The Differential Effects of Racially Homophilous Sponsorship Ties on Job Opportunities in an Elite Labor Market: The Case of NCAA Basketball Coaching

Abstract

We examine how an assistant coach's race and the race of his supervisor (the head coach) interact to affect future job quality. While past research argues that homophily is beneficial to job mobility, we find differential effects based on the race. OLS and OLR regression analyses on the quality of one's first head coaching job in NCAA men's basketball indicate that black assistant coaches working under black head coaches (black homophily) are significantly disadvantaged compared to all other racial combinations: white assistants with white supervisors (white homophily), white assistants with black supervisors (white heterophily), and black assistants with white supervisors (black heterophily). In contrast, there is no significant difference in job quality among the latter three groups: white homophily, white heterophily, and black heterophily. This indicates that while homophily is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous for whites, it is disadvantageous for black job candidates. This racially based disadvantage makes it difficult for minority job candidates to break through the glass ceiling and has real-world financial implications.

Race, Supervisorial Change, and Job Outcomes: Employability Resilience in NCAA Division I College Basketball Coaching

“…Doing this advances the literature on employability resilience by examining how race and homophily affect employment during periods of job instability. In line with Seebruck and Savage (2014), we view the racial pairings in this labor market to be homophily or heterophily (i.e., processes) rather than merely homogeneity or heterogeneity (i.e., states of being) because head coaches have agency over the selection of their assistant coaches. Halgin (2009:2) defined employability resilience as "success in finding desirable new positions after being fired."…”

“…However, research on the effects of homophily on job outcomes for college coaches finds that homophily is not universally beneficial for career mobility (Day and McDonald 2010;Seebruck and Savage 2014). For instance, Day and McDonald (2010) found that in college football coaching, black-black homophily negatively affected the likelihood of promotion.…”

“…For instance, Day and McDonald (2010) found that in college football coaching, black-black homophily negatively affected the likelihood of promotion. Similarly, Seebruck and Savage's (2014) study of NCAA DI assistant men's basketball coaches demonstrated that when assistant coaches obtain their first DI head coaching jobs, homophily is irrelevant for white assistant coaches and detrimental to black assistants. Moreover, Cook and Glass (2013) show that athletic directors are more likely to replace a minority head coach with a white head coach, suggesting that the benefits of a minority head coach recommending a minority assistant as a replacement are limited.…”

Homophily in Human Resource Management Publishing

“…Homophily has also been successfully used to understand the persistence of racial inequalities in the workplace. Seebruck and Savage () reveal that while homophily may not in itself advantage White employees, it does disadvantage ethnic minority employees. However, homophily may be advantageous for marginalised people when they enter social networks, including those from ethnic minority backgrounds (Mollica et al, )…”

The Boundaries of Latino Sport Leadership: How Skin Tone, Ethnicity, and Nationality Construct Baseball's Color Line

“…At the highest level of college football, white coaches are more likely than black coaches to be hired to the most prestigious coaching positions (Bozeman and Fay ; Cunningham and Bopp ). Current black college basketball coaches do not receive the same opportunities as white coaches (Cook and Glass ; Seebruck and Savage ). In addition, media narratives still emphasize blacks’ superior athleticism and highlight white players’ intelligence and work ethic (Granger, Newman, and Andrews ).…”