Now that the World Cup is over, we have an opportunity to consider an important development that’s related to local and regional sports. Though many think of Seattle as bookish, it’s a huge sports city. Even without the Sonics, it still ranks at the top of the list as a home for professional teams.
So, we are all about winning. And we are sensitive to developments culturally and politically related to sports, such as the rampant and deeply racist gerrymandering in GOP states. Putting aside the growing support from politicians on the left (as exampled by The Stranger Election Control Board’s recent interviews with candidates running the primaries–almost none were opposed to “fighting fire with fire”) to redistrict Washington for Democratic gains in the House of Representatives, a proposal that would not change the map before the current election cycle but before 2031.This effort would help balance the scales in DC, but not by much. Redistricting would only give Democrats 1 seat in Congress; Washington is already deeply blue, and so has robust protections for the rights of all its voters.
Combine this fact with the NAACP’s recent call for Black college student-athletes to boycott schools in states that are attacking Black voting rights, one might wonder if a blue state like Washington might draw top athletic talent? The Northwest is already a high school sports recruiting hotbed (sometimes to the point that rules are broken), and in an age of unprecedented college player movement, fortunes can change quickly—the University of Michigan’s men’s basketball team won the national championship this year with five new starting players. Could the University of Washington be next?
There are few spaces in American life where Black voices hold the level of influence commanded by athletes. Nor is it the first time that calls of this kind have been made by players, coaches, commentators, and institutions. For example, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, elite Black athletes were encouraged to consider attending HBCUs. That conversation, however, eventually fizzled. But it’s returned again by way of gerrymandering in the South. If words turn to action, left-leaning states are in a prime position to attract Black athletes by promoting their commitment to fair elections.
It’s not that simple. And as is often the case when athletics and politics collide, the burden of navigating these difficult and deeply personal decisions falls on young people who have done nothing wrong. Also, the view most Black Americans have of college sports is not at all aligned with that of whites, in red states and in blue states.
In the modern landscape, NIL—Name, Image, and Likeness—compensation, legalized in 2021, ultimately drives much of the decision-making process. Fueled by enormous television contracts, merchandising deals, and wealthy alumni collectives, elite college athletes can now earn life-changing money before ever “turning pro.” NIL, as currently structured, is also why powerhouse conferences like the SEC will continue attracting five-star talent across racial and geographic lines.
But before NIL, critics frequently argued that college athletes should not be paid beyond scholarships and educational benefits. A 2014 editorial in The Oberlin Review argued, “Providing student-athletes with the services to become better athletes, while also focusing on education, is more useful than cash.” Yet the Aspen Institute highlighted a significant racial divide in public opinion surrounding athlete compensation: 54 percent of Black Americans supported paying NCAA athletes based on the revenue they generate, compared to 31 percent of white Americans. Support for NIL compensation was even more pronounced, with 89 percent of Black respondents in favor versus 60 percent of white respondents. Opponents often maintain that a college degree alone constitutes sufficient compensation, regardless of the billions institutions generate through athletics.
There is another, and in a sense bigger, problem. Though Seattle may be tempted to wave its racially progressive pom-poms in service of recruiting for the University of Washington or Seattle University, it cannot overlook its struggles over race and equity.
Here are a few: In 2012, the City of Seattle entered into a federal consent decree over problematic policing practices. In 2013, Seattle Public Schools faced a US Department of Education investigation concerning disproportionate discipline of Black students. And in 2024, a Black physician who resigned from Seattle Children’s Hospital in 2020 was awarded a $21 million judgment after alleging the institution created and maintained a racially hostile work environment. All the while, the Black presence in the Central District has continued to decline.
The late, great historian Quintard Taylor perhaps summarized Seattle’s racial paradox most clearly in The Forging of a Black Community:
“Indeed, Seattle’s apparent success, and its underlying failure, in its race relations paradigm has been its meticulously crafted image which promoted the illusion of inclusion.”
What this means is Seattle is not, when proper accounting has been done, the best place for Blacks, historically or presently. Indeed, it has displaced them to perimeter cities: Renton, Kent, SeaTac. Yes, everyone can vote in Seattle, but you can’t live in the city if you are working class and Black.
This reminds us of the limits of the ballot. It can only do so much. And a focus on it tends to diminish the importance of other democratic institutions that have a racial impact, such as housing, access to a good education, and affordable health care. If Seattle, or Washington State as a whole, wants to attract Black athletes then it must also make the effort to attract all Blacks. Otherwise, all we are doing is permitting whites to pick and choose the Blacks that they want and don’t want.
Dr. Abe teaches Humanities at Seattle Central College & is the author of Emerald Street: A History of Hip Hop in Seattle
