Why The Exploitation of Division I Football and Basketball Athletes Will Likely Never End

It is no question that Division I athletes in football and basketball are exploited. They are unpaid, despite the large amount of money that both sports make. Their sports also are not funded proportionally because less popular sports get money from both of those programs. Looking at the salaries of the coaches, it seems that the colleges can afford to compensate their athletes for their efforts. There are other controversies in that both of those sports are dominated by black athletes, while the sports that are essentially free riding on their success are dominated by white athletes. But the exploitation comes from the fact that these athletes generate a lot of revenue, but do not reap any of the benefits. But if this exploitation were to end, it could be catastrophic and bring more trouble than the current situation.

One of the primary problems that would be affected by the removal of this exploitation would be that the already flawed collegiate ranking system would be overhauled. Each bowl game or every season of March Madness has some element of controversy. Certain teams deserved a bid that other teams undeservedly got. The choice for a BCS Championship contender is never always as clear as it was this season, and when that occurs, some teams will be left out. Non Big 6 teams are always shorted when it comes to playoff time. But when the players get some compensation, a stricter policy will need to be implemented. Take for instance last year. There are 6 different systems that help determine the ranking outside of  the coaches poll and Harris interactive poll, both more or less arbitrary. But last year, one of the systems had a flaw in the ranking, which did not affect the seeding, but it did mess up. And the system that messed up was the only system available to the public. So if the other 5 systems had a mistake, no one could know. But last year, it was the college getting the money, and to the college, the only thing that would be hurt is their pride. They can manage without the extra money from the revenue generated from the Rose Bowl or the BCS Championship game. But when you are giving money to the players, you are shortchanging them. The players are the ones robbed of the extra cash, not the college. This becomes a moral issue because these players are affected by the small difference of revenue between a small game like the Capital One Bowl and a big match-up like the Sugar Bowl. Right now, if they don't make the bracket in March Madness, they miss out on glory, which is unquantifiable, so we will live with that. But if they miss out on a payday, because of an arbitrary system, it is not fair.

Professional sports would grow into larger and larger international-based sports. An athlete that makes nothing for playing basketball or football in college would surely see the incentives, despite the risks, of going to pros. They go from making nothing to making at least $400,000 a year. But most athletes do this without completing their education, so if they don't make it in the pros, they have no backup plan essentially. But if athletes are paid for the services to the college, then they will see a steady paycheck in college versus a variant one in the pros. There will be players like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant who are talented enough to jump straight to the pros, but many other players would take that steady college paycheck every time. There are an overwhelming amount of benefits of paying college athletes. First you would end the blatant exploitation of these athletes. But it would prioritize education. If college athletes are being paid, then they would likely stay in school, so if their professional career falters, they have a backup plan. And since college athletes are being paid, they will not need to spend as much money on athletic scholarships, allowing colleges to reallocate the money into academia and research. But there is one massive con to this plan. This would completely ruin professional sports. There would be players like Rose and Durant who have the talent to jump straight to the pros without the issue of job security. But you have two dilemmas for other players without this security. You have players like Greg Oden, who though talented, are brittle. They would benefit from staying in college. If you are injured in college, you may miss out on your chance in the pros, but you can set yourself up to have a future in a profession outside of sports. But the other problem is that many players in the NBA did not have the talent to enter the draft out of high school. These are role players, such as energy guys like Udonis Haslem or sharpshooters like Kyle Korver or Robert Horry. There are defensive specialists like Tony Allen or Ronnie Brewer. There are career back-ups like T.J. Ford who can start, but are much more suited to help off the bench. These players are hit-and-miss and players expected to fill these roles may be better suited to stay in college and hone their craft rather than risk it all by going to the pros. This problem may not be as critical in the NFL where each team will always have multiple roles to fill or the MLB where the players can opt out of a contract or play in the farm system. But solving this exploitation problem will certainly draw some concern from professional leagues. They still have many sources to get new talent like international players and the National Basketball Developmental League, but it is not the same pool as the college system. Other special interest groups that would be angry at reducing the exploitation of these athletes would be the other sports programs. Take lacrosse for instance. Not many people watch lacrosse, even at Northwestern where they have one of the great dynasties in college sports. The only reason that they are still in existence is the revenue generated by the bigger sports. Lacrosse and other less-watched sports require the exploitation of these basketball and football players.

The most important problem is that it would affect the goals in the NCAA system. There are already problems in the NCAA, as documented by the Ohio State football debacle which led to Jim Tressel's resignation and the Cam Newton controversy. You can argue that now that players make money, they will not seek underhanded deals. But that is not true. Even though people make money, they will still seek to make more, especially if the player is talented. There is nothing keeping a player like Austin Rivers, the number 1 recruit of the 2011 high school class, from competing for a better price. A player like him could ask for more money because colleges are willing to give more. It creates the issue of equity in the NCAA. Should every player in the NCAA make the same? Probably not. Bench players and walk-ons do not deserve as much as a starter. But does your starting point guard deserve more than your starting center because of their talent levels? If this were a professional league, no one would disagree. LeBron James is a lot better than Mike Bibby so James should get more money. But does a player like Jimmer Fredette deserve more than his fellow starters because he is their best player? Is that the ideal that the NCAA wants to implant in their players? Colleges would also be forced to essentially bid on players. This would reallocate the money once again into the athletic department rather than academia.

Is the exploitation of football and basketball players bad? Yes, definitely. Do they deserve to be compensated for their efforts? Yes, certainly. But there is a difference between deserving compensation and getting compensation. There are ways to do this fairly and ways to do this efficiently. But as is the problem with many economic situations, it is difficult to find both an equitable and efficient way. So the big question is will the exploitation stop? In all likelihood, probably not. And that may be a shame, but that may be an inevitability.