I was watching a college football game on TV this evening. Very comparable to Pro Football. In general it involves BIG Money for promoters, advertisers, licnsed merchandise and logos, everyone except the college players.
Now the college players get free tuition, free this and that, but nothing comparabel to the pro players.
Is this an unfair situation, or have I missed something?
The players get tuition, room and board and books. They get to hone their skills and develop physically and mentally for the NFL, or they may use their free education to prepare for life after football. If this is exploitation, I wish I had been exploited like this.
Well, some people do think it’s unfair. The College Athletes Coalition has pushed on this (although they’re not asking for millions, just better stipends, and earning opportunities). Their position is that while the free education is a great perk, the NCAA limitations on earnings and such mean some poor athletes struggle to meet basic expenses. And they (understandably) find it particularly galling given the money that revolves around big-time college sports.
Last year, legislators in a few states introduced bills on the matter. I don’t think they went anywhere (and even if they had, it would matter because no school is going to violate NCAA rules willingly). The NCAA is holding firm on maintaining “Amateurism” but the questions come up again and again.
My problem is, athletes can’t even get summer jobs like everyone else in college can. Obviously, some of these would probably be ‘no-show’ jobs, but it makes it awfully hard for someone without a lot of money.
I say pay them a stipend.
College Football and College Basketball are minor leagues in everything but name. The difference is that in minor league baseball and hockey, the players get paid the fair market value of their services. In football and basketball, they don’t.
Instead the schools perpetuate the hypocrisy that these students are college students. They do not focus on educating these students, they focus on fielding a winning team. So they allow students in who are far far below the minimum academic requirements, and then focus almost exculsively on their athletic performance.
The now familiar tragedy is that these students pin their hopes and dreams on a career in the pros, and of course for most of them this is out of the question. So many of them drop out, often with serious injuries, without much to show for their time–other than that they made a lot of money for somebody else.
Compare two hypothetical 18 year olds. One plays baseball, and the other plays football. Neither was ever a very good student in High School. The baseball player decides that, rather than pursuing the other options open to him–trade school, the army, etc., he wants to join a minor league baseball team and see if he can make it to the majors.
The other kid applies to a college because he was recruited there by the coach. Need we mention that the coach is NOT interested in the academic life of the school. The coach is interested in doing what he’s paid $500K a year to do: field a winning football team. So this kid, who would not otherwise have had a prayer of getting into this college, gets in on an academic scholarship.
In the first case, the baseball case: this is all above board, and everybody calls it what it is: a business transaction. Probably the kid won’t make it into the majors, but in the meantime he gets a salary: the fair market value of his wages.
In the second case, nobody is honest about what is going on. Instead, the athlete is not paid for his services. Yes he gets an “education” but often the athlete drops out. Furthermore, in many cases the schools do not wind up educating the athlete very much (since in many cases the athlete was not ready academically for the school in any case).
Well, but isn’t this just the athlete’s decision? No one is holding a gun to his head, right? If he wants to screw around and not get an education, that’s his decision, right?
Well, not quite, for a few reasons. First of all, the school has an incentive to put the athletic program ahead of the well being of the student. So they shield the student from the academic consequences of his actions. If a non athlete performs terribly, the school puts him on academic probation, etc. But if an athlete is struggling, there is a big incentive to (a) cheat, (b) bend the rules for him. This is not in the student athlete’s long term interest because, again, it–temporarily–shields him from the consequences of his actions.
Second, by now the schools have an oligopoly power. If someone wants to play football past high school, they have NO choice but to play for a college or university. Yes, there are some minor league basketball teams, but they are not allowed to compete in a league with the colleges, and so are almost completely sidelined.
There certainly is another option for post high-school football players. There are approximately 500 semi-pro football teams in the US. I would know, as I play for one of them.
Granted, most of our players may come from college programs, but I’d guess that 30-40% of players have little to no college experience.
A few links of (possible) interest.
Thing is, a lot of people are honest about it. Just not the ones you hear about. Tons of kids playing football are there to take advantage of the free school. They know perfectly well that they aren’t going to be drafted if they can’t break the starting lineup of NW Louisiana State A&M U, and they do their best to use their opportunity to get a leg up on the rest of life. Or they use their opportunity as a subsidized party for four years. Either way, nobody’s being fooled, and they’re getting fair market value for their services.
Now, this doesn’t hold up when you’re talking about the top prospects at Florida State or Texas or Michigan or whatever - though even there if you can’t get to the top of the depth chart you have only yourself to blame if you still think you can make it in the majors.
If the players must be amateurs, then the only ethical practise would be to bar universities from charging for admission or broadcast rights or anything else. Either nobody should make money off of it or everyone should, including the players.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s not that simple. That presumes the Universities are profiting off the admission prices.
If they didn’t charge admission, they would not be able to afford the stadiums, the coaches, the generous scholarships. It’s a self-perpetuating system (better team, higher demand for tickets, higher ticket prices, which means more expensive stadium, more expensive coaches, to create an even better team…spiraling up and up and up). You could stop charging admission, but rather than honoring the true amatuer spirit of the sport and solving the inequities of the players not seeing the cash, you’d simply kill the system.
While a lot of money is involved in athletics, I don’t think in the end colleges “make money” on it. Revenue sports generally pay for non-revenue sports.
There is some truth to this, but several caveats: To begin with, most American universities aren’t very selective; Average State U has an acceptance rate somewhere around 90%. If you can graduate high school, there is a IA university that will admit you, jock or not.
Secondly, it’s almost hard not to graduate, if:
[ol]
[li]You’re just aiming for a C average [/li][li]You pick easy classes with easy teachers in an easy major[/li][li]You don’t hack anyone to death with a kitchen knife[/li][li]You have a personal tutor assigned to stay on your ass[/li][li]The school has a lax attitude towards grade inflation[/li][/ol]
Mind you, you’ll still be an idiot; but millions of non-athletic idiots graduate college every year. My point is that the number of athletes who are truly unqualified for college isn’t very high for the simple reason that the number of students in general who are deemed unqualified is very low. Heck, if you can’t go to State U, go to a juco, which are all open admissions, where classes are even easier, and a degree from which pretty much guarantees admission to State U.
I submit that there are very few instances where someone is genuinely incapable of doing college work (i.e. IQ < 85) and yet is capable of playing sports at a high level (keeping in mind that all sports require some intelligence); and that in those few instances, there are fewer still where the athlete is so exceptional that the school will risk NCAA sanctions for him. You can get nearly anyone through using perfectly kosher means.
The charge is usually that universities are looking to make money off athletes by offering a sham of an education and a piece of paper which may or may not actually help them in the future. But the reality is that most universities do the same to all their students.
I want to thank you for a pretty straightforward, honest post.
I work for a public institution, and my degree is in higher education, so you’re talking about my scholarly field and my profession. And while a part of me thinks I ought to be, I don’t know, outraged or insulted, or something, I’m not. I think you’ve hit the nail right on the head.
I just finished an MA and I’m adjuncting at Humongous State U.
Couldya tell? 