Show Me the Money
This past year, Texas A&M received $750 million in donations, and it was not because of its Economics program, a dramatic increase in Rhodes scholars, or any other academic reason. Incredibly, this dramatic surge in contributions can be almost entirely traced to a single person: reigning Heisman Trophy winner, Johnny Manziel. Johnny Football, as he is known, is absolutely electric on the football field, making spectacular, nearly magical things happen weekly, and is almost as compelling a character off of it. If he has made the university all this money, how much is he taking home? As it turns out, Johnny Manziel is not getting a dime.
Throughout the past two months the debate over college athletes and compensation has resurfaced due to the recent allegations that Manziel received at least $7,500 in exchange for autographs. In a perfect example of the NCAA’s hypocrisy, this witch-hunt took place while their official merchandise website was selling Texas A&M jerseys with his number and the word “Football” on the back. The issue was quickly resolved, and Mr. Football was given an almost comical punishment, a suspension for the first half of A&M’s opening game against Rice.
This hypocrisy is not new. Back in the 1990s the famous “Fab Five” at the University of Michigan revolutionized college basketball. These five players popularized much of current modern basketball style, including baggy shorts, black socks, and custom sneakers. Michigan, of course, saw the marketing opportunity and started selling apparel mirroring the players’ gear. The Fab Five, despite being directly responsible for the culture change and the resulting dramatic increase in sales, gained none of the profit. In fact, they lived in poverty and were forced to borrow money to afford basic necessities. Fab Five member Jalen Rose summed it up best when he said, “I felt like a professional athlete who wasn’t getting paid.”
Some, including ESPN’s Jay Bilas, have valiantly crusaded against the NCAA for leeching off of their student athletes’ likenesses while the players receive no compensation. While the great “academic institutions” of this country have sat idly by and counted their cash for decades, the familiar cry of “pay the players!” is once again re-emerging. The solution is not as easy, however, as simply paying all student-athletes a flat fee. Clearly Johnny Manziel is more valuable to the school than the backup punter, so why pay them the same amount? There is no reason to. A better solution is a distinctly American one: the free market.
Players should be compensated according to market value, meaning that they should be able to profit off of merchandise and advertising that use their likeness. Under this proposal, they would not receive a salary from the school aside from their scholarship (roughly valued at $200,000 over four years). For example, Johnny Manziel could sign as many autographs as he wanted and make as much money as the market would allow. This would enable the most popular players to make the most money from their successes. Understandably, many might have concerns with this system, but there are very reasonable counters to the most pressing of these potential problems.
First, there is the traditionalist view that “student athletes should be amateurs and we must preserve the tradition of amateurism in college sports.” Please, give me a break. It is the worst kept secret (maybe of all time) that college sports, particularly football and basketball, are simply feeding grounds for professional teams. Further, college football in particular is a billion dollar industry with schools such as the University of Texas making over $100 million in revenue off of its team last year, much of which simply goes back into the program.
Some might counter by saying that the rest of that revenue goes towards funding other sports programs within the university, especially many woman’s programs which may actually lose money. The money can also be used to better a university’s academics. All of this may be true, but according to Forbes, Texas football made $77,917,481 in profit this past year. My guess is that this profit is still more than large enough to cover the cost of all the sports at the university, even if it were to take a hit from siphoning off merchandising revenues to athletes. Moreover, it is not like the academic reputations of any big football schools are dramatically improving—it hardly seems like that money is being spent on academic pursuits now. You know what expenditures that revenue does cover? The $5.2 million, which increases by $100,000 every year, paid to Texas Head Coach Mack Brown each year until 2020, as well as the $1,109,041 paid to Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds. Meanwhile, if a player can’t afford a hot meal and Mack Brown feels bad and buys him dinner, it’s an NCAA violation and the player will be suspended.
Another concern revolves around the notion that if you pay players of certain sports such as football and men’s basketball, then you would have to pay the student athletes in other sports, a claim that speaks to the anxieties of Title IX proponents. Unfortunately, whether for better or for worse, the sports that generate the most profit are men’s basketball and football. Under a pay-for-play system it would be hard to justify paying student athletes in any other sport. The system that I am proposing, however, operates outside of that concern, because any athlete can take advantage of the free market. If a company wanted to use former Baylor women’s basketball star Brittney Griner for an advertisement, they should be able to, just as a company should be able to contract with South Carolina’s Jadaveon Clowney. The market should dictate which athletes have the most financial success based on who can generate the most revenue for a specific corporation. Yes, the star quarterback at Michigan is most likely going to receive more advertisement money than somebody on the swimming team in any given year, but there is also much more demand for that quarterback.
The most valid concern, in my opinion, is the belief that if the free market were to be opened, the system would be tainted by boosters and agents who would intentionally pay enormous sums to the players through advertisements, autograph deals, and miscellaneous crooked ways of cashing in. But it is naïve to assume that this doesn’t happen already. For example, Oklahoma State recently found itself facing allegations of improper booster contributions, such as boosters distributing cash filled envelopes and paying one player $400 to take a Christmas tree out of an attic.
It seems that the most sensible solution to this problem would be to institute a rule requiring that players would be unable to profit from boosters of that same school. If somebody who gives more than, say, $100,000 to a school annually is found to be essentially paying a player, then such an action would be treated as a violation of NCAA rules, the same way that Johnny Manziel getting paid $7,500 is today.
Another legitimate concern is that the free-market proposal might corrupt the recruiting process—players might well go to schools that put them in the best position to make money in college. Yet, schools already try to out-do each other in methods that are as bad if not worse than simply highlighting for athletes how well-positioned they would be to earn a profit for their efforts. Look no further than Oregon’s $68 million new space age facilities, which contain, among other things, a barbershop and luxury lockers.
Letting college athletes profit from the free market is the smartest and most effective course of action. The players benefit according to their skill and marketability, and the universities benefit from increased attention to certain players. If the right precautions were taken, it would not corrupt the system (at the very least, not any more than it already is) and would draw even more fans to college sports. Lastly, and I think this is the most subtle aspect of this idea, it would encourage kids to stay in school. Players are commonly faced with the dilemma of staying in school for another year or making money in professional football or basketball to provide for their families. This system would allow many student athletes, who wish to stay in school longer and get their degrees, to do so while still making some money. At the very least, they will be no worse off than they are now. Hey, not everybody can be Johnny Football.