards athletes participating in March Madness, the NCAA postseason tournament for Division I basketball. Furthermore, female athletes participating in the tournament received three times more comments than their male counterparts. Considering the meteoric rise of media attention surrounding the women’s tournament — particularly around players such as Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese and Cameron Brink — it’s no surprise that their spotlight attracted some negative actors.
Ella Rowan, third year ARCH, says that the online abuse of female athletes stands out as being particularly cruel. “They were heavily criticized for being ‘emotional’ when male athletes do the same thing. I feel that some players were more targeted than others as well” Rowan said.
Abuse related to sports-betting accounted for 12 percent of the online harassment. Again, these comments spiked in incidence around March Madness. 73 percent of those sports-betting comments were made during the tournament, which is easily one of the biggest gambling events of the entire sports calendar. The study also operationalized the meaning of “angry sports bettors” into the following definition: “‘Angry Sports Bettors’ are defined as individuals who engage in problematic and intrusive communication due to match events and results contradicting bettors’ predictions and thus fuelling abusive messages towards student-athletes, coaches and officials.”
A shortcoming of the study is that Threat Matrix was not able to monitor direct messaging (DMs) of social media of the parties observed. This would have required each individual to separately agree to be monitored, making a less than desired tool to survey. Despite this, the NCAA acknowledges that much of the abuse the athletes receive is delivered through DMs. The NCAA concluded the study by acknowledging the toll this abuse can take on athletes, officials and coaches’ experience with such comments. Furthermore, they appear to be taking an active role in making things better. In many instances, they have reached out to those affected and that the guilty parties are being flagged and sometimes even investigated by the proper authorities.
Matan Avissar, first-year INTA, believes that individuals making abusive remarks don’t represent the greater fan base of sports. “Those people need to get a life, go outside and touch grass. As someone who played football in highschool, it’s not fair to the athletes when they receive crappy feedback from fans,” Avissar said.
Max Britton, third-year EIA, echoes Avissars comments but acknowledges why people do it. “I think some people are too emotionally interested in certain teams, games, etc. But you have to understand that they’re real people at the end of the day, not someone to bet on.” he said.
This study brought light to a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Not only should the NCAA continue to curb abusive comments, but other sports administrative bodies should follow suit as well.