I’m not an SEC football fan so I am not particularly disturbed by the situation involving Georgia Bulldogs player and (former) Heisman hopeful Todd Gurley. However, his case once more brings up the question of hypocrisy in NCAA sports, particularly in football. During the 2010-2011 season, the University of Georgia’s football program made over $52 million in profit—the third most profitable behind the programs of the University of Texas and Penn State University (no wonder the latter didn’t fight the fine over the Sandusky case).
Of course, some of that profit is
required by Title IX to be distributed to other less profitable sporting
endeavors, but there is no reason to believe that those numbers haven’t
improved for Georgia since then. And the school and the NCAA are in a tizzy fit
over one of their best players making a few hundred dollars over some autographs?
I must admit that hypocrisy isn’t just over huge profits
and the NCAA. Take a load of the self-righteous hypocrite who “outed” Gurley: A
dealer who claimed to have paid Gurley for a red item that he is seen in a very
grainy video signing from inside a car. This dealer contacts someone from the rumor-mongering
sports blog SB Nation in which he
says he wants no “compensation” for his story; he’s just a “good” citizen who
engaged in a little illegal activity on the side—except, of course, he doesn’t
want to take any responsibility himself:
“Just
want someone to leak this story that's deserving. If you have any interest,
give me a call or email. I attached a photo of him in my car signing a mini
helmet that I just sold last week on my eBay store. All I ask is some privacy
until we can touch base. I live on Georgia and would (be) crucified if my name
was released. The video is about 5 minutes long but doesn't show the money
exchange.”
“To whom it may concern” turned out to be SB Nation bloggers Spencer Hall and
Steven Godfrey—assuming they are the “we” in “After verifying the tipster's identity, and that this person has sold Gurley-autographed
gear on eBay under the name provided, we
let it drop, because the purpose of this website is not to enforce the NCAA's
insane bylaws. On the contrary, we're all for players making money, and are
thus editorially supportive of those bylaws' erosion.”
Thanks
for advancing the “cause.” Think they
are not doing this for money? Don’t they get paid for revealing scurrilous
information to ruin people’s live? “We know that someone on the internet
really, really wanted everyone to know that Todd Gurley was allegedly breaking
the NCAA's rules. And now, over the gigantic princely sum of $400 in allegedly
sold signatures, everyone does.” I bet they feel real good about being taking “responsibility”
for that action.
The NCAA and
the universities have absolutely nothing but shit-covered fingers in all of
this. In 2011, The Atlantic Monthly
published a piece by Taylor Branch entitled “The Shame of College Sports,” in
which he detailed how universities were “selling their souls” in search of
greater and greater profit at the expense of so-called “student athletes.” When
confronted by this in 2001during testimony by an agent specializing in sporting apparel contracts
with big-name athletes before the Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics, these so-called reformers became discomfited and attacked the messenger with a question accusing him of denigrating
the supposed lofty morals of higher education. However, the agent shrugged off
their hypocrisy, asserting that “You can be very moral and righteous in asking me
that question, sir, but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to
turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”
Branch pointed out that is more
true today than back then; “Corporations offer money so they can profit from
the glory of college athletes, and the universities grab it. In 2010, despite
the faltering economy, a single college athletic league, the football-crazed
Southeastern Conference (SEC), became the first to crack the billion-dollar
barrier in athletic receipts. The Big Ten pursued closely at $905 million. That
money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise,
licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from
television contracts.“
Educators are the first cry foul at the notion of redress.
“Amateurism is the
whole point, they say,” Branch writes. “Paid athletes would destroy the
integrity and appeal of college sports. Many former college athletes object
that money would have spoiled the sanctity of the bond they enjoyed with their
teammates. I, too, once shuddered instinctively at the notion of paid college
athletes.”
Now he sees things differently,
and there are a few who see the mendacity and even unfairness of this system
clearly enough. “Don Curtis, a UNC trustee, told me (Branch) that impoverished
football players cannot afford movie tickets or bus fare home. Curtis is a
rarity among those in higher education today, in that he dares to violate the
signal taboo: ‘I think we should pay these guys something.’”
Branch noted that while “corporations
and universities are enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young
men,” their status as ‘student-athletes’
“deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution”—which
contains the “unmistakable whiff of the
plantation”—as in slavery. Sure, many if not most are on scholarship with their
tuition and board paid for, but this funding comes out of athletic department
revenue, not the university’s own funds. For successful and profitable football
and (men’s) basketball programs, this is just part of the usual cost of running
a “business.” The problem for athletes, of course, is that it is just like
being in the Army—except without pay to spend on furlough.
Branch points out that the game
of football was first devised by “intellectuals” in the late 19th Century,
who decided that it was in the sporting arena where young men could keep from
becoming “soft” from all the amenities of technology, like the train and motor
vehicle. Still, the initial violence of the sport with only a bare minimum of
rules did turn many “intellectuals” against football. Harvard University
president Charles Eliot intoned that “Deaths and injuries are not the strongest
argument against football…cheating and brutality are profitable is the main
evil.” That such twisted moral and ethical standards could prevail is
interesting enough—even seemingly in play today. Yet football was so popular
even at Harvard that “In 1903, fervent alumni built Harvard Stadium with zero
college funds. The team’s first paid head coach, Bill Reid, started in 1905 at
nearly twice the average salary for a full professor” notes Branch.
Although
something akin to the NCAA rules committee had been established, it had no real
authority for decades. “In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation made headlines with a
report, ‘American College Athletics,’ which concluded that the scramble for
players had ‘reached the proportions of nationwide commerce.’ Of the 112
schools surveyed, 81 flouted NCAA recommendations with inducements to students
ranging from open payrolls and disguised booster funds to no-show jobs at movie
studios. Fans ignored the uproar, and two-thirds of the colleges mentioned told
The New York Times that they planned no changes. In 1939, freshman
players at the University of Pittsburgh went on strike because they were
getting paid less than their upperclassman teammates.”
It
wasn’t until 1951 that NCAA began to “gain control” of college sports. This was
done by new executive director Walter Byers, who took advantage of some
particularly outrageous scandals of the time. Although the NCAA did not have
the legal power force universities to obey it, once Byers persuaded the
University of Kentucky dean to accept a penalty against the school’s
(all-white) basketball team to “restore public support,” the NCAA became the
arbiter of morality in college athletics virtually by default.
Nevertheless,
there was frequent clashes between the NCAA and schools with major athletic
departments, and in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 decision NCAA v. Board of
Regents of the University of Oklahoma, it struck down the NCAA’s ability to
“spread” the wealth from television contracts evenly to all schools, regardless
if they had a football program or not. Any pain the NCAA might have suffered,
however, was mitigated by the huge financial windfall generated by the expanded
“March Madness” format of the NCAA basketball tournament.
Byers
never ceased battling the “majors” for control of athletics, and by the time he
stepped down in 1987 he proclaimed that amateur athletics was a fraud. Despite commissions to reduce financial corruption
and banning educationally “incompetent” athletes, things only seemed to get
worse, rather than better. Big time college sports was a cash cow that had
broken out into the range with only s few cowboys to round up the most
vulnerable. Eventually the bad publicity of media reports prompted university
presidents to take control of sports governance away from athletic departments.
But this did not stop the flow of cash; all it did was allow “academic” types
to wax self-righteous about athletics.
And
yet the whole basis of the NCAA’s power is based on a fraud—the concept of the “student
athlete”—while schools continue to enrich themselves at their expense. Even the
academic types knew the value of free advertising that a top sports program
brought a school; very often a student would attend a particular school because
it had a well-known football program. Donna Shalala was a fan of sports, and
when she became chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, one of her first
moves was to push to improve the moribund football program—the result of which
was the hiring of Barry Alvarez as coach; almost overnight, the Badgers went
from Big Ten doormat to Big Ten powerhouse, winning three Rose Bowls. It
suddenly became a “major” school for something other than mere academics.
But
the hypocrisy continues. Even when the likenesses of “student-athletes” are used
to make the universities money, the athletes don’t see a dime of it. There is
even a clause in the NCAA’s Student Athlete Statement, that forces the athlete
to allow his “name or picture to promote” NCAA games and events. Even their
parents can’t buy them a meal, because it breaks NCAA “rules.”
Branch
also assailed the NCAA’s “moral logic”
that is “hard to fathom” in the matter that the NCAA can “ban personal messages on the bodies of the
players (such as Tim Tebow’s Bible verses), and penalizes players for trading
their celebrity status for discounted tattoos—but it codifies precisely how and
where commercial insignia from multinational corporations can be displayed on
college players, for the financial benefit of the colleges.” During the Cam
Newton controversy, in which he (or his father) was accused of accepting money
to come to Auburn, he wore “at least 15
corporate logos—one on his jersey, four on his helmet visor, one on each
wristband, one on his pants, six on his shoes, and one on the headband he wears
under his helmet—as part of Auburn’s $10.6 million deal with Under Armour.”
Worse,
“student athletes” essentially have no due process rights when it comes to the
NCAA and its witch-hunting antics. Bylaw 19.7 was passed to “intimidate college
athletes in disputes with the NCAA” and serve as an “obstacle to due process.”
One NCAA lawyer opposed to this rule called it a way “to crush these kids.” In
a 2004 congressional hearing, men’s athletics-hating infractions-committee vice
chair Josephine Potuto claimed that the NCAA is “not bound by any judicial due
process standards,” and baldly defended its irrational unfairness by asserting
its enforcement procedures “very likely exceed” that of other public entities. Potuto went further, claiming that “athletes have
no standing for due process because they have no substantive property or liberty
interest. The opportunity to play intercollegiate athletics does not rise to that
level.”
Branch
dryly noted “To translate this from the legal jargon, Potuto used a circular
argument to confine college athletes beneath any right to freedom or property
in their own athletic effort. They have no stake to seek their rights, she
claimed, because they have no rights at stake. Potuto’s assertion might be
judged preposterous, an heir of the Dred Scott dictum that slaves possessed no
rights a white person was bound to respect. But she was merely being honest,
articulating assumptions almost everyone shares without question. Whether
motivated by hostility for students (as critics allege), or by noble and
paternalistic tough love (as the NCAA professes), the denial of fundamental due
process for college athletes has stood unchallenged in public discourse.”
Earlier this
year, University of Maryland business professor Peter Morici, wrote that
universities “monopolize” the services of players, deny them “fair
compensation,” and basically control their lives. Nevertheless, he argued
against a wholesale system of paying players, since “The top 30 or 40
programs in each college sport will be able to pay top salaries to attract the
best athletes, and the other universities will not be able to effectively
compete. Title IX would compel universities to pay women athletes what they pay
men in football, basketball and other sports, and this would bankrupt virtually
all Division I athletic programs.”
According to Morici, the
“solution” would be to “permit the top 30 or 40 major universities to form
football and basketball teams ‘affiliated’ but legally separate from their
institutions. Those private corporations could partner with a major pro
franchise, be financed by game day revenues, TV rights and contributions from
their pro team, and pay universities rent and royalties. Pay those athletes,
offer the opportunity to earn a degree, but don’t require them to enroll if
they are not capable or disinclined. By disengaging those elite college
football and basketball players from university activities, the potential to
corrupt admissions and faculty would be greatly reduced, and a broader range of
gifted young athletes would have the opportunity to develop their talents.”
In other words, set-up a system
where low-performing “students” who are not in college to earn a degree, but
because they are forced by the rules to spend a year or two in college before
going “pro,” can play on a college team that has the same relationship to the
school as a professional team has for a city.
The bottom
line is that college athletics is rife with hypocrisy. Everyone is using or
being used. Perhaps the NCAA should be taken out of the “judging” business
altogether, since the whole basis of its authority is an outrageous sham—and it
is the athlete who is being used and abused. It is only the fortunate few who
eventually make a professional living out of it who survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment