America’s
colleges and universities are facing a showdown regarding the future of
intercollegiate sports. They are dealing with several lines of attack, all
pursued at least in part as result of growing dissatisfaction with the unfair
treatment of student athletes in Division 1 programs, especially those in
football and basketball. Questions have continued to mount about the time
requirements imposed on student athletes and about their apparent financial
exploitation.
There
has been a constant debate about the role of athletics in America’s colleges
and universities since the first sports teams were fielded in the mid-1800’s. Corrupt
and abusive behavior became so bad by the early 20th century that
President Theodore Roosevelt threatened to initiate federal intervention if
colleges and universities did not clean up their act. This was the impetus for
the creation of the National College Athletics Association.
The
NCAA ever since has been the major vehicle for managing the world of
intercollegiate sports. Challenges to its authority and effectiveness were
limited during most of the last century. As television became a more pervasive
factor in sports, that began to change.
In
1984 the NCAA lost its control over television rights in college sports. The
Oklahoma University Board of Regents had sued the NCAA. The case went all the
way to the US Supreme Court which ruled that the institutions controlled those
rights and profits. The decision provided a major boost to the growth of big
time college athletics.
As
result of concerns over this development, in 1989 the John S. and James L.
Knight Foundation created the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. To
co-chair the commission, the foundation selected two well-respected higher education
leaders, William C. Friday, former University of North Carolina president, and
Father Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of Notre Dame. The commission released
three seminal reports:
Keeping
Faith with the Student-Athlete: a New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics,
A
Solid Start: A Report on Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics, and
A
New Beginnings for a New Century: Intercollegiate Athletics in the United
States.
These
reports focused on reducing expenditures, improving prospects for student
athletes and insisting college CEOs exercise greater control over
intercollegiate athletics. A number of reforms were implemented during this
period, including raising admission standards for student athletes and limiting
the number of contests and practices.
During this time it was my privilege to serve on the NCAA’s Presidents Commission as a representative of Division II institutions. The 40 member commission did not have governance authority, but its advisory opinions did carry considerable weight. In general, the commission was sympathetic to the Knight Commission recommendations.
Unfortunately,
many of the reforms inspired by the Knight Commission reports have been
emasculated in the past twenty-five years by an overwhelming flood of money,
much of it from media sources and sports clothing and equipment companies. Most
of the money flows to the 65 institutions in the five major athletic
conferences, but they share very little of their largess with the student
athletes who are so critical to their operations.
Tragically,
many smaller campuses seek to emulate the large corporatized programs without
the necessary resources or prospects. Not only is the educational mission of
these institutions undermined, but their students foot the bill for such
reckless ambition.
The
crisis is two-fold. On the one hand, money is an issue. What is fair
compensation for student athletes who participate in Division 1 football and
basketball programs, some of which generate significant dollars? Players must
invest long hours for games and practices, plus risk possible injury.
Scholarships which are rigidly restricted fall woefully short of reasonable
remuneration, especially when compared to the salaries of coaches.
Money
is also an issue with regard to how intercollegiate athletics are funded. According
to NCAA data between 2005 and 2019, only 24 to 29 schools in the Football Bowl
Subdivision generated sufficient revenue to cover expenses. All others, including
those in the Football Championship Subdivision and other Division 1 institutions
that do not play football, ran deficits and had to be subsidized by either
student fees or direct institutional support.
Maintaining
the legitimate place of intercollegiate athletics in American higher education
is the other aspect of the crisis facing colleges and universities. Although I
was not an athlete during my undergraduate years at Wofford College in the late
‘50s, I considered the sports program a significant feature of my college
experience. Athletes were well integrated within the student body. They were
found in every fraternity. In three of the four years I was an undergraduate at
Wofford a student athlete was president of student government.
Sadly,
this level of integration with the general student population is not the norm
for intercollegiate athletes today, especially at NCAA Division 1 programs with
their excessive practice and travel requirements. The educational mission is
even irrelevant in some programs where players are recruited with the obvious
expectation is that they will not become sophomores, much less graduate.
These
issues are coming to a head soon.
California
authorities in October 2019 passed legislation requiring that student athletes
be able to profit from the use of their likenesses, sign endorsements and hire
agents. Ten other states have passed similar legislation, including South
Carolina.
Initially,
the NCAA opposed such action, but apparently seeing the handwriting on the
wall, they have now pledged to issue relevant guidance for student athlete
compensation by July. The organization has also argued before both the courts
and Congress that it, the NCAA should continue to exercise authority over compensation
for student athletes. The argument has not been well received in either
quarter.
Two
matters are bothersome about existing proposals.
One,
the only beneficiaries of current legislative proposals would likely be the top
players in the various programs. Justification for legislation was frequently
based on the assumption that competition for “blue chip” players required it. But
football and basketball, and many other intercollegiate sports, are “team”
endeavors. What happens to team spirit when rewards go only to the few “star”
players?
Secondly,
there seems to be no discussion about ratchetting down the level of commitment
to big time athletics. The idea of keeping intercollegiate programs within the
context of the overall college experience has been lost in the quest for a
mythical pot of gold. Restoring sports schedules
and practices to reasonable time frames would return some credibility to the “student”
in student athlete. Placing strict limits on the imposition of student athletic
fees and on the diversion of institutional resources would restore educational
priorities.
Colleges
and universities should take the initiative in addressing the problems of
intercollegiate sports. For some it may be just a matter of economics. It would
be better viewed as a matter of fairness and academic credibility.
