The Smush Parker Project

Of the many certainties of the college football season –Week One upsets, Notre Dame falling short of expectations and Joe Paterno nearly crapping his pants during a game – there are two that have been bugging me recently. 

The first is that there will always be college football programs within which players have illegal contact with agents, accept money from boosters and NCAA probes take place.  This season is no different: the University of Southern California, University of North Carolina and University of Georgia have all been the subject of much scrutiny related to illegal activities by players. 

The second certainty is that, even as many athletic departments are being forced to cut budget and whole programs just to stay afloat, the top departments in the country will rake in millions of dollars in revenue.  According to Street and Smith's Sports Business Journal in 2009, the University of Texas at Austin's athletic department grossed $120.3 million, followed by the Ohio State University at $118 million and the University of Florida at $106 million.  Yet, even with revenue literally flowing into these colleges' coffers, the ones most responsible for the earnings – the players – will never even sniff a whiff of this cash.  William Rhoden, a New York Times sports columnist, wrote a book entitled Forty Million Dollar Slaves, comparing professional athletes to slaves.  While this title certainly delves into the world of hyperbole, if there are even some who can make that comparison for professional athletes, what, then, are college ones?

Being a Division I college athlete is difficult.  Though my experience as such is limited to a year and a half of club crew here at Fordham, I've observed and talked with athletes not only at Fordham but also at other colleges.  Daily workouts, mandatory study hall sessions, tons of time in the training room – and that's just the offseason.  In-season, means two-a-day practices, strategy meetings and obviously, games. 

Now, clearly, paying athletes is something that at least 90% of colleges can't afford to do.  Either one's sport does not out-earn its cost (sorry, squash) or one is playing a popular sport (read: basketball or football, or perhaps random popular sports at other colleges, like lacrosse at Johns Hopkins) at a smaller college (like football here at Fordham).  But what about those athletes at larger schools who earn their universities so much yet essentially receive only pennies percentage-wise in the form of a scholarship?

Consider football at the University of Texas.  Of the athletic department's $120 million grossed, the football program generated $73 million.  Now, obviously, some of that money goes towards facilities, coaches and scholarships; yet, a good portion is profit.  In addition to ticket revenue, that income is comprised of Texas's portion of the profits from the Big 12 Conference's TV contract, which is likely somewhat similar to the Southeastern Conference's $132 million contract that is distributed among its 12 members.  Further, Texas likely has its own marketing and media contract that is similar to Ohio State's recently signed 10-year, $100 million contract.  Football Head Coach Mack Brown makes over $5 million per year. His contract is comparable to, if not better than, those of NFL head coaches.  Not to diminish what college coaches do, but Texas fans and alumni do not buy tickets to see Mack Brown patrol the sidelines; they do not buy jerseys that say "BROWN" on the back and they do not watch Texas games to see Mack Brown whisper plays into his headset and berate referees.  Fans watch the games to see the players play. 

The main reason that players are not paid, as referenced by the NCAA, is that college players are amateurs, while professional athletes are, obviously, professionals.  To pay supposed amateurs wouldn't be right, would it?  But that's just it: college players are paid: their full scholarship for attending a certain school and playing a certain sport a certain way is payment.  This payment, though, is so inconsequential compared to the vast amounts of revenue accrued, that it is essentially nothing.  It is not that colleges are not willing to pay their football and basketball players: clearly, they are, otherwise players would not receive scholarships.  Colleges just do not want to pay athletes what they are worth. 

I'm not saying that college athletes should be paid on the same level as professional athletes; sports are a pro athlete's job and life, while for college athletes this is not the case.  Yet, both college and pro athletes deal with the rigors of year-round conditioning, team meetings, injuries, etc.  For college athletes, this athletic routine must be balanced with an academic schedule that the majority of said athletes do actually work at.  Shouldn't the players receive at least some compensation?  If Texas's football program earned $73 million, shouldn't the players get a portion of those earnings? 

How the breakdown of payment would work is another discussion altogether.  Should scholarship athletes be paid more than walk-ons?  Should starters be paid more than reserves?  Should stars be paid more than ordinary players?  While I do think that there should be a performance and reputation-based aspect to the compensation – that is, at Texas, quarterback Colt McCoy would be paid more than the third-string free safety – this inequality shouldn't be comparable to the inequality between the top professional athletes and minimum salary earners (like Eli Manning's approximately $15 million annual contract and the league minimum of around $300,000).  Those athletes who are bigger draws for their programs should be paid more, but the difference should not be ridiculous.