How the game has changed for Black college athletes

This year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that largely prohibits the state’s public colleges and universities from using federal funds for programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. This led some representatives from the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, to call on Black athletes to reconsider attending predominantly white institutions.

Now, beyond the cost-benefit analysis that each Black athlete would have to undertake to decide what course to take, it’s the question of whether the NAACP — this iconic civil rights organization — still has the level of influence it once had, especially with Gen Z athletes who have entered the new, lucrative college sports arena.

“Marketplace” special correspondent Lee Hawkins has been reporting on this ongoing story and joined David Brancaccio to discuss. Below is an edited transcript of their conversation.

David Brancaccio: I remember your piece for us the other week. It had the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama making a similar call to Black athletes not to attend predominantly white colleges in response to DEI restrictions. It’s hard to measure though the cost of not attending one of these big schools.

Lee Hawkins: Yes, and it could be huge. I mean, in the case of the University of Alabama, or comparable high-profile programs, it could be really steep. I mean, the school produced a whopping 10 athletes into the NFL Draft this year. And playing at that level is almost viewed as a ticket to the NFL for elite players. Now, on the converse, if this were to take hold among Black athletes, it could have implications for Division I schools, because Black male athletes in the big revenue sports of football and basketball represent 45% of the football players and 51% of the basketball players.

Brancaccio: I mean, this recalls previous generations, right? Muhammad Ali, one of the athletes who must have left so much money on the table because of his activism. But now we have this NIL, name, image and likeness deals, for college players through the NCAA, and contemporary college athletes have also a lot of potential losses if they follow their conscience or speak out or engage in activism like this.

Hawkins: Exactly. The game has changed, no pun intended. I mean, NIL deals are now part of the equation, the stakes are so much higher. And before NIL deals, there were always concerns before the pro draft, of course. So athletes have always been concerned about it, but now we’re seeing high school athletes thinking very intentionally about the capitalism side of this.

Brancaccio: So here’s the NAACP, now looking for young people to be more aware, cognizant, but the question is, do they have the clout to influence behavior? I think you called them?

Hawkins: I did. I spoke to Trovon Williams, who is the senior vice president of marketing, about the marketing of the NAACP and whether they can be relevant to students of today. And here’s what he had to say:

Williams: The progress of this organization, the relevance of this organization is built on us building platform for young, Gen Z, millennial audiences to be able to not just be talked to — they are the ones who are coming to the table and helping us to collaborate around the efforts that the Association needs to be advocating on behalf of.

Hawkins: And David, I just spoke with the NAACP again and they say they have a meeting scheduled in the coming weeks with the NCAA to discuss this.