In an article for Forbes, Jeffrey Dorfman argues that college athletics should not go professional and gives many good reasons backed up by economic logic. I understand the point of view of the author but I have to respectfully disagree.
To start off, he states that athletes “receive free tuition, room, meal plans, and some money for books and miscellaneous expenses. At the bigger, more successful universities, athletes also receive academic counseling, tutoring, life skill training, and even nutritional advice.” In addition, they also received “free professional coaching, strength and fitness training, and support from athletic trainers and physical therapists.” He estimates that these goods and services vary between $50k to $125k per year, depending on the school, and according to economists, any goods and services is considered pay.
I agree; but.
First, I question what he means by ‘more successful universities’ in this statement. Does he mean Alabama which won three of the last four BCS Championships; or does he mean the Southwestern Athletic Conference that had a seven point bump or the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference that had a one point bump in their Adjusted Graduation Gap three-year average while the SEC has a negative eighteen? I assume he is talking about BCS wins versus how many football players graduate.
Next, the author asks what about Title IX? Title IX is a legitimate concern and if college athletics or even a few selected sports turned professional under the umbrella of individual higher education institutions Title IX would create serious complications. With my proposed NCAA Pro-League individual professional teams would not receive any Title IX funding because they would be separate from their cooperating institutions so Title IX would be off the table. All other sports still under the control of the University of Georgia for example (except the programs that would go pro like football) would still have to abide by the rules set by Title IX.
The author then discusses a salary cap and “if there is a cap, then the best players may still be ‘exploited’ in the same sense that some people think they are being exploited now.” I agree that the best players would still be exploited because athletics exploit players at every level of competition but should rampant exploitation continue just because that’s how it has always been? To start off, college football makes a lot of money, and I mean a lot more money than it used to make one generation ago. Next, individual programs make a lot of money. Staying in the SEC, the University of Georgia made over $77 million during the 2011-2012 season in which they went 10-4, lost the SEC Championship game and the Outback Bowl to Michigan State, and were ranked #19 at the end of the season; not bad. Currently, players earn what I describe as a pittance, between $4k to $18k in actual take home pay, not including benefits and services. If young football players were making between $100k to $300k per year playing for the University of Georgia in the NCAA Pro-League I don’t think they would mind being ‘exploited’ because they are getting paid to play. It is hard to legitimize and defend a system where the University of Georgia made $77 million in one season while the take-home pay for all football players was less than Mark Richt’s salary.
At the end of the article, the author states again that the majority, or 90% of college athletics loses money. I agree that most programs do lose money and it would be difficult creating professional leagues, but there are people, and more than a handful, calling for professional college level athletics for sports like football and basketball. I don’t think anyone is expecting the NCAA to create professional indoor track and field, golf, or equestrian leagues.
The NCAA, the BCS, and I-A basketball need to do the right thing for themselves and their players and go pro. Create the NCAA Pro-League and let the free market be ‘free’ rather than having the NCAA and all of the ‘successful’ programs make bi$$ions while individual athletes make $housands.
Addendum.
In the comments section the author points out that basketball players can also go pro in Europe and China and football players can go to Canada. I find this funny because the other major North American sports; baseball, ice hockey, and soccer all have viable minor leagues in the US but for football and basketball, the NCAA is the minor league. The CFL has and never will cut out the BCS; a young player will still play four years at Georgia and then move up to Canada to play football if needed. Europe and China will never cut out NCAA I-A basketball; a young player will still play four years at Georgia and then move to Italy to play for an Italian team if needed. Using this argument is not valid.
Finally the author makes a comment about the free market and the number of sports at colleges and universities. I do agree that with the new budget realities the market is going to start cutting many different sports and athletic programs all around the country. But to call the NCAA and what colleges and universities do a free market is humorous.
No comments:
Post a Comment