You can make your voice heard. You can change the world. These are the kinds of opportunities élite universities promise prospective students in their glossy brochures. On Friday, the scholarship players on Northwestern University’s football team gathered to do just that, in a historic vote on the question of unionization. Northwestern should have supported these players’ right to a fair process just as eagerly as it celebrates their accomplishments on game days. Instead, according to several reports this week, school officials waged an organized campaign with a single goal: to sway the players toward voting no.

Friday’s vote, the first of its kind in college sports, was made possible by the Chicago district office of the National Labor Relations Board, which ruled in March that Northwestern’s scholarship players should properly be designated employees of the school, giving them the right to unionize. Northwestern is appealing the district ruling, which means that the results of Friday’s vote will remain sealed until the federal office of the N.L.R.B. issues its decision, which could take months. But Northwestern’s aggressive campaign to influence the players’ votes, which was marked by a series of ominous warnings, shows the need for greater player autonomy that unionization represents.

At the center of Northwestern’s anti-union pitch was a twenty-one-page question-and-answer document, which was sent to players and their families, and obtained by the Associated Press and CBS. CBS quotes the report as saying, “If the union tells you they would just walk away if the players change their mind, don’t believe this for a minute…. It is extremely difficult to get rid of a union once it is voted in.” It mentions the possibility of scabs being brought in to replace striking players. “The tension created in such a situation would be unprecedented and not in anyone’s best interest.” It poses and then answers several questions about possible tax implications, suggesting that, under a union, the I.R.S. might take an interest in a player’s scholarship money. “Anybody who tells you that they do know how this will all play out is fooling themselves,” it reportedly says.

Several current players, including next season’s likely starting quarterback, Trevor Siemian, have come out publicly against the union. Union advocates on the team have been much quieter. The College Athletes Players Association, which would represent players in the event of unionization, mounted its own campaign with the help of United Steelworkers, but Northwestern has direct control over the players, and thus has the greater power to persuade. The AP quotes Michael Odom, a former Northwestern player, as saying that university officials had e-mailed parents directly about encouraging their children to vote against the proposal. He added that many of his former teammates were feeling pressure: “I don’t know if intimidation is the word I’d use. I think that’s a little strong. I know a lot of my teammates have been influenced by former players as well as coaches and officials at the university.”

Northwestern’s campaign may not have been outright intimidation, but its message has been focussed and unambiguous, delivered from the top down in a way that reinforces the power structure of college athletics. The team’s coach, Pat Fitzgerald, has been especially vocal. After the labor board’s decision, he spoke out publicly against the idea of a union, saying, “I believe it’s in their best interests to vote no. With the research that I’ve done, I’m going to stick to the facts and I’m going to do everything in my power to educate our guys.” Since then, he has reportedly spoken to each player individually. Ben Strauss, of the Times, quoted an e-mail that Fitzgerald sent to his players, which read, “In my heart, I know that the downside of joining a union is much bigger than the upside…. You have nothing to gain by forming a union.”

Fitzgerald has built Northwestern into a serious football school. His program has a sterling graduation rate. And he seems to enjoy strong support from his athletes. He may indeed be dedicated to his players and mindful of their interests, but his interests and those of his players are, in fact, vastly different. The N.C.A.A.’s President, Mark Emmert, has said that unionization “would blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics”—a system in which Fitzgerald can command a multimillion-dollar salary. As of 2011, he was the highest paid employee of the university, earning $2.2 million that season. He recruited these players, and holds their football fates in his hands. The N.L.R.B. ruling that Northwestern’s players were employees stemmed, in part, from the immense and nearly constant control that the football coaches exercised over their lives. Even if Fitzgerald is right, and forming a union is not the best way for the football players to spark reform in college sports and better gain control over their lives—it is, indeed, a complicated and unprecedented situation—his powerful position within the status quo makes his self-appointment as a labor advisor especially ridiculous.

Regardless of whether they voted for or against joining CAPA, the players have acted admirably. No one should be shocked—playing football on a national stage takes grit and poise and maturity. But they deserved better in the process, from their coach and from their university. Rather than give these young men the space they deserved to exercise their legal rights, school officials instead argued strenuously for their own self-interests. Northwestern has provided a teaching moment, and the lesson is that, more than ever, real reform in college sports seems unlikely to come from those at the top.

_

Above: Northwestern football player Ifeadi Odenigbo heads to vote on unionization, on April 25, 2014. Photograph by Jim Young/Reuters.