At a recent Kalispell Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Flathead Valley Community College President Jane Karas said that she’s often asked about the prospect of adding a football team, to which she responds, “We’re ready, whenever someone gives us $20 million.”
Karas was joking, but even if such a donation came through, it’s likely not enough. The school would need a new football stadium, budget for travel and scholarships and perhaps even money to pay its prospective athletes.
Last month, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that football players at Northwestern University in Illinois have the right to unionize. The school is appealing. Right now, the ruling only affects private schools, not state-run institutions. It’s also unclear what a union would mean, whether students would strike for wages, shorter practices, health care or freedom to be paid for endorsements. But it’s also not surprising it reached this point.
For years, the NCAA has been criticized for subjectively enforcing rules that govern athletic departments and athletes. And for years, the NCAA and athletic departments at larger institutions have reaped bigger profits (advertising revenue during March Madness exceeds $1 billion). To be sure, not all sports generate income for schools. Several of them are subsidized by others – specifically football and basketball – and often even those programs lose money at many schools.
Now current and former college athletes are beginning to challenge the traditional idea of a “student athlete.” Along with taking steps to unionize, they are asking a jury to strike down the NCAA’s restriction from making money on their image – think companies that use a college football player’s likeness to sell video games. The chorus of amateur athletes asking for compensation is only growing louder and, as Sports Illustrated’s Andy Staples wrote, “the (Northwestern) ruling should serve as the tipping point for the NCAA.”
The counterargument is familiar. Many of these athletes receive full-ride scholarships for expensive educations. And what about the sanctity of college athletics? Don’t these athletes play for the love of the game? Sure, but the NLRB official also made a compelling argument that they are full-time employees.
These athletes dedicate anywhere from 40 to 60 hours a week training for and playing football. That’s in addition to the 20 hours a week spent in the classroom and untold hours spent on homework. The ruling stated: “Not only is that more hours than many undisputed full-time employees work at their jobs, it is also many more hours than the players spend on their studies.”
I’ve attended at least one home Montana Grizzly football game every year for the last decade. I love college sports and agree that college athletes work hard. But it’s difficult to foresee a scenario in which the University of Montana would begin paying players. If that were the new bar when recruiting, then a more likely outcome would be eliminating some sports. The University of Montana has recently cut faculty following a drop in enrollment, and I doubt it would cut more to free up cash for athletes.
Another question to consider is how this ruling could eventually affect women’s sports and how schools would continue to abide by Title IX, which mandates gender equality.
The prospect of allowing student athletes to collectively bargain has made the country’s college athletic directors collectively squirm and prompted Esquire magazine’s Charles P. Pierce to declare, “this is the beginning of the end. The whole system of college sports is going to have to change or collapse.”
While that may seem premature, the era of the amateur athlete in big-time college sports appears on life support. And that may force institutes of higher education to reconsider adding more.