Zion Williamson: An Example of the Colonial Relationships
It should be of no surprise to those with an understanding of the colonial relationship why Zion Williamson decided to return to compete with the Duke Basketball team after suffering a near career ending injury when he made a cut to elude a defensive player causing his Nike shoe to rip apart under the pressure of his weight. The outcome of this maneuver could had resulted in a catastrophic career ending injury costing Williamson the opportunity to make millions, potentially billions at the next level, given his ability to capitalize on key endorsements. This episode, which caused Zion to miss several games, cause much debate on whether Williamson should return and compete in the remaining games and vie for another Duke national title. It also re-ignited discussions around the long-debated topic of paying college athletes in revenue generating sports, especially like men’s basketball and football. My long-held view on this topic has always been that college athletes, who receive an athletic scholarship, are already being paid. Thus, the question is not whether they should be paid, but should they be paid equitably in relation to the revenue they generate. Therefore, should men’s basketball and football players whose athletic labor generate millions of dollars for their respective athletic departments have a bigger piece of the revenue sharing pie? I cannot help believing that this is an ongoing debate because the highest percentage of the athletic labor class at these institutions are Black male athletes. If white male athletes made up the higher percentage of “starters” and players, in general, compensating them equitably would not be an issue, simply because institutions in the U.S. have been constructed by Whites, for Whites, with the sole purpose of benefitting Whites; institutions of higher education are not excluded.
Since the desegregation of athletic departments at many of the predominantly white NCAA Division I Institutions, especially those representing the “Power Five” conferences, athletic departments are reporting budgets over a $100 million while conferences have reached the billion-dollar level in generating revenue from a combination of television monies, tournament and Bowl Game appearances, ticket sales, corporate endorsements, etc. The major beneficiaries of this explosion in revenue, besides the institutions themselves, are coaches, senior level athletic administrator, and conference commissioners. However, what has also increased at the institutions is the presence of the Black athlete. Institutions that once adhered to ultra-segregationist and anti-Black policies, like Alabama, Kentucky, etc., could not have reached the pinnacles of economic and athletic success they have obtained without the athletic labor of the Black body. Many of these universities’ athletic teams are comprised of all-Black or predominantly Black starting lineups, despite their historical allegiance to segregation and resistance to desegregation.
The recruitment and extraction of Black athletic labor is analogous to the colonial relationship, where a colonizer initiates contact with individuals who are eventually colonized; thus, creating a colonial relationship for the sole purpose of economically benefiting the colonizer. Though history is not without many examples of revolts by the colonized to remove the shackles of oppression and exploitation, yet the long tenure of the colonial relationship throughout the world speaks to its success. It also speaks to the notion that the colonized are at the mercy of the colonizer and the colonial relationship for their identity, value, and worth. There emerges, in some cases, a sense of loyalty and a paternal connection where the colonized blindly accepts his/her role of being exploited economically. They choose to remain in this relationship, again, because their identity, value, and worth is created by this relationship. In the case of the Black athlete, their athletic identity defines and limits their ability to make decision independent of the system that shaped their identity.
Williamson decision to return has been framed and explained within the athletic jargon of “not wanting to let his team down”, “not wanting to let the coach or university down,” whatever the explanation, the colonial relationship lay at the core of this arrangement. And, it is this relationship that will continue to bind the Black athletic body and these athletic departments into a perpetual relationship that relegates the black body to that of athletic servitude.
