Do Professional Teams Have Legal Obligations for Athletes’ Mental Health?

John Purcell | May 7, 2026

In recent years, mental health has become an important issue in professional sports. High profile athletes like Simone Biles, Michael Phelps, and Naomi Osaka have spoken up about their own mental health struggles, noting the depression and anxiety they have felt throughout their careers (Gavin, 2021). Importantly, the awareness of these challenges have challenged long-standing norms that prioritize performance over well-being. This has raised an important legal question: do professional teams have a legal obligation to protect and support athletes’ mental health? While teams are increasingly receiving and providing mental health resources, the legal framework around this issue is still evolving and remains multi-faceted.

Mental health has infused itself as both a medical and legal issue. Under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, certain mental health conditions like major depressive disorder or anxiety disorders can qualify as disabilities if they substantially limit major life activities (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023). This means that professional athletes, regardless of their elite status, may be entitled to reasonable accommodations from their employers. However, applying disability law in professional sports is not as straightforward. Teams may argue that mental health conditions affect an athlete’s ability to perform job functions like competing at a high level or maintaining rigorous training schedules. Courts have historically given employers some flexibility in determining what counts as an essential function, especially in highly specialized professions like professional athletes. One of these court cases includes McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green. This case sought to determine if Green had been unlawfully denied employment based on racial discrimination. While this case did not specifically involve athletes, it established a broader framework to examine employment discrimination cases, and if an employee is qualified to perform their job function (McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 1973). This provides precedent that courts can use when employers have a condition, which includes mental health issues, that prevents them from performing their essential duties. 

Beyond disability law, teams may also have a broader duty of care toward their athletes. This concept, which is rooted in negligence law, requires employers to provide a reasonably safe working environment. While this is traditionally applied to physical injuries like concussions, this concept has been increasingly extended to mental health risks. For example, the intense pressure to perform and demanding travel schedules can contribute to an athletes psychological harm, damaging one's mental stability. If a team knowingly ignores these risks or fails to provide adequate support, it could potentially face liability. While there is limited case law directly involving mental health in sports, there are parallels from cases involving workplace stress in other industries.

Professional sports leagues have begun to recognize the importance of mental health, even if legal requirements remain ambiguous. Organizations like the National Basketball Association now mandate for each team to employ at least one mental health professional, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist, and to make sure that these surverices are easily accessible to players (NBA, 2019). This marked a significant departure from earlier practices, where mental health resources were often both informal and inconsistent across teams. Additionally, teams are encouraged to create confidential systems that allow players to seek help without any repercussions. The league has increasingly emphasized mental health education, and has required teams to provide training that helps athletes recognize mental health issues with themselves and their teammates. While these practices are not directly enforced by federal law, they demonstrate how leagues are adapting to the new cultural norms. 

It is important to note that significant challenges remain in the fight for mental health awareness. One key issue that is highly prevalent in sports is the idea of stigma. Athletes may feel reluctant to discuss mental health struggles due to fears about potential career consequences or running their public perception. Yet, when teams are unaware of one's struggles, that cannot adequately address the issues. Additionally, collective bargaining agreements between players often create working conditions including health benefits. These agreements can both expand and limit legal obligations, depending on how the mental health provisions are negotiated (Weston 12).

While professional teams are not yet subject to clear legal obligations that are specifically focused on mental health, existing laws like disability protections and negligence standards suggest that these responsibilities do exist. As awareness grows more than ever, the legal landscape is likely to shift towards greater accountability. Ultimately, supporting athletes’ mental health is an important aspect of the ever changing and evolving aspect of the world.

Works Cited 

EEOC Highlights Record-Breaking Results in Agency Reports. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-highlights-record-breaking-results-agency-reports

Gavin, K. (2021, July 29). A game-changer for mental health: Sports icons open up. Michigan Medicine.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green. (n.d.). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/72-490

NBA.com | The official site of the National Basketball Association. (n.d.). NBA. https://www.nba.com/

Weston, M. A., Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, Professor Kris Knaplund, & Pepperdine Law student research assistants Nicole Geiser, Angelica Varona, and Ryan Whittier. (2022). The anxious athlete: mental health and sports’ duty and advantage to protect. Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, 13, 2–4. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2022/04/13-1-Weston.pdf

Previous
Previous

Minority Ownership with Majority Control: The Legal Loophole Influencing Professional Sports

Next
Next

Digital Likeness and Labor Rights: Legal Challenges in the 2026 SAG-AFTRA Negotiations