The Shame of College Sports- a case against the NCAA
[Ed: PGB - Bumped for general awesomeness in the topic and the cerebral discussion that follows. This is a very good example of why the MGoBoard is great. Make sure to read the article before joining in on the discussion, if possible.]
Dr. Saturday linked to this (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-colleg… on the NCAA suggesting it:
"may legitimately be the most important article ever written about college sports. If not, it's certainly the most comprehensive, tracing the history of the NCAA from its humble, impotent origins, and making the most convincing case yet that the organization is not only the bastion of an exploitive, plantation-like system that violates antitrust law, but may in fact be little more than a basketball tournament with an empty office building in Kansas City. (Also: It includes a former coach describing his profession as "whoremaster.")"
I haven't read the whole thing yet (because I'm not one of those speed-readers), but it's both very well written and researched, and I thought it would be good to disseminate it to the masses for consumption and discussion.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:41 AM ^
Of course there are. They don't make the absurd amounts of money they make in college, but there aren't 85 schollies every year, over half at outstate rates, nor are there 85 matching Title IX schollies a year. Except for a very small coach's salary, most of the "labor" is volunteer. If you project that to Texas, or someplace like Valdosta GA, where crowds for games can be as high as 20,000, a program can make pretty good money even at $5 a ticket and $2-5 for parking.
If you live in Michigan and haven't been anywhere else, you should take in a game in the South. Even in FL, there is no comparison to MHSAA. You would really have to see the environment around some of the better programs to believe it.
Do they make money? You betcha.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
This is truly a devastating account of how the idea of "scholar-athlete" had its origins in the attempt to disempower scholar-athletes themselves, along with taking down many other myths of college athletics (including the "Teddy Roosevelt saved college football" myth).
And in additiona to being a tremendous historian, (his 3-part bio of MLK is the definitive biography of King) Branch was also a college football player at UNC.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
I liked how the NCAA's response to the Florida State scandal was smack a show-cause on the tutor who blew the whistle on her own violation.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
This too, seems particularly devastating...
The moral logic is hard to fathom: the NCAA bans personal messages on the bodies of the players, and penalizes players for trading their celebrity status for discounted tattoos—but it codifies precisely how and where commercial insignia from multinational corporations can be displayed on college players, for the financial benefit of the colleges. Last season, while the NCAA investigated him and his father for the recruiting fees they’d allegedly sought, Cam Newton compliantly wore at least 15 corporate logos—one on his jersey, four on his helmet visor, one on each wristband, one on his pants, six on his shoes, and one on the headband he wears under his helmet—as part of Auburn’s $10.6 million deal with Under Armour.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
I loved that part.
My favorite part, though, was learning that the term "student-athlete" was coined as the NCAA (successfully) fought a worker-comp claim from a widow whose husband had died from a closed-head injury during a game (you know, because he wasn't "working").
September 15th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^
I admit I didn't read the article, but I don't see why the NCAA should have to pay for someone dying on the field. They know the risks and they take them to reach an end goal incentive called the NFL. Most jobs, people do get compensation if they have an accident or die, but I find it completely different from playing football. The NCAA also didn't hire the guy to play college football, he chose to.
*gets ready for his post to be ripped apart, especially with the phrase "read the article"*
September 15th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^
This is an interesting area of law that is pretty well-established in most states. Employers are required to carry insurance to cover on-the-job injuries (failure to do so can subject principals of said company to PERSONAL liability!). The issue arises when a worker is being paid. Are you prepared to claim that receiving benefits like scholarships, room/board, etc. do not have a tangible monetary value and are thus not considered "compensation" under the law? I sat through hours of Workers Comp in law school and I am definitely not sure it is as cut and dry like you might suggest. And the NCAA sure as heck didn't either. They took affirmative action to make sure they avoided that determination.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
At what point is Congress going to step in and blast the NCAA to bits? If things continue to get "out of hand" (see Ohio and Miami [YTM]), I can see that happening pretty soon.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
What is holding colleges back from scrapping the NCAA and starting over? Is that simply more trouble than it's worth?
September 15th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
From my reading of Branch's argument, colleges like the NCAA just fine, because it allows them to garner profit from football and basketball while having to return only a bare fraction of that revenue to the athletes themselves.
So the brief answer to your question would be, "The universities' self-interest."
September 15th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^
Who's going to be the one to step up and say it though? I won't get all political by saying which things, but I think everyone in America has an idea or two about a government program that is hopelessly lost. Everyone can see this, but with entrenched interest groups and nobody immediately supporting your cause, why would a respected Senator or university do anything that isn't being demanded of them? Especially something as radical as stopping major sources of cash into your university.
If there were stories like this in the NYT and WSJ weekly and some investigative journalism (not ESPN) brought down on the NCAA, i have a feeling things would quickly change.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
So universities are, by and large, complicit. Wouldn't that require some sort of movement from students/fans/consumers of the product in order to force change? If that's the case, how realistic do people think that is. I would wager that most people don't spend a great deal of time thinking about the ethics of college athletics.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
Or a movement of anti-trust lawyers...
September 15th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
It's not realistic. It won't change.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^
- Entrenched, wealthy, respected interests.
- Federal laws (Title IX, ect) already on the books preventing some changes.
Vs.
- Small interest in radical change.
- Lack of mass benefit by said change.
Nothing is going to get done until someone in a position of power does something. As far as I can tell, basketball in Europe could end up being a real threat to the NCAA's pocketbook, but it's a ways off. Football could force member schools to change, but that probably requires a multi-billion dollar investment from the NFL or some other professional body for something that could very easily fold and is therefore unlikely. OTOH stories like this could help, as long as people actually act on them instead of saying "oh, that's awful" and then tune into March Madness or turn on NCAA Football 12.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
Most schools don't turn a profit and football goes to support having Olympic sports such as track and field, swimming, etc.
If you want to provide compensation to players, cut Title IX and avoid the forced funding of sports like women's volleyball.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
You didn't read the article either, did you.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
I did, I stopped when he compared college sports to the plantation.
Nobody forces people to play cllege football. It's one of the stupidest comparisons I've ever heard.
If you don't like the stipulations of getting a free education to play football, then blow it out your ass and go work at McDonald's.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
So you stopped 1/4 through the first of 7 pages.
The problem with commenting like this on an article you didn't read is that you have no clue what the author said. If you did, you would realize that nothing you've written in this thread applies to a single thing he said.
So why do you bother?
September 15th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^
I DID read the whole article and I don't see how it addresses his initial point: while the article talks a lot about players deserving "a slice of the pie", it entirely avoids the fact that most athletic departments are unprofitable. It makes a couple sideways arguments that coaches are overpaid, but if the school is breaking even or losing money on sports, where's the money come from to compensate players? And how does Title IX play into that?
Now there's a lot of stuff in the article about other player rights, which I mostly agree with. But since the whole concept of a "plantation mentality" revolves on the idea that universities and the NCAA are swimming in cash earned on the backs of exploited athletes, the fact that much of the money earned by schools by the revenue sports is used to provide facilities and support the non revenue sports is an issue that needs to be addressed.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^
What do you want them to do? Find a stepladder of some kind and risk their safety to get up there and change the rules?!
September 15th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
(if you can turn the Titanic around).
Treat sports as a normal degree. Get a degree in "Football" or "Swimming", etc.
Scholarships are 4 years and only revoked for not meeting minimum GPA or violation of University Code of Conduct.
Teams scholarship levels are increased to field a whole team with backups. (200 for football)
Freshman and Soph are to take normal classes (Math, Econ, Lit, etc.) and are limited to 6 credit hours of "Football": Football 101, 102, etc. which is classroom studies plus lab: 6 credit hours of "practice", with "game field trips". Football classes and practice are considered also work-study and are paid some hourly rate. Put 12 hrs x $15/hr or $180 a week in their pockets.
Junior and Seniors are allowed to major in the sport. 75% of the load is "Football" : practice, "Football Coaching", "Football Mangement", "Football Economics", etc.
Juniors and Seniors are allowed to have paid internships, much more than the Freshman and Sophmores. ($20k each?) This means 1/2 of the year is on-the-job paid training. Aug-Feb for Football. The classwork in in the spring and 1/2 summer. No different than an engineering major going to Ford and getting paid.
Programs are NCAA accredited and accredited by the pro entity (NFL, WNBA, WTA, etc)
The pro major sports leagues require the degree to participate - therefore college kids can't leave early. The NFL requires a BS degree in Football from an accredited university.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
I actually don't hate this proposal as it is at least honest according to why some people are in school via an athletic scholarship. Maybe a system where it can also be a "minor" so other "student-athletes" who want to major in something different can but can still reap some of the benefits of their student-athlete status.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^
This makes the assumption that colleges need to double as major revenue athletic franchises. What pragmatic good does your "Football Major" do for the 98% of players who will not go pro?
This isn't fixing anything other than handing kids a few grand over four years.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
So what is the solution? The current system has major flaws, but how do we fix it? I'm really interested in what your take is on this
September 15th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
I think the O'Bannon lawsuit seeking to eliminate the anti-trust exemption is a start.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
Okay, so sue the NCAA / BCS / Universities for anti-trust violations. Let's assume you win. Then what?
September 15th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
Well, I think that would force change in the items this addresses - it would allow student athletes a voice, representation, and bargaining clout.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^
That makes sense as a first step, but my real question is "what does the post-litigation college sports world look like?".
I think Title IX is a significant obstacle - you could eliminate many of the NCAA rules to allow players to get some compensation via endorsements, selling their likeness, etc., but they will never have access to the big bucks that the universities get because Title IX will prevent universities from paying players directly (at least not without paying women's swimming participants the same amount).
Keep in mind that all US professional sports have tight controls on wages (well, except capless baseball), contracts, and revenue distribution. These rules are agreed to by the player unions, which all incoming players must join , and one of their primary goals is to maintain competitive balance. The NCAA rules are more petty and arbitrary and the players don't have any voice at all in the rules, but I do think they go some way towards providing a reasonable level of competition. The post-NCAA world would still need that role filled or the product would suffer greatly.
So you could unionize college football and basketball players and give them a seat on the rules committee and a chunk of the TV revenues, but would such a union be viable? Who would lead the union? How would you keep the union from being dominated by self-interested agents and lawyers? Would the players agree to a world where revenue is shared between everyone from Terrelle Pryor to the scout team at New Mexico State?
September 15th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
Could you NOT pay players but allow them the rights to their own likenesses? Big schools will have advantages, but they do already. Allow the college players to hire agents/business managers who handle contracts for likenesses. The NCAA could regulate the agents/make the agents join a union or something.
The NCAA could give revenue from NCAA 12 to EVERY FOOTBALL PLAYER out there equally - that'd sure help. 12million copies x $60/copy / 120 teams / 85 players a team, that's
$75,000 per player per year. I know that's net and not all profit, but THAT would sure be a start.
It was brought up in a thread about Weaver taking less money - but just because the player doesn't take the money doesn't mean the money goes away. NCAA 12 is generating probably close to $30K in profit PER PLAYER. Right now the player gets none of that. The NCAA cashes the check - and pays for offices, salaries, etc. Does Emmert need a bigger paycheck? or should some of that (all of it?) find its way to the players?
September 15th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
I see your point and agree overall but the NCAA doesn't get all (or even close to all) the revenue from NCAA12 - they sell a license fee (and probably a royalty) to EA, who keeps the rest of the revenue. Same goes for ESPN etc. There's money there, it just may not be as much as you think.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
I went down to the $30k as a quick crutch. it may be as small as $1k per player, or whatever
But the fact that the NCAA gets some of that money, while the players get no piece of the pie is not right in my opinion.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
Agree. The trick comes down to how you spread that money around. If you only pay the football scholarship players and use the $35 million figure quoted as the Madden royalties in the article, you wind up with just under $3500 per player. But Title IX will likely force you to give that money to ALL scholarship athletes, reducing the amount to a pittance that will symbolically feel nice, but won't really change things. Even if you take all the money the NCAA gets (about $1 billion) and divide it up, it's probably still less per player than the value of their scholarships.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Where did you get the 12 million sales figure? I think it's closer to 1.5 M.
As was said below the licensing fee is a small percentage of the retail price. Your original number was about the same as the NCAA's total revenue from all sources. Maybe your revised guess of $1000 per player is in the ballpark. Giving 100% of that to the players is less than $100/month, not that significant.
There's Title IX to consider. The NCAA can't just pay football players. The money would have to be split up among every sport. That may seem unfair since football generates most of the revenue but it's not an NCAA policy, it's the law.
The NCAA could let players have the rights to their own likenesses. They obviously don't want to. The danger for them is two-fold, loss of revenue and possible effects on competitive balance. Would Nike pouring a fortune into deals for Oregon players be good for college football? Probably not.
If there's significant change I think that's the form it would take. As a practical matter I don't think the players would be able to negotiate their own deal with EA Sports. Aside from the need for a union, Title IX will keep the NCAA and schools from taking part in any deal that pays the players. NCAA Football 13 using more generic players is the likely outcome.
.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
example, they get millions in research grants, $$ for patents used in commercial product. None of the engineering students see this money unless they are a grad student getting paid.
Football gets millions of $60 grants every week and $$ for network contracts.
Some engineers will go on to be a Ford Executive and get millions others are laid off and out of work.
Some football players will get millions in NFL, some will be an assistant coach at high school making $30k.
The majority of football players and engineering students will NOT make millions.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
This reasoning is a mess.
You're right, most engineering students will not make millions. But there are outcomes between "makes $1,000,000" and "Works at McDonalds". Are we going to debate the likiehood of the private sector hiring an engineer at a national median wage vs. a guy who majored in zone-blocking? Please say we aren't.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
the fresh and soph have limited practice and playing time and least get an equivalent education as any other student after two years and can easily get an Associates or BS in whatever should football not pan out. Locking scholarships in for 4 years and making grades a requirement is key.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
I guess we disagree on the utility of a degree that's marginally less than a glorified associate's degree. Given that the athlete's "compensation", is, theoretically, their education, I disagree that watering it down is the answer.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
and thousands of kids that go to "big university" spend a few years trying to hack it, drop out and take their valid and transferable credits and finish at a smaller school or change majors. No different here.
If after two years they realize they cannot be a pro or do not want to go into coaching, marketing, etc in the sport they can transfer into another major or another school.
In fact they will have to be accepted into the major "football" after two years just as students have to be accepted into engineering school.
Sort of like bring the JV and Varsity concept back. "Son, you are not going to make varsity".
At this point they still have the majoriy of credits to finish with a degree.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
I think the other valid question is "how many athletes are in school just because they are athletes"? In other words, a degree in football may just be a glorified associate's degree, but for the player who wouldn't have a chance in hell of being admitted to a school but for his 40 time, what degree is he going to get while at school playing football that ISN'T a glorified associate's degree?
September 15th, 2011 at 8:09 PM ^
Or political science (my major)? Or Art History? Outside of grad school, these classic liberal art majors are not worth much (especially in this economy). At least with a "Football Studies" degree, you can coach, become a trainer, maybe joing the marketing side of a professional program (assuming you threw in some business classes to round out the "Studies" part of the major).
I see you point that "grad school" in "Football Studies" might be limited to the NFL (and that 98% of the graduates don't "get in"). But we kinda already have this by having a School of Kinesiology and having, oh, about 80% of our student athletes in it. They're alreay majoring in sports. They might even argue that they have better job prospects than a sociology major.
I dunno. There is a practical solution to this problem that the craploads of money being banted around obfuscates. Allowing athletes to major in their sports might be a part of it.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:22 AM ^
and are therefore better off than they would have been if they weren't offered a scholarship to come study football at the University of Michigan.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
I attended college to educate myself, and to study subjects that I was interested in, in hopes of getting a job in that industry. How is football different? Make football a major at the risk that you might not make it professionally.
Don't we take that same risk? Maybe we won't find a job when we graduate, maybe we won't be successful in our field, maybe we'll have to go back to school and try something else.
I agree this is a thin argument, because a degree is still a foothold in the professional world, and you can't exactly take a football degree into an interview at KPMG.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
Something Branch doesn't touch but is relevant is that the NFL and NBA (and their players' associations) have cooperated with the NCAA by restricting the ability of athletes to enter the draft until three and one year post-high school graduation respectively. Athletes with professional abilities (and we should certainly acknowledge that that's a very small percentage of players in each sport) are basically forced into a system where their ability to profit off of their abilities is severly restricted (as a thought experiment, imagine the endorsement money that Denard could make).
(This is particularly true in basketball, given that pro football has evolved in such a way that even most of the supremely talented athletes require 2-3 years of strength and conditioning training before they are able to compete.)
September 15th, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^
Just keep the blinders on and enjoy the games. We who are about to die, salute you.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^
I am sorry but plantation and slavery analogies are inflammatory, and seriously overlook the true harsh reality of a slave's everyday life. This in comparison with a football player who has a scholarship, with some living expenses, and the opportunity for training and exposure that may -- granted in rare cases -- get him to the NFL. At the very least if he couldn't afford the bus ride home or the movie ticket, he can afford a college education. (I don't think any slaves were given the opportunity for a free college education, etc.)
So now I will go back and read the rest of the article, past the slavery / colonialism part.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
People need to stop responding to a 2000+ word article after 300 words.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
My point is use of "plantation" and "slavery" in this context is really to sensationalize the author's message. However, given how horrible slavery really was: it's use in this context is an injustice to the original. It's not right.
If the author for example pointed to sweat shops, or pre-union early industrialization abuses, particularly with respect to the failure to pay worker's compensation in death or injury cases - then I am OK.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^
Being inflammatory's not necessarily bad. Given Branch's career as a historian (particularly his biography of MLK, Jr.) I'm sure those analogies are deliberately chosen to lead people to see college athletics differently. I think they broadly succeed, and here's why.
One interpretation of plantation slavery holds that the essential acts of rendering a person into property are taking away their ability to realize profit from their labor and exerting control over aspects of their lives far beyond the "workplace." The labor of slaves created value for which they were not, in most cases, compensated, beyond the necessities of remaining alive (shelter, food, clothing). In order to maintain slaves as slaves, plantation owners controlled activity that went beyond work: ability to move, choices of relationships, places of residence, etc. To defend this system, plantation owners and slavery supporters created an entire intellectual scaffolding that held that these conditions were for the benefit of the enslaved, whether through the introduction of Christianity, the kindliness of slave owners, or the "care" that existed within the master-slave relationship.
Arguing by analogy does not mean that college athletes are the same as slaves. It would be a stupid article if he was arguing that college athletes were truly enslaved. It means that they face analogous restrictions on profit from wealth creation and on life choices beyond their "workplaces" (hiring agents, signing endorsement contracts, profiting off their own images), and that defenders of the system trot out analogous defenses of the benefits of these restrictions to the restricted themselves. It's the argument by analogy here that moves the moral questions to the forefront of the article, that gives it moral weight, and leads me to some of the same questions that chitown is asking.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
There is another place that fits many of the same analogies to slavery that you point out: the military. Yet, like college athletics, thousands volunteer to join it every year. And that's the crux that separates athletes from slaves: they volunteer for their position and (unlike the military) can leave it whenever they want (the fact that the NFL / NBA won't let them play right away is the NFL / NBA's decision, not the NCAA's). A more accurate analogy would be an apprenticeship or residency (but that analogy doesn't generate enough hits).
Any rational discussion of this needs to avoid the slavery hyperbole and recognize both sides: the NCAA and member institutions do some shady stuff to make a buck, but student-athletes also have a lot of opportunities and compensation that the average student does not.
Comments