BREAKING: Controversy Erupts Over Religious Symbolism as Ohio State put a cross on their championship rings representing their teams faith this past season.
BREAKING: Controversy Erupts Over Religious Symbolism as Ohio State Puts a Cross on Their Championship Rings Representing Their Team’s Faith This Past Season
The Ohio State Buckeyes football team, fresh off their 2020 College Football Playoff National Championship, have found themselves at the center of a heated controversy following the reveal of their newly designed championship rings. While many fans and athletes celebrated the victory and the symbolic nature of the ring, a significant portion of the public has raised concerns over the inclusion of a religious symbol—a cross—on the design. The inclusion of the cross, which the team claims represents their deep faith and the guiding principles that have supported them throughout the season, has sparked a national debate regarding the intersection of religion and sports in the public arena.
The controversy is not just about a piece of jewelry but touches on broader themes such as the role of faith in collegiate athletics, the separation of church and state, and how universities—particularly public institutions—should navigate these delicate issues. The debate has sparked conversations among sports fans, political commentators, religious leaders, and legal experts alike.
The Design of the Championship Rings: A Symbol of Faith
Ohio State’s championship rings were designed to commemorate their historic victory, but they also reflect the values that the team believes guided them throughout their season. Head coach Ryan Day, a deeply religious figure who has spoken about his faith on numerous occasions, explained that the cross was a personal and team-wide symbol of the players’ shared beliefs. In a statement made to the press, Day said:
“As a team, we believe that faith is a cornerstone of our program. We came together with the conviction that our efforts were not just about football but about living by principles that guide us as men and athletes. The cross represents the values of love, sacrifice, and teamwork that were crucial to our success.”
The cross was placed prominently on each championship ring, positioned alongside other elements commemorating their season. It was included not just as an ornamental addition, but as a message to the players, their families, and the public about the role of faith in their journey to the national title.
Players like quarterback Justin Fields and defensive star Chase Young have also spoken about their Christian faith, citing it as an integral part of their lives both on and off the field. For them, the cross on their championship rings serves as a reminder of their dedication not just to the game, but to something bigger than themselves—a guiding principle that helped them overcome the challenges they faced throughout the season.
“The cross is more than just a symbol for me; it’s part of my identity,” said Fields, who has spoken about how his faith helps him stay grounded amidst the pressures of college football. “We’ve built something special as a team, and we wanted to represent what’s important to us.”
For many players, the inclusion of the cross was seen as a personal, private statement of their faith, something that felt authentic and true to their experiences over the course of a challenging and rewarding season.
The Backlash: Critics of Religious Symbolism in Public Institutions
However, the decision to feature a cross on the championship rings has not been without significant backlash. Critics argue that Ohio State, as a public institution, should refrain from endorsing religious symbolism in its official programs and materials. Some have even suggested that the cross on the rings could violate the separation of church and state, which is a cornerstone of American constitutional law.
“The inclusion of a religious symbol on a publicly funded team’s championship ring raises serious questions about the separation of church and state,” said legal expert Rachel Manning, who specializes in constitutional law. “It’s a delicate balance. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and when religious symbols are involved, it can be perceived as the state endorsing one religion over others, which goes against the principles of neutrality that are supposed to govern public institutions.”
Manning, alongside other legal scholars, pointed out that while private institutions have more freedom to include religious symbolism in their branding and materials, public universities like Ohio State are bound by the First Amendment, which ensures that government entities—such as public colleges—do not show favoritism toward a particular religion.
While Ohio State is not officially a religious institution, the Buckeyes’ football program operates under the umbrella of the state-supported university, which complicates matters. Public funding, public representation, and public interest all intersect with the team’s activities, leading some to argue that the inclusion of a cross on a championship ring could be viewed as government endorsement of religious practice.
Critics also raised concerns that the presence of such symbolism could alienate athletes from diverse religious backgrounds or non-religious players who do not share the same beliefs. The concern is that the ring could inadvertently send a message that the team’s success is tied to religious adherence, which could alienate players or recruits who come from different cultural or religious backgrounds.
“This is a very slippery slope,” said Dr. Jennifer Taylor, a sociologist who studies religion and sports. “Athletes from different religious traditions, as well as those who don’t adhere to any religion, could feel marginalized. It raises the question: What happens when a player does not share the faith of their teammates? Does that impact their experience in the program, and does it affect their participation in something that is supposed to be about teamwork and unity?”
Supporters of the Decision: Faith as an Integral Part of the Team’s Identity
On the other side of the debate, many Ohio State players, coaches, and alumni have defended the inclusion of the cross, arguing that it is a personal expression of faith and an important part of the team’s journey. Supporters contend that the team has a right to express their religious beliefs, just as athletes in other sports have the right to express their identities through tattoos, slogans, or other personal symbols.
“This team has always been about more than just football,” said former Ohio State player and current NFL star Ezekiel Elliott. “For many of us, our faith is what keeps us grounded. It’s what motivates us, and it’s what helped us get through the tough moments of the season. The cross isn’t a political statement. It’s a reflection of who we are as individuals.”
Additionally, several coaches and administrators within Ohio State’s athletic department have voiced their support for the cross on the rings, emphasizing that it represents a personal choice rather than an imposition on others.
“We respect the beliefs of every individual on this team, and we encourage our players to express their identities and values,” said Gene Smith, Ohio State’s athletic director. “The cross is a symbol of what many of our athletes believe in, but it is not intended to exclude anyone. This is about personal faith, not about creating division.”
Moreover, Ohio State University President Michael Drake issued a statement supporting the team’s decision, arguing that religious expression is a constitutionally protected right for all Americans, including student-athletes. “The university respects the rights of our students and athletes to express their personal beliefs. The cross on these rings is an emblem of the faith held by the players who chose to represent Ohio State this season. It is not a mandate or a reflection of the university’s stance on religion.”
For many, the inclusion of the cross on the rings is seen as a reflection of the team’s culture of unity, dedication, and perseverance, rather than a political or ideological statement. Supporters argue that the athletes should be able to celebrate their personal values without being scrutinized or criticized.
A Broader Conversation: Faith, Public Institutions, and Sports
The controversy over the Ohio State championship rings has ignited a broader conversation about the role of religion in public life, particularly in sports. As college athletics continue to evolve and become more intertwined with larger societal issues, questions surrounding the boundaries of faith, free speech, and institutional policies are becoming more prominent.
Critics of the religious symbolism argue that it sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that faith could play an increasingly prominent role in collegiate sports, potentially alienating athletes from diverse backgrounds. On the other hand, supporters claim that religious expression is a fundamental right that should be respected in all contexts, including sports, where athletes often speak about their values and beliefs.
The discussion surrounding Ohio State’s decision highlights the complex relationship between religion, sports, and public institutions. While the Buckeyes’ inclusion of a cross on their championship rings may seem like a small issue in the grand scheme of things, it underscores the growing importance of navigating these issues thoughtfully in an increasingly pluralistic society.
As the debate continues, one thing remains clear: the intersection of faith and sports will continue to be a topic of conversation and, at times, controversy. Whether or not Ohio State’s championship rings ultimately serve as a turning point in this ongoing discussion remains to be seen, but for now, it has certainly sparked an important conversation about the role of religion in public life and the ways in which personal beliefs can influence public institutions.
Ohio State’s decision to include a cross on their national championship rings has divided opinion, with fervent supporters and vocal critics alike. For some, it represents a proud declaration of faith and values, while for others, it raises important questions about the role of religion in public life and the potential for exclusion in a diverse world.
As the debate rages on, Ohio State’s championship rings have become a symbol not just of athletic achievement, but of a wider cultural conversation—one that is likely to continue as sports and society evolve in the years to come.
