what isn't broken just isn't broken yet

the big thing is that there has never been an openly gay nhl player, active or retired (luke prokop is an out player who was drafted a few years ago but he has not played an actual nhl game and probably never will). the line for a while was that there were no gay hockey players at all, which is why no one had come out (statistically obviously unlikely, also absurd). since the early 2010s it's been a Known thing that there are gay players but they aren't coming out For Some Reason. if you're curious, it's worth reading this 2015 article about an organization that the nhl partners with called You Can Play, which encourages inclusion and acceptance in hockey, etc etc.

a relevant excerpt from the interview:

Then, Burke said, there's the question of hockey culture itself. "Hockey is all about the team. Hockey culture hates individualism," said Burke. "Whether that's right or wrong, hockey culture is that you do not stand out. You do not make yourself different from the team. We've had players in our league that have been yelled at for high-fiving too aggressively. So I do wonder from talking to a bunch of different players in the league that this is a team sport and almost an obsessively team culture and I think there are guys out there that are nervous about the idea that them coming out would somehow be going against that."

burke's not exaggerating here, there's a huge emphasis on conformity in hockey culture that's also extremely tied up in the idea that the Ideal Hockey Player is a "good [white] canadian boy" who doesn't stand out or rock the boat in any serious way, especially not politically. a small but notable example would be michel therrien, a horrible person and former coach of the montreal canadiens, banning a specific handshake/high-five that two of his players used to do (pk subban and carey price; notably neither of them are white). therrien later justified the ban by saying

"...we had to change the culture of the team. We wanted to remove the individualistic side of each player and institute a collective concept.""

anyway, at this point the official party line of the nhl and most players is that they would be fine with a gay teammate, and it's entirely possible there are guys who are out to some degree to their teams, but who knows. i don't think any of this is particularly shocking for men's sports in north america, although there are some levels of racism and xenophobia, and things like the billet system, that maybe add some more dimensions to it than you might see in e.g. major league baseball, idk.

where it gets weirder and messier is on the topic of how the nhl feels about gay fans. the thing that made me stop buying tickets and going to games was the league announcing, in 2023, that they were banning all 'theme night' jerseys and on-ice displays related to "special initiatives", including the use of pride tape (rainbow-colored hockey stick tape) because a very small number of players (about 5 of the 900 active players) had not wanted to wear themed jerseys on pride night during the 22-23 season. for context, every team in the league hosted a pride night at the time, along with many other theme nights (hockey fights cancer, military nights, etc etc). theme nights have special jerseys that are usually auctioned off after the night with proceeds going to specific charities - worth noting the jerseys aren't worn during games, just warm-ups, so for about 20-30 minutes total. that's it!

that banning jerseys and "displays" was the league's answer to not liking the bad publicity james reimer & co gave them by being too homophobic to spend 20 minutes wearing a jersey with a rainbow on it is wild, but what was really bizarre was the weasel-y, ambiguous way they framed it in a league-wide memo:

"Players shall not be put in the position of having to demonstrate (or where they may be appearing to demonstrate) personal support for any Special Initiatives. A factor that may be considered in this regard includes, for example, whether a Player (or Players) is required to be in close proximity to any groups or individuals visibly or otherwise clearly associated with such Special Initiative(s)."

when the "special initiative" you're concerned about is lgbt pride, one begins to wonder what exactly "close proximity to individuals visibly or otherwise clearly associated with" pride might mean! the nhl ended up clarifying/walking back some of the memo, and unbanning the use of pride tape after a player used it anyway (i guess fining or suspending him for that would have been even worse publicity), but clearly not because they have any integrity or moral clarity. the overwhelming impression i and many other people got from this whole situation was that the league was ready and willing to throw even the most nominal moves towards inclusion under the bus when it was deemed a distraction. not shocking that a sports league would prioritize finances over anything else, but it did make me completely unwilling to spend ~700 dollars a year on hockey tickets.

Introduction

The most significant and enduring relationships in an athlete's life are frequently created not through romance but rather through the close bonds formed with teammates in elite team sports, where loyalty, unity, and emotional restraint are cultural pillars. These relationships become emotionally, physically, and profoundly intimate, particularly in sports like hockey where players spend almost all of their waking hours together. A culture that values the team above all else and discourages vulnerability outside of it usually pushes romantic relationships to the side. The most emotionally intimate, long-lasting, and identity-defining relationships that elite athletes in team-based sports that prioritize cohesiveness and conformity have are not romantic ones, but rather relationships with teammates. These homosocial bonds often fulfill relational needs that romantic partnerships do not, shaped by shared purpose, constant proximity, and an emotional code rooted in loyalty over individuality.

The Team as Emotional Ecosystem

Elite team sports foster environments that actively discourage individuality and reward cohesiveness, from early childhood development to the professional level. These systems are intended to create not only competent athletes but also obedient team players who completely embrace the notion that the group comes before themselves. Programs like the U.S. National Team Development Program (USNTDP), which removes adolescent hockey players from traditional schooling, enrolls them in online courses, and places them in regimented housing with teammates to support a hockey lifestyle that is played around the clock, are the clearest examples of this (Schroeder, 2023). The idea that their only meaningful relationships are with the team and that anyone else, including family members or romantic partners, represents a possible distraction is reinforced by this psychological and physical shield.

Developmental programs are just one aspect of this culture. Even after they become financially independent, professional athletes frequently stay with their teammates. Despite earning millions of dollars a year, young players in the NHL, NFL, and MLB frequently live together in apartments or homes. The emotional reliance and comfort that come from being with someone who shares the same unspoken language of performance pressure, physical discomfort, and public scrutiny are reflected in these arrangements, which go beyond simple convenience. Sociologist Eric Anderson (2009) claims that these homosocial settings are "emotionally and physically intimate," with athletes frequently spending more of their waking hours with their teammates than with loved ones or romantic partners. The routine of practices, film sessions, meals, bus rides, and travel rooms creates an ecosystem in which athletes are not just teammates, but stand-ins for emotional intimacy, often becoming one another’s primary confidants and support systems.

Within these ecosystems, individuality is suppressed in a very obvious way. Declaring one's individuality through fashion, political beliefs, or romantic choices is frequently viewed with suspicion or derision in many elite sports cultures. In his book Things That Make White People Uncomfortable, former NFL player Michael Bennett explains how locker room culture quietly coerces players into stifling anything that doesn't fit the mold, stating that "individuality is treated as a threat to the team" (Bennett & Zirin, 2018, p. 64). An exclusive, nearly monastic culture is strengthened by this personality policing: the team is the only legitimate source of loyalty, love, and identity.

Athletes themselves frequently acknowledge that they rely more heavily on teammates than on anyone else. In a study on emotional expression in male sports teams, Blodgett and Schinke (2015) found that many elite athletes maintain “emotional silos,” in which teammates were the sole safe space for vulnerability. These environments allow for deep emotional sharing under the protective cover of shared hardship, mutual goals, and masculinity codes. In a culture where emotional vulnerability is often read as weakness, team settings provide the only socially acceptable context for closeness, what one researcher described as “camouflaged intimacy” (McCormack, 2012). This emotional exclusivity further insulates athletes from outside relationships, reinforcing the belief that the team is the only place where they can be fully understood or emotionally seen.

Suppression of Individuality & Outsider Relationships

In elite team sports, athletes often develop deep emotional bonds with their teammates, sometimes surpassing the intimacy found in their romantic relationships. This dynamic can lead to the perception of romantic partners as secondary to the team, with the team fulfilling most emotional and social needs.

Research indicates that these close male friendships, often termed “bromances,” provide a level of emotional support and openness that athletes may not experience in their romantic relationships. In a study by Robinson et al. (2019), participants described their bromances as offering elevated emotional stability, enhanced emotional disclosure, and better conflict resolution compared to their romantic relationships.

The culture within elite sports teams often discourages external intimacy, particularly romantic relationships, viewing them as potential disruptions to team cohesion. This is exemplified in the phenomenon of WAGs (wives and girlfriends), where romantic partners are often portrayed in media as accessories to athletes, valued more for their appearance and social status than for their individuality. Such portrayals reinforce the idea that romantic partners are peripheral to the athlete’s primary commitments (Fierce, 2014).

Moreover, the insular nature of elite sports teams fosters an environment where teammates fulfill most emotional and social needs, often leaving little room for external relationships. This exclusivity can lead to the marginalization of romantic partners and the suppression of individuality, as athletes prioritize team unity over personal expression.

In some cases, the lines between camaraderie and intimacy blur further. Reports of group sexual activities and hazing rituals within sports teams highlight how the team environment can encompass aspects typically associated with romantic relationships. For instance, a lawsuit against Seton Hall University’s baseball program detailed severe hazing and sexual abuse, including coerced participation in sexual acts (New York Post, 2025).

These dynamics underscore the complex interplay between team culture, suppression of individuality, and the marginalization of external relationships in elite sports.

Bromance as a Response to Masculine Emotional Repression

In the hypermasculine world of elite team sports, emotional expression is often constrained by traditional norms that equate vulnerability with weakness. However, “bromances," deep, non-sexual friendships between men, have emerged as socially acceptable outlets for emotional intimacy among male athletes. These relationships allow athletes to express affection and vulnerability within the safety of homosocial bonds, circumventing the stigma associated with emotional openness in male culture.

Research indicates that male athletes often engage in behaviors traditionally deemed non-masculine, such as hugging, cuddling, and verbal expressions of love, within the context of bromances. Anderson and McCormack (2014) found that 93% of heterosexual male athletes surveyed had cuddled with a male friend, and 98% had shared a bed with one, describing these interactions as comforting and supportive rather than sexual. One participant noted, “I love a quick cuddle, just so you remember your friends are about and are there for you” (Anderson & McCormack, 2014).

These behaviors are not limited to casual interactions but are integral to the emotional fabric of the team. Athletes describe their bromantic partners in terms typically reserved for romantic relationships. In a study by Robinson et al. (2019), participants referred to their bromantic friends as “guy girlfriends” and emphasized the depth of their emotional connections, including sharing secrets, expressing love, and providing unwavering support. One athlete stated, “Lovers are temporary; a bromance can last a lifetime” (Robinson et al., 2019).

This emotional closeness is not just theoretical but visibly modeled by high-profile athletes. For instance, NBA legends LeBron James and Dwyane Wade have spoken openly about the strength of their bond. James once remarked, “Great people bring greatness out of you. He always has done that for me and vice versa” (Blog.Playo, 2021), illustrating how their friendship fosters both personal and professional growth. Similarly, Olympic figure skaters Yuzuru Hanyu and Javier Fernández, despite being international rivals, have described each other in deeply affectionate terms. Fernández once said, “With Yuzu, we are everything… it’s like having a wife, your wife is your friend, your wife is everything” (Bruner, 2018), underscoring the complexity and intimacy of their bond.

This language of soulmates, emotional dependency, and romantic parallel is not uncommon in the world of male sports friendships. During their overlapping Olympic careers, swimmers Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte trained, traveled, and roomed together, with Lochte once saying that Phelps “was always there for me. He made me better” (Gregory, 2016). Their enduring friendship exemplifies how even in fiercely competitive environments, men find ways to express love and reliance without fear of emasculation.

The normalization of physical and emotional intimacy among male athletes reflects a broader cultural shift. As homophobia declines and definitions of masculinity expand, athletes find greater freedom to express affection without fear of judgment. This evolution allows for a redefinition of male friendships, where emotional support and vulnerability are not only accepted but valued. As Ogilvie (2016) notes, “These men have made it clear that bromances are not strictly between two heterosexual men; many of them have bromances with their gay/bisexual teammates as well.”

In this context, bromances serve as a crucial mechanism for emotional expression, enabling male athletes to navigate the demands of their sport while maintaining deep, supportive relationships that fulfill their emotional needs. They offer a form of emotional literacy that is often denied to men in other spaces, allowing athletes to engage in intimate friendship without having to sacrifice their masculine identity.

Sexual Intimacy, Rituals, and Masculine Bonding in Elite Sports

In the hypermasculine world of elite team sports, vulnerability is often suppressed, prompting athletes to seek alternative ways to forge deep emotional connections. One prominent avenue is through sexualized rituals and hazing practices that entwine dominance, humiliation, and intimacy. While these rituals are often framed as initiation or team-building exercises, they frequently blur the boundaries between aggression and affection, creating complex and sometimes troubling dynamics within teams.

High-profile cases reveal the severity and prevalence of such practices. For example, at Seton Hall University, a former baseball player filed a federal lawsuit describing brutal hazing that included forced sexual acts and physical assaults, which were reportedly overlooked by coaching staff (New York Post, 2025). Similarly, La Vernia High School in Texas saw arrests after football players allegedly sexually assaulted teammates using objects like flashlights and CO₂ tanks during initiation rituals (Caruba & Downs, 2017). At Western Kentucky University, a Title IX investigation exposed humiliating hazing practices on the swim team, including forced nudity and sexual harassment, with coaches aware but failing to intervene appropriately (Wikipedia, 2025).

These incidents highlight a disturbing pattern where sexualized hazing enforces hierarchy and conformity, reinforcing bonds through shared trauma rooted in dominance and submission. Such practices also perpetuate blurred boundaries and disregard for consent, often resulting in lasting psychological harm to victims.

Beyond coercive hazing, research indicates that male athletes increasingly engage in consensual physical intimacy, such as hugging, kissing, and cuddling, with teammates, viewing these actions as expressions of friendship rather than indicators of sexual orientation (Anderson, 2009; McCormack, 2012). Ethnographic studies of elite male athletes reveal that public displays of platonic affection, including kissing, are common and serve to strengthen bonds (Anderson, 2009).

Physical touch plays a crucial role in male athletic bonding. Beyond shared experiences, gestures like high-fives, hugs, and playful nudges serve as non-verbal affirmations of trust and support. Some athletes even report consensual sexual activities with teammates, perceiving these encounters not as sexual or romantic acts, but as extensions of camaraderie and team unity (Ward, 2017). This phenomenon reflects a complex intersection of physical intimacy and emotional connection, where the acts themselves are less about sexual desire and more about reinforcing solidarity.

Anderson (2009) explores how male athletes negotiate masculinity in environments where homophobic attitudes coexist with physically intimate interactions. In such contexts, ritualized sexual behaviors, such as mutual masturbation or circle jerks, are framed as bonding experiences rather than sexual acts, fostering solidarity and mutual vulnerability without threatening heterosexual identity.

Robinson et al. (2018) further emphasize that consensual sexual acts within teams are often performative demonstrations of unity. Their research documents normalization of oral sex and other consensual sexual behaviors among teammates as alternative modes of expressing male intimacy. This reframing allows athletes to reconcile physical closeness with traditional masculine norms, thereby circumventing stigma through context-specific meanings.

Psychological Identity Formation and the Supremacy of the Team

The psychological development of athletes in elite team sports is uniquely shaped by the immersive, collectivist nature of their environments. From adolescence onward, athletes in highly structured programs like the USNTDP or NCAA Division I teams are socialized into a system that prioritizes group cohesion over personal exploration. This developmental context profoundly influences identity formation, often reinforcing collective identity as the dominant mode of self-concept, to the exclusion of more individualized or romantic identities.

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) offers a crucial framework for understanding this phenomenon. According to the theory, individuals derive a significant part of their self-concept from their membership in social groups, especially high-status or salient ones. For elite athletes, team membership is not merely one of many identities, it becomes the identity. As a result, behaviors, emotions, and even relationship priorities are filtered through the lens of group affiliation. This process of identity fusion, where personal and group identity become psychologically inseparable (Swann et al., 2009), leads many athletes to perceive themselves first and foremost as members of a team, with other relational roles (e.g., boyfriend, husband, partner) occupying secondary psychological real estate.

In such environments, romantic relationships are often deprioritized, not out of apathy, but because they do not reinforce the athlete’s core self-concept in the same way the team does. Research by Lavallee and Robinson (2007) found that elite athletes frequently report difficulty in maintaining romantic relationships, often citing the emotional demands of sport and the lack of mutual understanding as barriers. These findings suggest not only logistical conflicts but a deeper psychological incongruence: romantic intimacy often requires a degree of emotional individualism that directly contradicts the collectivist mindset cultivated in elite team sports.

Moreover, identity foreclosure, a concept from developmental psychology introduced by Marcia (1966), may also explain the narrow emotional and relational repertoire of elite athletes. Many young athletes commit to an athletic identity before exploring other aspects of selfhood, including emotional or romantic expression. As Brewer, Van Raalte, and Linder (1993) noted, athletes with high levels of athletic identity are more vulnerable to psychological distress when that identity is disrupted (e.g., by injury or retirement), further emphasizing how all-consuming and foundational the team identity becomes. This identity foreclosure often manifests as emotional rigidity or a lack of relational flexibility outside the sport, particularly in romantic contexts that demand more nuanced emotional expression.

Gender Norms and the Division of Emotional Labor

Gender norms within elite sports cultures further complicate athletes’ ability to sustain romantic relationships. In hypermasculine environments, emotional expression is not only discouraged, it is often pathologized. Within the team setting, however, expressions of vulnerability are permissible if they conform to certain ritualized or performance-based norms (e.g., post-win celebrations, locker room breakdowns, group mourning after a loss). These moments of shared emotion are bounded, coded, and communal, offering safety through predictability and context.

In contrast, romantic relationships require unscripted, sustained, and individualized emotional labor, something many male athletes are neither socialized nor psychologically equipped to provide. Hochschild’s (1983) concept of emotional labor is particularly useful here. While emotional labor is often studied in occupational contexts, it applies equally to the private sphere, where romantic partners frequently perform or request emotional work that is invisible, undervalued, and gendered. In heterosexual relationships, women are often expected to take on the role of emotional managers, while men are expected to “open up” or become emotionally available, tasks that conflict with the internalized coping strategies of male athletes trained in stoicism, suppression, and emotional compartmentalization (Courtenay, 2000).

Studies by Steinfeldt and colleagues (2011) show that male athletes in contact sports are significantly more likely to endorse traditional masculinity ideologies, including the suppression of emotional expression and the avoidance of vulnerability. These traits directly undermine the dynamics required for healthy romantic intimacy. Consequently, romantic partners may experience frustration or emotional abandonment, leading to higher rates of relational dissolution among professional athletes (Ridings & Appleton, 2019). These relational failures are often not due to lack of love or interest, but rather to a mismatch between the emotional labor required in romantic contexts and the emotional norms athletes have internalized through sport.

Moreover, as Wade and Donis (2007) suggest, male athletes may consciously or unconsciously seek emotional support from teammates instead, because these relationships allow for affective closeness within the bounds of masculine acceptability. A teammate understands the culture, the rituals, the language. A romantic partner might not. In this sense, homosocial bonds serve not just as emotional anchors, but as shields from the emotionally destabilizing demands of romantic relationships.

Neuroscience and the Physiology of Bonding in Team Sports

The emotional intimacy observed among teammates is not only sociocultural or psychological, it is also physiological. Neuroscientific research on oxytocin, the neuropeptide associated with bonding, empathy, and trust, reveals that high-stress, high-cooperation environments are fertile ground for deep interpersonal bonding.

According to De Dreu (2012), oxytocin levels rise not only during romantic or familial interaction but also during moments of synchronized physical effort, shared goal pursuit, and mutual risk, all of which are integral features of elite team sports. In particular, athletes experience elevated oxytocin during competition, post-competition huddles, and even during ritualistic acts like locker room chants or group celebrations. These biological responses help explain why athletes often describe teammates using language typically reserved for romantic partners: “soulmates,” “ride or die,” “my person.”

A study by Kosfeld et al. (2005) demonstrated that intranasal oxytocin administration increases trust and cooperation in humans, even in competitive contexts. While this research was not conducted on athletes specifically, its implications are clear: environments that stimulate oxytocin release, like team sports, biochemically reinforce trust-based, emotionally intimate relationships. In turn, this neurochemical bonding strengthens the centrality of teammate relationships in an athlete’s life, often at the expense of outside or romantic connections that do not trigger the same physiological responses under stress.

Further, neurobiological studies on stress and social buffering show that familiar social presence (like a trusted teammate) can significantly reduce cortisol responses in high-pressure environments (Hostinar et al., 2014). In contrast, unfamiliar or less “attuned” relationships (such as new romantic partners) may not offer the same regulatory benefits. This supports the idea that athletes do not merely prefer their teammates emotionally, they are neurologically conditioned to seek comfort and regulation within these familiar relational contexts.

Conclusion

Elite team sports construct a unique emotional ecosystem in which the most formative, intimate, and enduring bonds are forged not through romantic relationships but through the all-consuming, often emotionally charged world of teammates. From the developmental level to the professional stage, athletes are socialized into systems that reward conformity, suppress individuality, and position the team as the primary source of identity, intimacy, and emotional validation. Romantic relationships, when they do exist, are often marginalized, perceived as external, disruptive, or insufficiently attuned to the pressures and codes of elite sport.

Through homosocial environments, athletes find spaces for deep emotional connection, physical closeness, and vulnerability, what researchers have called “camouflaged intimacy," that rarely extend beyond the team. The rise of bromance as a cultural and emotional phenomenon speaks to this need, offering athletes a form of socially sanctioned closeness that skirts the stigma of emotional expression among men. In many cases, these bonds not only mimic but surpass the emotional depth and exclusivity of romantic relationships, reinforced by shared experiences of pain, pressure, and purpose. Even consensual sexual behaviors within teams, though infrequent and complex, highlight the fluid and context-specific nature of intimacy among male athletes, further blurring the traditional boundaries between friendship, love, and loyalty.

Psychologically, the athlete’s identity is so deeply fused with the team that other relationships often cannot compete. The collectivist mindset, enforced through social norms, institutional structures, and cultural expectations, leaves little room for romantic or individualized expression. Instead, the athlete’s world is narrowed to the team, where emotional labor is redistributed among teammates, and affection, whether verbal, physical, or even sexual, is framed in terms of loyalty and camaraderie.

In this context, the most meaningful relationships in an athlete’s life are not romantic, they are forged in locker rooms, training camps, and team buses. They are defined not by passion or partnership in the traditional sense, but by shared identity, emotional interdependence, and the deep, often unspoken bonds of men navigating pressure, pain, and purpose together. These relationships form the quiet architecture of an athlete’s emotional life, unacknowledged by the outside world, but utterly central within it.

Sources:

Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. Routledge.

Bennett, M., & Zirin, D. (2018). Things that make white people uncomfortable. Haymarket Books.

Blodgett, A. T., & Schinke, R. J. (2015). “When the moment comes, you know”: A qualitative study on sport culture and the lived experiences of high performance athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.11.005

McCormack, M. (2012). The declining significance of homophobia: How teenage boys are redefining masculinity and heterosexuality. Oxford University Press.

Schroeder, S. (2023, February 14). Inside the U.S. National Team Development Program’s relentless pipeline. The Athletic. https://theathletic.com

Fierce, S. (2014, August 18). The ultimate trophy: What the phenomenon of sports WAGs tells us about sexism, race, and beauty. Retrieved from https://iamsherleyfierce.com/2014/08/18/the-ultimate-trophy-what-the-phenomenon-of-sports-wags-tells-us-about-sexism-race-and-beauty/

New York Post. (2025, May 28). Seton Hall pitcher tells horrifying tale of brutal hazing at renowned baseball program, which allegedly included beatings, forced sex acts. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/vaunted-college-baseball-program-is-sex-hazing-hotbed/

Robinson, S., White, A., & Anderson, E. (2019). Privileging the bromance: A critical appraisal of romantic and bromantic relationships. Men and Masculinities, 22(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17730386

Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2014). The changing dynamics of bisexual men’s lives: Social research perspectives. Springer.

Blog.Playo. (2021, October 12). 5 of the greatest bromances in sports history. Playo. https://blog.playo.co/5-greatest-bromances-sports-history/

Bruner, R. (2018, February 9). Inside the Olympic bromance of figure skaters Yuzuru Hanyu and Javier Fernandez. TIME. https://time.com/5162460/olympics-2018-yuzuru-hanyu-javier-fernandez-bromance/

Gregory, S. (2016, August 8). Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte: Friends, rivals, teammates. TIME. https://time.com/4450036/rio-2016-olympics-michael-phelps-ryan-lochte-friendship/

Ogilvie, C. A. (2016). Bromance: Redefining masculinity and male intimacy in contemporary sports culture. Journal of Men’s Studies, 24(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826516636847

Robinson, M., Anderson, E., & White, A. (2019). Bromance: A new concept in contemporary heterosexual male relationships. Sex Roles, 80(9), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0968-1

Ward, J. (2017). Not gay: Sex between straight white men. NYU Press.

Caruba, L., & Downs, C. (2017, April 13). Football players at a Texas high school accused of sodomizing teammates. Teen Vogue. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/texas-football-players-accused-of-violent-hazing

New York Post. (2025, May 28). Seton Hall pitcher tells horrifying tale of brutal hazing at renowned baseball program. https://nypost.com/2025/05/28/us-news/vaunted-college-baseball-program-is-sex-hazing-hotbed/

Wikipedia. (2025). Western Kentucky University swim team hazing scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Kentucky_University_swim_team_hazing_scandal

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’ muscles or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24(2), 237–254.

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Oxytocin modulates cooperation within and competition between groups: An integrative review and research agenda. Hormones and Behavior, 61(3), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.12.009

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Hostinar, C. E., Sullivan, R. M., & Gunnar, M. R. (2014). Psychobiological mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis: A review of animal models and human studies across development. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032671

Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03701

Lavallee, D., & Robinson, H. K. (2007). In pursuit of an identity: A qualitative exploration of retirement from women’s artistic gymnastics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.05.003

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281

Ridings, L. E., & Appleton, P. R. (2019). Relationships and mental health in sport: A review of theoretical perspectives and empirical research. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 214–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2018.1469163

Steinfeldt, J. A., Steinfeldt, M. C., England, B., & Speight, Q. L. (2011). Masculinity, social norms, and athletic identity among high school football players: A gender role strain perspective. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024995

Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, Á., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013668

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.