<p>You are confusing BIG money with BIG profit. There is BIG money definitely changing hands.</p>
<p>There will be an important hearing today in the case brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon against the NCAA. Luminaries such as Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell have joined the case, which seeks compensation from the NCAA for the use of players’ likenesses in video games and for broadcasts of classic games. The plaintiffs are arguing, correctly, that NCAA members have colluded to limit players’ compensation. Today’s hearing is about certification as a class. If the plaintiffs win, there will be a class action lawsuit. Needless to say, the NCAA is fighting this tooth and nail.<br>
<a href=“Lawsuit Named for O’Bannon Has Other Critical Participants - The New York Times”>Lawsuit Named for O’Bannon Has Other Critical Participants - The New York Times;
<p>The problem is not the existence of sports on campus. Colleges have many activities that are supported through student fees.</p>
<p>The problem is how much money is taken from students (and taxpayers at public universities) to support sports. Only six universities have athletic departments that generate positive revenue. On the other hand, there are thousands of universities that subsidize sports through exorbitant mandatory student fees. These mandatory activity fees are used overwhelmingly for athletics.</p>
<p>The fees are a regressive tax - they are generally highest at colleges that have the most Pell grant recepients. Every student must pay them, even if it means borrowing thousands of additional dollars to do so. The best and brightest students, who are most likely to have scholarship opportunities, are at the large flagship universities (including the six self-supporting athletic departments) that have the lowest activity fees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One could argue that music, art and theater do not belong at universities. After all, the majority of the top musicians and actors never attended/finished college, and plus there are specialty colleges for music and art, so no need to include them on academic campuses. Since money is fungible, it would be interesting to see how much of each student’s tuition ends up paying for music, art and theatre departments, as well as extracurricular offerings by the colleges in those subjects, as compared to sports.</p>
<p>I personally think music, art and theater are academic disciplines in a way that sports is not. (Exercise science / anatomy & physiology / physical therapy might be an academic discipline. The sociology / history of sport might be an academic discipline. But playing football isn’t an academic discipline. Certainly watching football isn’t.) </p>
<p>Hey, why is there not an “AP Sports” offering? And why is it that most top colleges do not offer physical education as a major, or have physical education requirements with the same rigor that they require English, history, math, language, fine arts credits?
(if they do have phys ed requirements, they are typically something like a non-credit course)</p>
<p>MIT has a physical education requirement:
[MIT</a> Course Catalog: Undergraduate General Institute Requirements](<a href=“Welcome! < MIT”>Welcome! < MIT)</p>
<p>The amount of student activity fees spent on arts program is miniscule compared to sports. Some college athletic programs have budgets over $100 MILLION, with essentially every university subsidizing these budgets with student fees and tuition. How many colleges have arts budgets of even $1M?</p>
<p>Yes, ucb, that’s exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I didn’t say top schools didn’t have phys ed requirements. I said that some did, and they weren’t with the rigor of other distro requirements, and that’s exactly the kind of example you linked to. If they are “academic disciplines,” why are they not for-credit courses akin to English, history, etc.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m quite confident that my alma mater does, with a top notch music and top notch theater program. (Though they also do have big, if not wildly successful, sports.)</p>
<p>Coase, that’s a fascinating legal possibility. I’m going to look up the details of the arguments.</p>
<p>As a general proposition, I kind of agree with the plaintiffs in that U.S. law traditionally protects the likenesses of famous persons whose celebrity is a financial asset for them (politicians and similar folks excluded). But what complicates things for me as that all-expenses paid scholarships in big time college sports is a barter situation that the athletes go into with their eyes open, and receive fair trade in return. Athletes know that they’re going to be on TV, they know that the NCAA will require them to be available to the media, athletes know that they will be photographed virtually hundreds of times and that those photographs will be widely distributed, usually for revenue, especially by newspapers.</p>
<p>The connection of school and sport in the US is a meme of sorts, and it’s grown ridiculously powerful. It seems that many schools are afraid to not give sport the importance that our culture seems to demand. Having followed English Premier League soccer for some time, I’m not sure that US sports fans are any more rabid than their European counterparts are for their football, rugby, cricket, cycling and athletics. We just have this intrinsic association of school sponsored teams whereas theirs are more community based associations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by “powerful?”</p>
<p>Again, only 119 colleges out of 4,500 degree-granting US institutions offers Divsion 1A football (the potential BIG money kind). That is a relatively miniscule number. The vast, vast majority of college grads in America will never have had college football influence their college education in any way, shape or form.</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - do you mean that your alma mater spends $1M or $100M on arts? The point I was making was that arts budgets are a pittance compared to sports budgets at American universities.</p>
<p>As a reference, the University of Texas Athletic Department has a budget of roughly $130million. The budget for the entire Julliard School is roughly $130million.</p>
<p>I would also take exception to the fair barter principle. First of all, 100% of the football players in the NFL attended college. They do not have a choice when this is their chosen career field. It is a one-sided barter - accept our terms or else you cannot work. Also, the referenced lawsuit is limited to athletes who are no longer enrolled in college, yet the school and NCAA continue to earn money using the athlete’s name and likeness. It is clearly not reasonable for any 18-year old to sign away permanently his rights to earn money this way.</p>
<p>@Bay - I would argue that the problem of collleges requiring students to contribute hundreds or thousands of dollars annually to athletic programs is not lmited to Div 1A (actually Football Bowl Subdivision, FBS) football. One obvious example are Community Colleges that prepare academically non-qualifying athletes for moving up to FBS competition. At San Jacinto JC, roughly 20% of students’ tuition is used to subsidize the athletic program.</p>
<p>Further, even if your premise is true, the 119 FBS colleges have a disproportionately large number of actual students, since this sample includes almost all of the largest campuses in the country. This might represent only 3% of the number of institutions, but I would guess that it includes at least 30% of the students.</p>
<p>Bay, I think what starsky is referring to is the penchant for a number of people in the United States, particularly in the South and Midwest regions, to morph college sports fandom into a statement about geographic identity/culture and community. To be sure, in the Northeast and in America’s major cities, professional sports teams have often taken on this role. </p>
<p>The two major state universities in My State command fanatical loyalty from tons of people who have no actual connection to them because to stake your lot with one fangroup or the other is to make a statement about what you think the “community identity” or culture of My State ought to be. Just about every single in-state kid at my private LAC has two allegiances: the LAC team and one of the two major university teams, and for them it is a tremendously big deal and their lives are very much shaped by college football that doesn’t even happen at their college (and even at a little Division 3 program that isn’t even all that distinguished, football and athetics influence things–not necessarily in a bad way, but they do). </p>
<p>There is more than a passing similarity between this sort of thing and the way some ultras groups behave in European communities. The US simply doesn’t have a tradition of sports leagues with multiple levels that support very large and very small teams (compare the NFL with all the levels of soccer in the UK) and so college sports teams imperfectly satisfy some of that role. The overlap isn’t perfect, of course, but I certainly think that there is a lot to what starsky is saying.</p>
<p>You can play football for money without a college degree in Canada and in the Arena league. There also are NFL players who never went to college. And given the reality of physical development very FEW kids are NFL ready at 18. They need the time and investment of training and coaching that they get in college–something that would cost a fortune if done privately. See what parents spend to develop young tennis, golf, gymnastics talents. </p>
<p>[The</a> 5 Best Rated American Junior Tennis Academies](<a href=“http://volleycam.com/the-5-best-rated-american-junior-tennis-academies]The”>http://volleycam.com/the-5-best-rated-american-junior-tennis-academies)</p>
<p><as a="" general="" proposition,="" i="" kind="" of="" agree="" with="" the="" plaintiffs="" in="" that="" u.s.="" law="" traditionally="" protects="" likenesses="" famous="" persons="" whose="" celebrity="" is="" financial="" asset="" for="" them="" (politicians="" and="" similar="" folks="" excluded).="" but="" what="" complicates="" things="" me="" as="" all-expenses="" paid="" scholarships="" big="" time="" college="" sports="" barter="" situation="" athletes="" go="" into="" their="" eyes="" open,="" receive="" fair="" trade="" return.="" know="" they’re="" going="" to="" be="" on="" tv,="" they="" ncaa="" will="" require="" available="" media,="" photographed="" virtually="" hundreds="" times="" those="" photographs="" widely="" distributed,="" usually="" revenue,="" especially="" by="" newspapers.="">"</as></p>
<p>It is that very exposure that made them valuable professionals. Anyone that played in the NBA as long as some of those guys made more money than most college grads will ever see. It was a fair bargain. They got the best coaching and training money could buy and free college. What would Coach K charge for private lessons?? $1000/hr maybe. How many 18 YO kids could afford that? I see these guys as huge ingrates.</p>
<p>Several posters have mentioned that the vast majority of athletic departments do not produce a profit (from their TV rights, tickets sales, etc). </p>
<p>However, I wonder how much of a state’s total financial and general support of a university is supported by the good will produced by it’s athletic department in the general population. I also wonder how many donations to universities are made in part because of good will produced by their athletic deparments. </p>
<p>My guess is that state support for many large public universities and donations to both public and private universities are significantly larger as a result of their athletic departments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fortunately we have antitrust laws in this country, and price-fixing is a violation of the Sherman Act. Even the most conservative University of Chicago economist does not defend price fixing. As Gary Becker and Richard Posner note, the NCAA’s rules “are basically an attempt by the NCAA to suppress competition among schools for college basketball and football players, the two most lucrative and most watched college sports, and thereby increase the profits to schools from these sports.” <a href=“http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/the-ncaa-as-a-powerful-cartel-becker.html[/url]”>http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/04/the-ncaa-as-a-powerful-cartel-becker.html</a></p>
<p>Beginning in the 1980s, Nike paid NCAA basketball coaches as much as $500,000 per year to have their players wear Nike sneakers. They wanted Patrick Ewing to be seen in Nikes. If playing for John Thompson was such a gift, Ewing should have offered to pay him. Somehow that did not happen. </p>
<p>Why does Nick Saban, who was a mediocre NFL coach, make more than most NFL coaches? The reason is that he does not have to pay his players a market wage.</p>
<p>Nike also currently supports a bunch of AAU type basketball leagues for high school kids. At least they did a couple of years ago. Some of these kids are now already in the NBA at around the age of 20 -Bradley Beal, Austin Rivers (Doc’s kid), etc.</p>