Tackling Racism in the NFL: On-field Positions and Off-field Hiring

• One study finds strong evidence of racial sorting among NFL positions, with White players more likely to occupy high-prestige positions and players of color more likely to play high-risk positions.
• Despite interventions designed to reduce bias in the hiring of coaches, another study finds White assistant coaches are still more likely to be promoted than Black coaches.
• These new studies add to a lengthy literature documenting the continuing prevalence of racism in America’s most popular sports league.

---

The Problem: Racism in the NFL

The National Football League is a cornerstone of American sports culture. But it also has a troubling history when it comes to racial integration:

• The league was initially segregated, with no Black players from its inception in 1920 until 1946.
• It was not until the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement and competition from the AFL (which eventually merged with the NFL) forced the NFL to look more closely at its racial disparities.
• Black players were instrumental in winning free agent rights for players in the 1990s, but a majority of Black players still reported frequent discrimination.

Fast forward to today, and the NFL is now a league in which most players are Black, but most coaches and executives are white. Although racial tensions sometimes take a backseat to the NFL’s other well-publicized problems, such as its handling of head injuries and domestic violence, they continue to erupt occasionally:

• In 2017, for example, then-president Donald Trump criticized athletes choosing to kneel during the National Anthem in nonviolent protest against systemic racism
• The same week, then-vice president Mike Pence walked out of a game he was attending in Indianapolis when some players chose to kneel.
• Players knelt en masse the following week to show their support for racial equity.
• Coaches and executives largely supported the protest, but did not commit to supporting more aggressive measures in the NFL or society at large.

Cultural schemas, racialized organizations, and positional “fit”

In their study, Marquez-Velarde et al. are attempting to apply the sociological concepts of cultural schemas and racialized organizations to analyze how NFL teams understand the “fit” of a particular player in a particular position.

• Cultural schemas are shared, societal-level ideas and beliefs about a particular group or culture.
• For instance, the cultural schema of Black athletes being “naturally athletic” but not “strategic thinkers” can influence who gets considered for certain positions in the NFL.
• Racialized organizations, meanwhile, are institutions where racial hierarchies and disparities are embedded into the structure and operations of the organization.
• In the NFL, this is evident in the racial composition of different positions. For example, quarterbacks, traditionally seen as the “brains” of the team, are predominantly white, while positions that emphasize physicality, like running backs or wide receivers, are predominantly Black.

There are a number of examples where it appears the cultural schema of Black athletes being comprised of more “brawn” than “brains” appears to play a role in assigning players to positions.

• The first Black quarterback in the NFL did not start playing until 1968, nearly two decades after racial integration began.
• Similarly, it was over two decades after the Super Bowl began that the first Black quarterback (Doug Williams of the Washington Commanders, in Super Bowl XXII) played in the championship game.
• In 2003, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh infamously declared that Donovan McNabb, a quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, was not good enough to play the position and only got the job because he was Black. McNabb went on to have a successful 13-year career and win election to the Eagles Hall of Fame.
• Successful Black college quarterbacks, such as Ohio State’s Terrelle Pryor, are often forced to change their position to running back, wide receiver, or defensive back by the NFL teams that draft them. Each of these positions are dominated by Black players and carry a higher risk of injury, as described below.

Sorting, stacking, and valuative bias

Similarly, in their study, Rider et al. are leveraging the sociological concepts of allocative and valuative bias:

• Allocative bias is when people of color are assigned to positions with lesser advancement prospects compared to their White counterparts. This can occur through sorting or stacking.
• Sorting refers to the initial allocation of individuals into positions based on racial stereotypes or schemas.
• Stacking is the post-hire allocation of individuals into positions that limit their opportunities for advancement, as when players like Terrelle Pryor are forced to change positions. Both sorting and stacking contribute to the racial disparities in leadership within the NFL.

Valuative bias, on the other hand, refers to the unequal valuation of performance within the same position. In the NFL, this can manifest as white coaches being promoted at higher rates than Black coaches, even when controlling for performance and other factors.

In 2003, the NFL’s poor record of minority representation at its management and executive levels led to the establishment of the “Rooney Rule,” a requirement that teams must interview at least one person of color for head coaching positions.

• The Rule was touted as a success when the number of Black coaches quickly grew from 2 to 4, but the long-term gains appear to be minimal.
• In recent years, there have been as many as 7 Black head coaches at one time (in 2018), but also as few as 3 (in 2022).
• According to one recent review, of more than 500 head coaches in NFL history, only 25 have been Black.

The Rooney Rule, Rider et al. point out, is an intervention designed to address the allocative bias preventing more Black assistant coaches from becoming head coaches. It does not, however, do anything about the valuative bias that encourages hiring executives to discount the accomplishments of Black assistant coaches compared to White assistant coaches.

Racism in the NFL: On-field Positions

Marquez-Velarde and her team used a unique dataset that documented the race, position, and career length of 20,357 NFL players from 1960 to 2020. This comprehensive dataset allowed the researchers to observe changes over time in the racial composition of key positions, providing insight into how positional composition has evolved over the years.

They divided each position into three categories. Each category has its own set of perks and challenges, and its own dynamic of racial representation.

1. Cumulative hyper-segregation in the highest-risk positions

All defensive positions (defensive line, linebacker, and defensive back), as well as the major skill positions on offense (running back and wide receiver) displayed a pattern of cumulative hyper-segregation. In other words, while they were majority-White in the 1960s, they have since shifted to become majority-Black.

These are the positions in which players tend to have the shortest careers, suffer the most injuries, and endure the most severe head impacts. Some of these positions–running backs and wide receivers, in particular–are among the most visible and popular among fans. But the higher risk of injury and shorter career length contributes to these players trailing quarterbacks in terms of salary and popularity.

Other notes:

• Running back, wide receiver, and defensive back are typically the fastest players on the field. These positions were already majority-Black (or nearly so) by 1960, all at least 75% Black by 1980, and are all 90% Black or greater today. Controlling for the era they played in, a Black player is between 3-5 times more likely than a White player to play one of these positions.
• The slower progression of linebacker from majority-White to majority-Black is perhaps significant, since the middle linebacker is often considered the “brains” of the defense. Nevertheless, linebackers are now about 80% Black, and have been so since 1990.
• The racial disparities between the offensive line (still majority-White–see below) and defensive line (now about 85% Black) is striking. This finding supports the authors’ hypothesis that risk is the one of the primary factors in racial sorting. While both sets of linemen absorb lots of hits, the offensive line is the initiator (and thus less likely to be injured) more often than not.

2. Durable hyper-segregation in the highest-status, lowest-risk positions

As far as quarterbacks, kickers, and punters are concerned, it might as well be 1960. These three positions have been dominated by Whites, with very little change over the 60 years covered in the study.

• Quarterbacking is by far the most financially lucrative and highest status position.
• Meanwhile, quarterbacks, kickers, and punters are the positions with the lowest risk of injury and the best post-career outcomes.
• Since the mid-1990s, the racial composition of the quarterback position has held steady at 20-25% Black, 75-80% White. Still, most White quarterbacks are considered “pocket passers,” slow on their feet but good “field generals.” Black quarterbacks, meanwhile, are typically considered “mobile quarterbacks,” able to throw as well as run fast.
• Black kickers and punters are practically nonexistent, but Latino participation is at an all-time high (about 15%), perhaps in part because of another racist cultural schema (i.e., Hispanic and Latino men play a lot of soccer, and thus are good at kicking footballs as well).

3. Cumulative integration in hybrid positions

Finally, offensive linemen and tight end have evolved to become the two positions with the closest proportions of White and Black players. Both have stabilized at approximately 55-60% White since the mid-1990s.

Marquez-Velarde et al. refer to these positions as “hybrid” for two reasons:

• First, they fall between the majority-Black (DB, LB, DL, RB, WR) and majority-White (QB, K, P) in terms of risk and reward.
• Second, they are highly varied positions in terms of blocking responsibilities, route running, and pass catching. At these positions, different players will have different specialties, and “fit” (there’s that word again) differently into different offensive schemes.
• Though their study does not permit them to measure this directly, Marquez-Velarde et al. hypothesize that there may be racial differences within these hybrid positions: “White players might be assigned more leader-like roles, while Black players are relegated to bear the brunt of riskier physical work.”

Racism in the NFL: Off-field Hiring

In their impressive evaluation of the Rooney Rule, Rider et al. utilize a cross-sectional, time series dataset of all individual coaches employed by NFL franchises between 1985 and 2015.

• The independent variable was the race of the coaches, which was coded based on photographs in team media guides. The race coding was reviewed by experts at the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida. In the data, 69.0% of coaches and 72.7% of coach-years were coded as White.
• The dependent variable in the study was promotion events. The researchers examined job mobility within and between NFL franchises and determined whether a coach had moved to a position of greater job authority, according to changes in job titles between seasons. For each coach-year, an indicator variable was coded 1 for coaches who were promoted at the end of the focal season and 0 otherwise.
• The researchers also included three different performance measures at three levels of analysis (team, unit, position). These measures included team winning percentage, measures of team offensive or defensive performance, and position-specific performance measures for each position.

Results

The authors began by looking solely at promotions from the offensive or defensive coordinator level to head coach, as was done in a 2011 study that seemed to suggest the Rooney Rule had helped improve BIPOC representation. Using 82 distinct promotions to head coach from among 327 coordinators, totaling 1,405 coach-years, they replicate the results of this study.

But then they draw on their full dataset, which includes the full array of coaches: not just coordinators and head coaches, but also position-specific coaches and assistants. When the lower levels of the coaching structure are added to the analysis, the big finding is revealed: “The White coach advantage in promotion to higher levels,” the authors conclude, “is largely due to promotion to positions below head coach.” In other words, the racial disparity between White and Black head coaches is largely because White coaches are able to climb the organizational ladder to the mid-range coordinator and position-specific positions more effectively than Black coaches.

The authors then proceed to show empirically that Black coaches are disadvantaged at becoming head coaches in multiple ways:

• First, as we saw in the previous study, Black players are sorted into particular positions. When former players start coaching, they are likely to start coaching the positions they played.
• Rider et al.’s data shows that coaches who start their careers coaching Black-majority positions (DB, DL, RB, WR) tend not to become head coaches. Black coaches are racially stacked into these positions.
• Then, on top of this initial sorting mechanism, Black coaches are less likely to become head coaches than White coaches who begin their careers coaching the same position.

Rider et al. then assemble an enormous regression model that controls for all of the following:

• Age
• Team winning percentage
• Prior NFL head coaching experience
• Prior NFL coaching experience
• Super Bowl coaching experience
• Prior college coaching experience
• Prior NFL playing experience
• Position coaching experience
• Years with the franchise
• Bachelor’s Degree (yes/no)
• Years not worked in the NFL
• Kinship ties (relatives working as head coach)
• Coworker ties (former coworkers working as head coach)
• Star coach ties (worked with a “star” coach)

Regression models are ideal for this type of analysis, because they allow the individual effects of each of these variables to be disentangled from one another. The findings are stark:

• White coaches are 65% “more likely to be promoted than observationally equivalent coaches of color are, even when we compare coaches who played the same position, started coaching the same position, and are currently coaching the same position.”
• White coaches are 74% more likely to be promoted internally, and 58% more likely to be promoted externally, than coaches of color. Although Rider et al. are quick to note this difference is not statistically significant, it would be doubly damning if, in fact, coaches of color are even more likely to be passed over for promotion by organizations that know them well.
• Race trails only position-specific performance as the most significant variable correlated with whether or not a coach is promoted.

Does the Rooney Rule help?

The authors conclude the Rooney Rule does appear to have a positive effect at reducing the allocative bias that results from sorting and stacking White and Black coaches into different positions. However, their results show clearly that there is a lot of valuative bias in NFL coaching staffs as well, and the Rooney Rule does nothing to affect this. Put differently, the Rooney Rule is helpful at securing more interviews for qualified coaches of color, but it cannot force mostly White executives to value the accomplishments of Black coaches at the same level as White coaches’.

Therefore, Rider et al. argue that the Rooney Rule will be insufficient by itself to eliminate the racial biases in hiring and promoting NFL coaches. In the remainder of their article, they explore and model how an intervention addressing valuative bias might affect the racial distribution of coaches in the NFL.

Racism in the NFL: Conclusion

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell repeatedly insists that the National Football League is a “meritocracy,” and that teams will “do whatever it takes to make their football team better.” Although he does not say this outright, the implication is the desire to win in the NFL is so great that it outweighs any racial animus that may exist, thus making the NFL more racially just than most institutions.

These two studies, however, tell a different story. The NFL is less a meritocracy and more a racialized organization: one in which Black players and coaches alike are sorted and stacked into certain lower-status, higher-risk positions, and then incur an additional racial penalty on top of that as they attempt to rise among the coaching ranks. Even the most popular league in the United States is not immune to the racism prevalent in many other areas. (See, for example: “Racial Bias in Policing: Startling Findings from Florida’s Highway Patrol” and “The Struggle for Educational Mobility: A Tale of Race and Reward.”)

No one has ever claimed the NFL is a perfect organization, and the popularity of their product is undeniable. But the NFL should take a break from patting itself on the back for instituting the Rooney Rule, and pay more attention to the racial bias apparent on and off the field. Permitting such blatant discrimination to proceed unchecked risks ruining America’s most popular sports league.

---

Have you noticed any instances of racial bias in the NFL, either on or off the field? What steps do you think the NFL should take to tackle racial bias? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.

Stay informed and inspired! Subscribe to our newsletter, “Society This Week,” and get a free copy of our exclusive report, “Peaceful, Powerful: 225 Nonviolent Tactics for Impactful Activism!”