Play for Pay, Part I

This is the first of four posts regarding the issue of paying college athletes where I will attempt to address the main arguments of proponents of a Play for Pay system. 

1. Schools are making millions off athletes.

Currently there are 120 teams in Division I (FBS) football.  NCAA data from 2009 shows that only 14 of the 120 teams finished in the black for that fiscal year.  The median “net generated negative revenue” (loss) among the 106 teams that lost money was $10 million dollars.  88% of all athletic departments finished in the red, yet some advocates of stipends want to spend MORE MONEY.

Lets go even deeper into this argument.  The naïve and uninformed want to treat football as a separate entity of an athletic department.  It’s not.  Football by itself generally does well.  But an athletic department must manage all of the intercollegiate sports a school supports and comply with Title IX requirements regarding gender equity.  At many schools, football covers for sports that generate a loss, be they men’s or women’s teams.

There is no way a school could pay football players exclusively without running afoul of the Title IX gender requirements that students be treated equally and have the same opportunities.  So we are not talking about just paying football players, but paying EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE ON CAMPUS.  Where are these funds going to come from?

Which leads to my final point on the issue.  Who is going to pay for these stipends?  As in any business, when production costs rises, this is passed on to the consumer.  Why would college athletics be any different?  Tickets to the LSU v. Bama game are $70 face value.  For a family of four it would cost over $300 to attend the game with snacks and souvenirs.  Alabama can get away with that, but what about Tulane, UL Monroe or Southern Miss?  No one is going to pay that kind of money to see those schools.

Proponents of a pay system only look at the "star" athletes and giant programs without looking at the system as a whole.  Athletic departments must be looked at broadly to appreciate all the responsibilities these entities have.  The bottom line is that the funding is just not there to pay college athletes in addition to the scholarships they receive.  

The bigger question I will address in a later post will go beyond the practical issues and cut right to the heart of the matter.  What is the mission of college athletics?  Where do they fit in the mission of higher education as a whole?  Going forward, what do we want college athletics to look like?