To Cut or Not to Cut--That is the Question

Today's post is slightly different from what I'm used to publishing. I received a question from a club volleyball coach/high school volleyball coach in Texas who is struggling with something I think most coaches have faced before… A toxic athlete. Do we love them harder, or do we cut ties? I advocate for both and have published articles on both: "Mitigate Locker Room Drama: Let the CRO Fly!" and "Coach Hard-Love Harder." I hope this post helps your coaching career—thanks in advance for reading! 

"Hey, Coach Ashley! I have a player making our locker room culture very challenging. I don't think the kid is bad, but nothing seems to be working regarding discipline. Any advice?"

First, I'd separate the athlete from the behavior because there's a big difference between saying a kid is toxic and saying they're repeatedly displaying behaviors that are hurting the team. I don't believe we should be quick to throw a label on a young person, especially when we may not know everything happening behind the scenes. At the same time, understanding where behavior comes from doesn't mean we excuse it. You can have compassion for what an athlete is dealing with and still hold them accountable for how they treat coaches, teammates, and the program.

Before I'd even consider cutting ties, I'd make sure the athlete clearly understands the problem because vague discipline usually produces vague results. Don't tell them they need to "fix their attitude" and assume they know exactly what you mean. Tell them specifically what's happening, why it's hurting the team, what needs to change, and what will happen if it doesn't. If they're rolling their eyes when teammates speak, undermining coaches, attacking teammates after mistakes, refusing instruction, creating drama outside the gym, or constantly making the environment about themselves, name the behavior. You can't hold somebody accountable to a standard you've never clearly communicated.

I'd also have the conversation privately because correction shouldn't become humiliation. Ask questions and actually listen to the answers. Find out what's going on, whether the athlete recognizes the behavior, whether something is happening at home, school, or within the team that you don't know about, and whether they understand how other people experience them. Sometimes that conversation uncovers something that changes how you coach the situation, while other times it confirms that the athlete knows exactly what they're doing and hasn't had enough reason to stop.

That's where loving an athlete harder can't become loving them without boundaries. I believe strongly in grace, second chances, and giving young people room to grow, but grace and accountability aren't opposites. You can forgive somebody and still require changed behavior, love an athlete and still bench them, and care about what they're going through while telling them they're hurting the team. Refusing to confront destructive behavior because you don't want to upset the athlete isn't always kindness because sometimes protecting one athlete from consequences means everybody else in the locker room pays for it.

When conflict involves multiple athletes, I've used mediation as part of the process, but I wouldn't force mediation into every situation. If it's appropriate and everyone can participate safely and productively, getting people into the same room can help clear up assumptions, address specific problems, and establish expectations moving forward. The goal isn't forcing everybody to become best friends because teammates don't have to love each other's personalities. They do have to communicate, respect boundaries, handle disagreements, and function together without making everybody else miserable.

Prayer is also part of how I approach these situations because Christian leadership should force us to examine our own hearts before deciding somebody else is the entire problem. I want to know whether I'm responding out of wisdom or frustration, whether I've communicated clearly, whether I've been consistent, and whether I've given the athlete a legitimate opportunity to change. I also have to be willing to ask whether I've allowed something to continue too long because I kept hoping it would eventually get better without requiring enough accountability.

There comes a point where protecting one athlete from consequences can mean failing every other athlete on the team, and coaches can't ignore that line. If you've communicated the expectations, provided appropriate support, established consequences, involved parents or administrators when necessary, documented repeated problems, and given the athlete legitimate opportunities to change, continued destructive behavior can't be allowed to hold an entire program hostage. Loving harder doesn't mean tolerating longer, especially when the rest of your team is paying the price.

Removing an athlete from a team should never be done impulsively, emotionally, or because a coach is simply tired of dealing with them. Depending on the setting, coaches also need to follow their club, school, athletic department, or governing organization's policies and disciplinary procedures. When removal becomes necessary, the athlete should understand exactly why the decision was made, what behaviors led to it, what expectations were communicated, and what opportunities were previously provided for correction.

I'd handle that conversation with as much dignity as possible because losing a roster spot doesn't erase that athlete's value as a person. Don't destroy a kid on the way out just because they made your season difficult, and don't turn their removal into a spectacle designed to scare everybody else. Be truthful, be firm, document what needs to be documented, involve the appropriate people, and make sure the athlete understands that rejecting destructive behavior isn't the same thing as declaring them a destructive person.

If appropriate, I'd also help connect them with whatever support makes sense afterward because being removed from one team doesn't mean we should hope the kid fails everywhere else. Maybe another environment eventually reaches them differently, maybe losing the opportunity becomes the consequence that finally gets their attention, or maybe maturity eventually teaches what coaching couldn't teach at that moment. We don't always get to see how the story ends, and we don't have to hate somebody to decide we can no longer allow their behavior inside our program.

So my answer to your question really is both. Love the athlete harder while there's still a healthy and responsible opportunity to reach them, but don't love one athlete so blindly that you stop protecting everybody else you're responsible for leading. Give grace, communicate clearly, listen, establish boundaries, enforce consequences, and provide a legitimate path toward change. If the athlete repeatedly refuses that path, there may come a point when removing them isn't giving up on them at all. It may be the first time somebody cared enough to stop protecting them from the consequences of their own choices.