Bowling for big bucks
Amateur athletics is wonderful, entertaining and disgustingly exploitative

By Allen R. Sanderson

November 24, 2008

With political polling and voting now behind us, as we head to malls and moms this holiday season, how about a quick survey to name the most exploited workers in the American economy? Typical knee-jerk candidates might be Wal-Mart employees, agricultural laborers, immigrants (legal or otherwise) and maybe even the U.S. taxpayer. But I have a fifth candidate.

If one wants to know who really is being exploited—defined as contributing the most revenue to his employer compared with what he is being paid for his efforts—we have to go no further than our living rooms. For there, starting with the appropriately dubbed Congressional Bowl in our nation's capital Dec. 20 and ending in Miami on Jan. 8 with the Bowl Championship Series championship game, is the vast array—34 in all—of college football bowl games.

In those athletic contests, undergraduate football players—a.k.a. student-athletes— will entertain TV audiences and stadium crowds. And for what? A souvenir that implicitly says, "My university went to Pasadena and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." For while the quarterback's institution will bring home $10 million (and receive several hours of free advertising), the coach will see a sizable financial boost and fans will extend their holiday pleasures, the player will get just coal in his stocking.

But doesn't he benefit at all? The experience? The exposure (for those harboring fantasies of a professional career down the road)? Of course he does; he was not drafted or a victim of some human-trafficking entrepreneur. And a week in Arizona or Texas in December can warm the soul. But his gain pales in comparison with that of others who have a stake in intercollegiate athletics. We have lengthened the college football season from 10 to 12 games and expanded the bowl schedule. (The college basketball season and tournament have grown even more dramatically.)

The university sells more tickets, and the player exposes himself to injury and academic probation for two more weeks—for the same pay: room, board, tuition, fees and a little walking-around money. The coach gets $2 million in salary, a car, a country-club membership, a TV show and a summer camp. And if he—the coach—wants to bolt for another, more lucrative offer? No problem. But if the player wants to transfer to another university or try his hand and luck in a professional league instead? Big problem. A month before the first kickoff, there is the annual clamoring among ardent fans and sportswriters for a playoff system to determine the true national champion. Why not? This low-cost addition just means exploiting these kids for three more weeks.

If an accounting graduate could get only one offer, or an identical offer from national accounting firms that had colluded to set the salary, wouldn't he or she still benefit?

Of course, but not nearly as much as if those firms had to bid against one another for his or her services in an open market. The college president, professor, coach or even a secretary can play off one institution or employer against another and actually skip out early. None would fall into the "exploited" category unless collusion—illegal in those circumstances—played a role.

But what if the player wants to leave college early and decides to get onto a new stage—the National Football League or the National Basketball Association? As Jerry Seinfeld might blurt out, "Not that there's any wrong with that." In the sporting world, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the NFL and NBA have a cozy working understanding and put up roadblocks. Are these universities and professional leagues really interested in the health and "human capital" acquisitions of star athletes or, more likely, only the costs associated with training them?

To add more complexity, observe closely the introduction of the starting lineups in bowl games. Whereas the coaches, students and fans in the stands are overwhelmingly white, the players—the ones actually producing the product that generates the revenues—are disproportionately African-American, young men drawn from inner-city neighborhoods and families with modest circumstances. At least Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor; we're doing it backward.

Then come March—and culminating in Detroit on April 6—we'll do this all over again: March Madness, the NCAA's men's basketball tournament. Sixty-four teams, $600 million in television broadcast revenues for the NCAA and its members and more caps and T-shirts for the players.

Our selfish interests in having athletes put in their years of indentured servitude so we can watch quality college sports, at a cost to them of half their productive earning years and several million dollars in lost earnings for the few who manage to move into the professional ranks, should be laughed out of courts, stadiums and sports bars. If college students want to protest something meaningful for a change, let them stage a sit-in on the 50-yard line or at center court until their institutions stop exploiting these young men and return to their academic missions.

Allen R. Sanderson teaches economics at the University of Chicago.

Here's my proposal for a compromise that I've floated around before (not sure if I've posted it at RM before or not):

College athletes can generate as much money as they want from endorsements or whatever else. However, there should be a limit as to how much of that money the athlete itself can actually keep. The remainder of the funds should then be distributed as follows:
--Contribution to the rest of the players on the team who have not surpassed the cap, up to their own cap limit
--Contribution to the school's general athletic fund
--Contribution to the school's general academic fund

This way, the players, the team, and the school all benefit from additional funds, and it should also help develop closer bonds between each.

don't college athletes get scholarships?
At the cost of tuition at your universities, it's good pay.

I know we've done this before, maybe it was in Sports though. The simple answer is no.

while that may be the case, the athletes in the big sports - football and basketball - generate far more value for the schools than is reflected in their tuition and compensation packages.

Allen R. Sanderson teaches economics at the University of Chicago.

I know we've done this before, maybe it was in Sports though. The simple answer is no.

I like GH's answer. I don't think they should be paid by the university, but I like the idea of their being able to split endorsements with the school/program.

This is a terrible idea. These guys need to be getting an education in the time they can. That way if the NFl doesn't work out they have something to fall back on. Honestly, these guys are already given the key to the city, I fail to see how they need any more money thrown their way. If anything it would only make character problems worse and make the college game more like the professional leagues, which is the last thing anybody wants.

Doing endorsements takes time. Someone like Michael Crabtree already has enough to do without worrying about scheduling the Nike spot. Frankly, the whole idea is ridiculous.