-
by Jon Last
, Columnist,
October 8, 2019
Our research has long maintained that a key differentiator of college athletics is that institutional equity overshadows individual players in driving fan allegiances. The college-fan bond is
enduring, while the athletes that pass through the programs are secondary to longstanding traditions.
Sure, numerous breaches to the perceptions of the purity of amateurism have
generated rightful skepticism. But the overwhelming majority of college athletes across both revenue- and non-revenue-generating sports adhere, in principle, to the notion of the student
athlete.
Numerous voices, mostly from outside of sports, have amplified the outcry that college athletes should be compensated for their participation. These folks are quick to note that
students toil for free while lining the coffers of the colleges that they play for, ignoring the value of scholarships for many who would otherwise not gain admission if not for their athletic
achievement. Then there are the large subsidies that television rights fees provide to non-revenue-generating sports, creating further scholarship opportunities.
advertisement
advertisement
This debate has now come to a
head with the signing of California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, last week. Subsequently, other states have jumped into the fray to consider similar legislation.
On the surface, one can argue
that the Fair Pay to Play Act, which mandates that colleges in California cannot punish their athletes for collecting endorsement money for use of their name, image and likeness, seems tame relative
to other proposals that these students be treated as direct employees, entitled to free-market-driven compensation.
Beyond the grandstanding and posturing that accompanied last
week’s actions are deeper implications that threaten the entirety of college sports as we know it.
Bifurcation of current NCAA rules would create recruiting advantages and competitive
imbalance for those schools that can now offer booster-driven endorsement deals.
California’s unsolicited instigation also opens the floodgates for agents to infiltrate high school
athletics, propagating the fool’s gold of future pro careers that presently follow for less than 2% of all college athletes.
If an athlete out of high school is truly good enough
to go professional, he or she can do so, even in basketball where one can go abroad — and in football, where the soon-to-debut XFL is seeking to establish a toehold as a minor league funnel for
the NFL.
So why upset the apple cart of a beloved sports product enjoying unprecedented popularity?
As a sports marketing researcher, I find the strongest case against this legislative
interference in an understanding of what the customer actually wants. Our most recent sports fan study showed less than a third strongly agree that college athletes should be compensated for their
participation in D-1 sports.
The NCAA has commissioned a committee to report on the issue later this month. Members need to dig their heels in before we allow a vocal
minority’s subjective notion of “fairness” to tear down a cherished institution.