In June 2014, the Journal of American History published a special issue focused on sports history that, in part, contended that trained historians are better prepared to study sport history than those earning PhDs in other areas. While some contributors to the special issue celebrated the growth of the field, others lamented its lack of respect from their colleagues. My assessment is framed within the broader interdisciplinary field of kinesiology and argues that scholars in both history and kinesiology ought to be engaged in the conversation about the state of the field. These tensions related to academic qualifications and location of the field in history or kinesiology departments as the field grows are not new; nor are they are unique to sport history. Among my conclusions are the recognition of the multiple ways those in sport history can engage with broader audiences, as well as other inclusionary practices, to help foster relationships with our colleagues across the disciplines. Further, sport historians should also take some pride in the history of the field and the efforts of past sport historians who, in the face of colleagues who disrespected their area of study, ignored it and forged ahead, just as scholars do today.