things kevin hates

I’m a big sports fan. And that includes college sports. I think most American sports fans could list a number of things they love about college sports: the NCAA Tournament’s Cinderella stories, the marching bands at football games, the fierce rivalries, and countless others. But if we look at the big-time college sports, football and men’s basketball, there can be no doubt that these sports are big business. Millions of dollars are at stake based on the performance of young men, most of whom are 18-22 years old. And the rules say that these men cannot be paid (except for tuition, a dorm room, etc.). The problem is, the two preceding sentences are at odds with each other. The most talented of these men are undoubtedly worth millions of dollars–they often turn pro and then receive gigantic salaries. And yet they cannot officially be paid. Obviously that is going to lead to a situation where many of them receive money (or other compensation) through unofficial channels, some shadier than others. Maybe it’s an easy job, maybe it’s an occasional lunch, maybe it’s a few $20s or $100s. Maybe, if you play at Miami, it’s a prostitute. The point is that it’s absurd to think that these sorts of things aren’t going to happen just because the NCAA doesn’t want them to.

But this isn’t a diatribe against sleazy boosters or rule-bending coaches or corrupt governing bodies. This is about the absurdity of the very notion of amateurism and its roots in the snootiness of 19th century England. The lazy landed gentry with their public school educations (in England, “public school” means “school where the really rich people go”) were playing cricket or various forms of football and didn’t want to compete against the working-class rabble. The people who had actual jobs couldn’t afford to take the time off work needed to compete at the highest level, so sports were, at first, exclusively for “amateurs” (i.e. the elites). In some cases, not only was getting paid to play outlawed, but in the case of rowing, anyone who was a “mechanic, artisan, or labourer” was not allowed to compete. Heaven forbid the factory workers with their big muscles should compete against the upper class. However, in the late 19th century sports such as soccer and rugby started to attract spectators (i.e. money). This led to a desire for better players, and in 1885 soccer’s governing body in England, the Football Association, officially allowed professionalism. Rugby didn’t handle things so well, leading to the 1895 split that still exists today: rugby league (which allowed professionalism) and rugby union (which, shockingly, didn’t officially become professional until 1995).

Meanwhile, American universities were a major part of the nation’s sporting landscape. What started out as occasional matches between schools morphed into big business. In the 1920‘s, for instance, Illinois’s star running back, Red Grange, parlayed his college football fame into a huge NFL contract. And we know what college football is like these days: year-round press attention, 100,000 seat stadia, millions of dollars in donations to schools, multibillion dollar TV deals. From the humble beginnings of a simple extracurricular activity, college sports evolved into what it is today. And yet, the notion of amateurism hardly evolved with it. To be sure, it changed somewhat; at first, even the idea of offering athletic scholarships was forbidden. But the very idea that amateurism needs to exist at all is absurd. Universities sometimes attract outstanding high school students by offering them stipends along with full scholarships; at the very least, why shouldn’t they be able to offer athletes a few thousand dollars a year in spending money? And beyond that, why shouldn’t they be free to offer athletes what they’re actually worth? Why should the talent of a Kevin Durant or Tim Tebow subsidize the scholarship of some no-name middle-distance runner or gymnast? The vast majority of college sports are wastes of money, but the NCAA requires schools to operate many sports. For example, Division I schools must offer at least 14 sports (with at least six for men and seven for women). Why? So that the NCAA looks like it cares about all those student-athletes “who are going pro in something other than sports.” Now, I know that Title IX is going to require male-female parity regardless of what the NCAA says, but why should colleges be forced to spend money on any more sports than they have to? Keep college football and men’s basketball, then field however many women’s sports you have to in order to comply with Title IX. If you want to have wrestling or diving or fencing, make them club sports, not sports that give out athletic scholarships. I’d agree that sports are a worthy extracurricular, just as a debate team or literary magazine would be. And schools should fund them accordingly. But if a sport can’t produce a profit, why should a school take money from the profitable sports in order to fund the unprofitable ones?

In many cases, those unprofitable sports mean that the athletic department at a whole runs at a loss. (And of course, even football isn’t a guaranteed moneymaker, especially in a down economy.) Often that shortfall is made up for with mandatory student fees; even a student who doesn’t care about sports may be forced to pay fees that prop up the athletic department. Some schools take in millions of dollars annually thanks to student fees. (Last year, USA Today did a big piece about student fees going toward athletic programs.)

I don’t want to slight the effort and talent of the college students who play the lesser-appreciated sports. I respect the commitment they have to their sports and to their education. I don’t blame them for taking advantage of the system as it exists now. But does what they do for their university equal the expense the college pours into their sports (whether in scholarships, or, even at the non-scholarship levels, in travel costs, equipment, stadium upkeep, etc.)? Of course not, or every single sport would be operating at a profit. If a college (or even an outside group) wanted to fund scholarships for athletes just as they might fund them for good students or oboe players or left-handed people or duck callers or duct tape tailors (I’m not making these up), then so be it. But the NCAA–you know, the guys that control that $11 billion TV contract to March Madness–wants to keep up the idea that the BCS star quarterbacks are student-athletes just the same as the Division III women’s back-up soccer midfielders, so they force these unprofitable sports upon schools.

There are a number of proposals making the rounds. Some want to give students a few thousand dollars per year so they can pay for food and other living expenses. Some go farther and suggest that we allow students to sign autographs or endorse products. But critics say that those proposals would undoubtedly lead to bidding wars: coaches would say to recruits, “Come here and we can get you a car” or “We’ve got boosters who will pay $1000 for an autograph session” or whatever. Of course that would happen. But I say: so what?

I see no reason why professionalism shouldn’t be allowed in college sports. And I know I’m not the first person to suggest this, but why even make the athletes be students? We know that the graduation rates for many big-name programs are jokes. We know that schools stretch their academic standards to take in great athletes who wouldn’t have any hope of being admitted on their academic merits. Just pay the star players the same way you’d pay a professor or janitor or anyone in between. If they want to take classes, let them, but why force them to? Why bother with letting them have only four years of eligibility? Why not let “pro sports” and “college sports” be the same thing? Sure, some schools wouldn’t be able to pay their players as much, but that happens in MLB or in countless sports leagues around the world and they all survive.

Athletes, just like movie stars or musicians, are entertainers. Why should one category of entertainer be prevented from profiting from their talents while everyone else is free to make money? Child movie stars who go to college aren’t prevented from shooting a few films over the summer. (Of course, many athletes can go the Michelle Wie route of being a professional athlete and going to college, but that’s impossible for football and basketball players thanks to the NFL and NBA’s absurd age restrictions.) It’s time to relegate the Victorian concept of amateurism to the dustbin of failed ideas.