The dubious nature of the NCAA’s regulation of big-time intercollegiate football and basketball has been a frequent topic on this blog (see here, here, here, here and here), and one of the best examples of the hyprocrisy of that regulation is the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament. As Peter Gordon notes, the tournament is hugely entertaining, but also hugely exploitive, and he passes along the following passage from Lawrence M. Kahn’s article Winter 2007 Journal of Economic Perspectives ($) entitled Cartel Behavior and Amateurism in College Sports to make his point:
Big-time college sports programs appear to extract rents from revenue-producing athletes by limiting their pay and requiring them to remain amateurs. These rents are spent on facilities, non-revenue sports, and possibly head coaches’ salaries. On average, the two big revenue sports of men’s basketball and football run a surplus; however, college sports as a whole — including the non-revenue sports — report operating losses. Some evidence suggests, although not unambiguously, that college sports have positive indirect effects on public and private contributions. Moreover, sports success appears to generate interest by students that may lead to a modestly stronger student body. In this consumer-oriented era for higher education, universities need to maintain their appeal to future applicants, many of whom are future alumni or future voters for state legislatures, and having successful sports programs may be one way to do this. The popularity of college sports events and of schools with big-time athletic programs suggests that the idea of amateurism may have some market value. Arms race considerations suggest that society may gain from some spending limits on college athletics. From an efficiency point of view, these societal gains would have to be weighed against the losses caused by movement down the supply curve of star athletes.
Professor Gordon boils it down:
Paradox resolved. Exploitation, inefficiency, politicized anti-trust status and “consumer-oriented … higher education.”
Tom,
While you rail on college athletics you leave out a valuable perspective – the current and former college athletes. We can ignore the opinions of current athletes as these children are obviously too stupid to realize they are being so viciously exploited, but it would be interesting to hear from athletes who have the ability to look back at their participation in NCAA athletics and to ask them it they feel they received any value for the services they offered.
CM, I hope you don’t misconstrue my “railing” against the current form of regulation of big-time intercollegiate football and basketball with criticism of the sports, which I enjoy as much as anyone.
As for the issue of the athletes’ perspective, I suspect that, as with most things, you will find it all over the map. Certainly, many former college athletes who did not have the ability to play professionally appreciate the opportunity to be “paid” a free college education in return for playing while in school. Others simply wanted the opportunity to play for some type of pay for a few more years after high school and didn’t care much for the educational aspect of it. Still others, such as former A&M basketball player Rod Wright, feel as if they were exploited by the schools. I’m sure there are many other perspectives, as well.
Just to be clear — I have no problem whatsoever with universities being involved in promoting minor league football and basketball. If the universities believe that such an investment is good for the promotion of the school and the academic environment, so be it. But let’s be honest about it. Let’s allow the players to be paid directly, let’s allow the universities to establish farm team agreements with NBA and NFL teams, and let’s cut out the hypocritical incentives that are built into the current system. Not only will it be fairer for the players, it would obviate the compromising of academic integrity by the universities that is common under the current system.