An NBA star’s betrayed trust shows why confidentiality must be the cornerstone of sports psychology.
Athlete mental health support entered a new era in 2019 when the NBA required all teams to hire licensed mental health professionals. Yet the ethical perimeter around these roles remains dangerously thin. A voicemail mistakenly left by a Clippers’ psychologist, intended for the coach but reaching Blake Griffin, exposed confidential discussion and destroyed Griffin’s trust in the profession. When confidentiality is breached, the fallout isn’t just a procedural error; it’s a catastrophic rupture in the therapeutic alliance that athletes depend on for honest, unfiltered support.
First reported by Yahoo Sports, the Blake Griffin voicemail incident stands as a defining example of how a single misstep can destroy an athlete's trust in sport psychologists. Early in Griffin's tenure with the Los Angeles Clippers, the team required all players to meet with a sports psychologist.1 After a session at Griffin's Manhattan Beach home, the psychologist intended to call the coach but misdialed and left a voicemail on Griffin's phone instead.1 Griffin later discovered the message after a shower,1 hearing the psychologist say, "Hey coach, just left Blake's house. We had a good talk. Some really interesting things."2
The voicemail, which was meant for the coach, referenced private session details, inadvertently revealing that the psychologist was sharing confidential information. Griffin recalled the incident on the *Friends Keep Secrets* podcast in 2026,1 describing it as a major breach of trust. The psychologist's identity and the coach's name were not disclosed.
Griffin's reaction was immediate and decisive: he never met with the team psychologist again.1 The incident led him to view the arrangement as compromised, with the psychologist potentially acting as an agent of management rather than a confidential resource. He later sought private therapy,1 highlighting a common pattern where athletes distrust team-affiliated mental health providers. The lapse exposed a critical flaw in applied sport psychology: without clear ethical boundaries, team psychologists may inadvertently undermine the very trust they are supposed to build how sports psychologists can build trust with athletes.
On paper, confidentiality is a straightforward ethical obligation; in practice, it’s a fragile bond that can shatter with a single misstep. For athletes, the promise of privacy is not just a professional courtesy; it is the bedrock of any therapeutic relationship. Without it, the essential work of mental health support cannot even begin.
Confidentiality means that information shared during sessions stays protected. Both the APA Ethics Code and the AASP Ethical Standards require practitioners to safeguard all forms of communication, from spoken words to records and digital messages.1 This obligation isn’t optional. Psychologists must discuss confidentiality and its limits clearly before starting work with an athlete, and they must revisit that conversation as circumstances change.2 Written confidentiality agreements are the norm, and for clients under 18, parents or guardians provide the necessary consent.3
The rules are designed to create a safe container. When an athlete opens up about performance anxiety, personal struggles, or team dynamics, they need absolute assurance that their words won’t leak to coaches, media, or teammates. A breach, even an accidental one, destroys that safety completely, a stark reminder that when sports psychology isn't enough, the consequences can be severe.
Athletes occupy a precarious position. They are highly visible, often under immense pressure, and their careers can hinge on perceptions of mental toughness. Seeking help is already a courageous step; if that help is compromised, the fallout can be devastating. The Blake Griffin voicemail incident shows exactly this. A psychologist meant to support the team inadvertently left a voicemail for a coach detailing “some interesting things” discussed in a private session. Griffin never worked with a team psychologist again. The message was clear: trust, once broken, may never be repaired.
Ethical guidelines underscore that confidentiality isn’t just a rule; it’s the foundation that makes therapy work. If an athlete holds back because they fear exposure, the psychologist loses access to the honest information needed to help. Effective sport psychology depends on a genuine, trusting alliance, a foundation we explore in depth in our guide to building trust with athletes. When confidentiality is upheld, athletes can explore vulnerabilities, reframe unhelpful patterns, and build resilience. When it’s violated, as in Griffin’s case, the entire profession is undermined. That’s why even seemingly minor leaks, like a voicemail or a casual comment, can have career-altering consequences and why aspiring sport psychologists must treat confidentiality as non-negotiable from day one.
According to a 2026 ComplianceHub report on digital therapy compliance, confidentiality breaches in clinical settings occur at a rate of 0.016 breaches per hour. This statistic highlights that even outside of team dynamics, the risk of accidental disclosures remains a real concern for mental health professionals.
For a sports psychologist employed by a team, every session exists in a tension between two masters: the athlete in the chair and the organization signing the checks. This dynamic, often called dual agency, creates an ethical minefield where the duty to support an individual's mental health can conflict with the employer's desire for performance insights. Navigating this tension requires a clear understanding of professional boundaries, grounded in formal ethics codes.
Dual agency arises when a psychologist serves both the athlete and the team or management. The Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP) Ethics Code defines this as a multiple relationship, noting that it occurs when a professional has one role with a person and simultaneously another role with that same person or a close associate.1 The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code, under Standard 3.05, warns that psychologists must refrain from entering into multiple relationships if there is a foreseeable risk of harm or impairment.2
Both the APA and AASP codes emphasize informed consent.2 Before any work begins, the psychologist must identify the primary client and explain the limits of confidentiality, including what information may be shared with coaches or management. AASP Standard 9 further requires a careful evaluation of potential harm, especially where evaluative power exists, such as when a psychologist also provides input on an athlete's roster status.1 Ideally, psychologists avoid preventable dual roles, like acting as both therapist and performance evaluator. If such a role is unavoidable, explicit consent and regular reassessment are mandatory.
The Blake Griffin voicemail incident illustrates what happens when these boundaries collapse. The team psychologist reportedly left a message for the coach describing session content, effectively acting as an informant. This not only likely violated the athlete's confidentiality but also breached the core ethical principle of prioritizing client welfare over organizational interests. It is a stark reminder that without clear role clarification, the athlete's trust, once broken, may never be repaired, a concern highlighted in our guide to building trust with athletes.
Managing employer expectations without compromising ethics demands proactive steps: - Set clear boundaries around informal consultations with coaches or management. - Use supervision and peer consultation to navigate complex boundary decisions. - Update informed consent whenever the psychologist's role shifts, such as joining selection meetings. - Prioritize client welfare even when organizational pressures increase.
Following these practices, anchored in the APA and AASP ethics codes, helps team psychologists uphold the trust that is foundational to effective sport psychology.
What exactly did the NBA require of its teams after 2019, and did it make a real difference for player privacy? In August 2019, the league issued a memo requiring all 30 franchises to hire at least one licensed mental health professional and establish a formal emergency action plan.1 Two months later, team officials met in Chicago for a mandatory meeting on implementation.1 The policy also demanded written confidentiality protocols and voluntary access to services, so players could seek help without fear of being pressured or exposed.
The Los Angeles Clippers were ahead of the curve, exploring team-based psychologists before the mandate. But that early adoption lacked the formal safeguards that arrived in 2019. The Blake Griffin voicemail incident, where a psychologist accidentally left a message for a coach disclosing private session details, showed that simply having a mental health professional on staff was not enough. Without clear privacy rules, a team psychologist could become an accidental leak, undermining the therapeutic relationship. The mandate's requirement for explicit confidentiality protocols directly addresses this risk, though rebuilding athlete trust remains an ongoing challenge.
By 2023, all NBA teams were in full compliance.3 Access expanded too: a league-wide partnership with Headspace launched in 2022, 2023,3 and the National Basketball Players Association had already offered a mental health program since 2018.4 Reports suggest increased utilization, with players more willing to discuss anxiety, stress, and performance pressures. However, the dual loyalty problem persists. When a psychologist is paid by the team, some athletes still wonder: Is this person working for me or for management? The NBA attempted to address this in 2021 by adding a cultural competence requirement,2 pushing teams to hire professionals who understand the unique backgrounds of players. Still, many athletes, like Griffin after his voicemail heartbreak, continue to prefer private, independent sports psychologists who answer only to the client, a dynamic explored in our guide on how sports psychologists can build trust with athletes.
A sports psychologist can work in two primary settings: embedded within a team organization as a staff member, or independently in private practice serving individual athletes and teams on a contractual basis. The Blake Griffin incident highlights why this distinction matters, as the dual loyalties of a team psychologist can create tension that private practitioners more easily avoid.
Team psychologists are embedded in a single organization, working on-site at practices, games, and training facilities. They often travel with the team, becoming immersed in the season's rhythms and team culture. In contrast, private sports psychologists typically operate out of an office or via telehealth, seeing a diverse roster of athletes across sports and levels. Their schedule is more self-directed, with less routine travel.
The core difference is who the client is. For team psychologists, it's dual: the athlete is the clinical client, but the organization is the employer. This creates ongoing pressure to share information with coaches or medical staff, even inadvertently. Confidentiality boundaries are complex and frequently tested. Private sports psychologists serve the athlete (or parent/agent) as both client and customer, so the therapeutic relationship is clearer. Confidentiality is more straightforward and typically only broken by client consent or legal mandate, not organizational convenience.
Team psychologists must balance athlete welfare with team priorities, a dual-agency dynamic that can lead to ethical dilemmas. For example, a coach may want to know why an athlete is underperforming, but the athlete's trust depends on privacy. Private practitioners face less acute dual agency; it mainly arises when working under team contracts or with third-party payers, but they can usually structure agreements to protect athlete privacy.
Full-time team psychologist positions are competitive and limited, according to the American Psychological Association. When hired, salaries generally range from $60,000 to over $100,000 with benefits, though many roles are part-time or seasonal. Progression can lead to director-level roles but is vulnerable to staffing changes. Private practitioners build their caseload and brand gradually, with more income variability. In the U.S., the average salary of a sports psychologist is around $80,000, while in the U.K. the range is roughly £27,000 to £60,000, with no guaranteed floor.2 Both paths allow for similar direct client time, typically 50, 60% of working hours.3
While many sports psychology programs focus on assessment tools and performance interventions, the Blake Griffin incident reveals that the true importance of sports psychology lies in building unshakeable trust. Translating that breach into action means prioritizing transparency from the very first meeting.
Explain confidentiality in plain language before any substantive discussion. Clarify exactly what information stays between you and the athlete, what might be shared with coaching staff (and under what conditions), and the legal limits of privilege. For team-employed psychologists, this often means outlining that while general themes may be reported to improve training, personal disclosures remain protected unless there is a risk of harm. A written informed-consent document co-signed by both parties cements this understanding.
Organizational pressure to report private details is real. If a coach or manager demands information that would violate trust, consult immediately with a clinical supervisor, ethics board, or mentor. Developing the confidence to say, "I can't share that, but here's what I can tell you about the team's overall readiness" protects both the athlete and your professional integrity.
Proactively help sports organizations craft athlete-centered mental health policies. Advocate for separate reporting lines that keep therapeutic content out of personnel decisions, and for mandatory education sessions that teach all staff members about confidentiality boundaries. When you model unwavering advocacy for athlete privacy, you not only honor ethics codes, you build the kind of trust that transforms careers.
Could the Blake Griffin voicemail blunder lead to stronger confidentiality protections for athletes? The incident, which only came to light in 2026, has reignited conversations about the ethical boundaries that should govern team sports psychologists.
As of this year, neither the Los Angeles Clippers nor the NBA has issued an official statement or launched a formal investigation into the voicemail mishap that reportedly occurred over a decade ago. The league’s lack of action may reflect the fact that the incident predated its 2019 mental health mandate, but it also underscores a persistent gap in accountability.
The Griffin case illustrates why many practitioners are pushing for revised guidelines from organizations like the Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP) and the American Psychological Association (APA). Key issues include mandatory participation programs and the inherent dual-role conflict when a psychologist is employed by the team. Clearer rules about what constitutes a breach, and what remedies athletes have, are now openly discussed at conferences and in professional forums.
While Griffin has not sued, the incident raises the question: could an athlete take legal action over a confidentiality breach? In traditional therapy settings, such a breach could lead to malpractice claims. In sport, the line is murkier because the psychologist often works for the organization. Future litigation might hinge on whether the athlete had a reasonable expectation of privacy, potentially setting a precedent that reshapes contracts and consent forms.
One clear effect is the growing trend among elite athletes to bypass team-provided services altogether. Griffin himself says he never met with another team psychologist after the voicemail. This shift toward hiring independent, athlete-retained psychologists serves as a trust safeguard, ensuring that clinical details stay between the athlete and the professional, not the front office.
At a rate of 0.016 confidentiality breaches per hour, the Blake Griffin voicemail is a stark cautionary tale, not a sweeping indictment. Trust hinges on two pillars: rigorous ethical codes that separate team and athlete interests, and athletes empowered to demand private care. For those learning how to become a sports psychologist, championing confidentiality is non-negotiable: it is the bedrock of your practice.
