[OPINION] The limits of autonomy in intercollegiate sport
In the world of sports, autonomy is a widely accepted principle. It gives sports federations, leagues, and athletic programs the authority and flexibility necessary to fulfill their mandate of promoting and developing sport. Without a measure of independence, sports organizations would struggle to make technical decisions, pursue competitive excellence, and build programs capable of long-term success.
In the context of intercollegiate sport, however, autonomy should never be absolute.
Universities are not professional franchises. They are educational institutions entrusted with the formation, welfare, and safety of their students. While athletic programs require operational freedom, that freedom must always exist within a framework of institutional accountability. The moment autonomy begins to supersede oversight, student welfare is placed at risk.
As a former student-athlete, coach, team manager, and educator with a background in sports management, I have spent much of my life around organized sports. Those experiences taught me that athletic success is never just about winning games. Behind every competition is a network of responsibilities entrusted to coaches, administrators, and institutions. Above all, there is a duty of care owed to every student-athlete entrusted to a program's supervision.
That is why the deaths of Rene Clert Baterbonia and Divine Adili are not merely a tragedy. They raise profound questions about autonomy, governance, accountability, and the culture of intercollegiate athletics.
Educational institutions' responsibility
Every educational institution enters into an unwritten covenant with parents. Families entrust universities not only with the intellectual formation of their children but also with their overall welfare. Student-athletes, in particular, are placed under multiple layers of institutional responsibility. Beyond their teachers, they depend on coaches, team officials, athletic administrators, and university leaders to safeguard their well-being. When a preventable tragedy occurs, the question is not simply what happened. The question is whether the systems designed to protect students were functioning as they should.
Recent reports have made those questions even more urgent. If a flagship athletic program can operate with significant autonomy from the university structures meant to oversee it, then what exists is not merely administrative decentralization but a vacuum of institutional accountability. No sports program, regardless of its prestige, funding, or competitive success, should be allowed to function outside the educational institution's established chain of accountability.
This is not simply a matter of organizational preference. It is a fundamental principle of risk management and good governance.
In sports administration, high-risk off-campus activities require rigorous planning and oversight. Standard practice includes formal risk assessments, emergency action plans, clear lines of authority, and documented approval processes. These safeguards exist because accidents happen, and responsible institutions should prepare for them before, not after, a crisis occurs.
When a tragedy occurs, transparency becomes equally important. Stakeholders deserve timely answers. Student-athletes, parents, alumni, faculty, and the broader community have a legitimate interest in understanding how decisions were made, who approved them, and whether existing protocols were followed. Accountability cannot be reserved for internal investigations or government inquiries. It must also be owed to the communities the universities serve.
The larger issue extends beyond a single incident. It concerns a culture of preferential treatment that can emerge when successful programs accumulate influence, resources, and autonomy without corresponding oversight. In such environments, prioritizing competitive advantage risks overshadowing student welfare. The result is a system in which effective oversight becomes increasingly difficult to exercise.
Necessary structural reforms
Universities must resist this dynamic. Athletic achievement should never grant immunity from institutional rules.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from this tragedy, it is that structural reform is necessary.
A university committed to cura personalis, or care for the whole person, should be equally committed to building a culture of Safe Sport—one in which athletic achievement never comes at the expense of student-athlete welfare.
First, universities should require mandatory safety audits and formal emergency action plans for all high-risk off-campus athletic activities. No team, regardless of stature, should conduct such activities without documented review and approval from the university authorities responsible for athletics oversight.
Universities must also strengthen oversight mechanisms and eliminate governance arrangements that allow programs to function as independent fiefdoms. Athletic departments should regularly audit major program decisions, evaluate external influence from sponsors and patrons, and ensure that accountability structures remain independent of the programs they oversee.
Furthermore, universities should establish an independent student-athlete representative body. In global sport, Athlete Commissions are widely recognized as a hallmark of good governance, ensuring that athletes have a formal voice in decisions that affect their welfare, safety, and sporting experience. The principle is equally evident in the US NCAA, which requires member universities to maintain Student-Athlete Advisory Committees (SAACs) to provide student-athletes with meaningful representation and a channel for dialogue with administrators.
More importantly, these mechanisms operationalize the principles of Safe Sport. They provide athletes with a protected platform to raise concerns about safety, welfare, training practices, and program culture without fear of retaliation, loss of scholarships, diminished playing time, or exclusion from team opportunities. Student-athletes deserve a voice in decisions that directly affect their well-being. A university committed to cura personalis, or care for the whole person, should be equally committed to building a culture of Safe Sport—one in which athletic achievement never comes at the expense of student-athlete welfare.
Ultimately, this conversation is not about basketball, competitive success, or institutional reputation. It is about whether universities are willing to place student welfare above all else.
Autonomy in sport is valuable, but it can never outweigh a university's duty of care. When oversight fails, it is not merely governance that breaks down—it is the trust that students and families place in the institution itself. Excellence on the court is hollow if cura personalis does not extend beyond the classroom. The true measure of a university is not the championships it wins, but how faithfully it protects every student entrusted to its care.
The deaths of Rene Clert Baterbonia and Divine Adili should compel more than mourning. They should compel the reforms necessary to ensure that no student-athlete is ever failed by the institution's duty of care again.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of PhilSTAR L!fe, its parent company and affiliates, or its staff.