November 11, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor Serfs of the Turf By MICHAEL LEWIS Berkeley, Calif. THE three most lucrative college football teams in 2005 — Notre Dame, Ohio State and the University of Texas — each generated more than $60 million for their institutions. That number, which comes from the Department of Education, fails to account for the millions of dollars alumni donated to their alma maters because they were so proud of their football teams. But it still helps to explain why so many strangers to football success have reinvented themselves as football powerhouses (Rutgers?), and also why universities are spending huge sums on new football practice facilities, new football stadium skyboxes and new football coaches. Back in 1958 the University of Alabama lured Bear Bryant with a promise of $18,000 a year, or the rough equivalent of $130,000 today; last year the university handed Nick Saban an eight-year deal worth roughly $32 million. Several dozen college football coaches now earn more than $1 million a year — and that’s before the books, speeches, endorsement deals and who knows what else. Earlier this season the head coach at Texas A&M, Dennis Franchione, was caught topping up his $2.09 million salary by selling to Aggie alums, for $1,200 a pop, his private football-gossip newsletter. The sports media treated that particular scheme as scandalous. Texas A&M made its coach apologize, and promise to stop writing for a living. But really Dennis Franchione’s foray into high-priced journalism was just an ingenious extension of the entrepreneurial spirit that’s turned college football into a gold mine. The scandal wasn’t what he did but how it was made to seem — unusually greedy. College football’s best trick play is its pretense that it has nothing to do with money, that it’s simply an extension of the university’s mission to educate its students. Were the public to view college football as mainly a business, it might start asking questions. For instance: why are these enterprises that have nothing to do with education and everything to do with profits exempt from paying taxes? Or why don’t they pay their employees? This is maybe the oddest aspect of the college football business. Everyone associated with it is getting rich except the people whose labor creates the value. At this moment there are thousands of big-time college football players, many of whom are black and poor. They perform for the intense pleasure of millions of rabid college football fans, many of whom are rich and white. The world’s most enthusiastic racially integrated marketplace is waiting to happen. But between buyer and seller sits the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to ensure that the universities it polices keep all the money for themselves — to make sure that the rich white folk do not slip so much as a free chicken sandwich under the table to the poor black kids. The poor black kids put up with it because they find it all but impossible to pursue N.F.L. careers unless they play at least three years in college. Less than one percent actually sign professional football contracts and, of those, an infinitesimal fraction ever make serious money. But their hope is eternal, and their ignorance exploitable. Put that way the arrangement sounds like simple theft; but up close, inside the university, it apparently feels like high principle. That principle, as stated by the N.C.A.A., is that college sports should never be commercialized. But it’s too late for that. College football already is commercialized, for everyone except the people who play it. Were they businesses, several dozen of America’s best-known universities would be snapped up by private equity tycoons, who would spin off just about everything but the football team. (The fraternities they might keep.) If the N.C.A.A. genuinely wanted to take the money out of college football it’d make the tickets free and broadcast the games on public television and set limits on how much universities could pay head coaches. But the N.C.A.A. confines its anti-market strictures to the players — and God help the interior lineman who is caught breaking them. Each year some player who grew up with nothing is tempted by a booster’s offer of a car, or some cash, and is never heard from again. The lie at the bottom of the fantasy goes something like this: serious college football players go to college for some reason other than to play football. These marvelous athletes who take the field on Saturdays and generate millions for their colleges are students first, and football players second. They are like Franciscan monks set down in the gold mine. Yes, they play football, but they have no interest in the money. What they’re really living for is that degree in criminology. Of course, no honest person who has glimpsed the inside of a big-time college football program could actually believe this. Even from the outside the college end of things seems suspiciously secondary. If serious college football players are students first, why — even after a huge N.C.A.A. push to raise their graduation rates — do they so alarmingly fail to graduate? Why must the N.C.A.A. create incentives for football coaches to encourage their players even to attend classes? Why do we never hear of a great high school football player choosing a college for the quality of its professors? Why, when college football coaches sell their programs to high school studs, do they stress the smoothness of the path they offer to the N.F.L.? It’s not that football players are too stupid to learn. It’s that they’re too busy. Unlike the other student on campus, they have full-time jobs: playing football for nothing. Neglect the task at hand, and they may never get a chance to play football for money. Last year the average N.F.L. team had revenue of about $200 million and ran payrolls of roughly $130 million: 60 percent to 70 percent of a team’s revenues, therefore, go directly to the players. There’s no reason those numbers would be any lower on a college football team — and there’s some reason to think they’d be higher. It’s easy to imagine the Universities of Alabama ($44 million in revenue), Michigan ($50 million), Georgia ($59 million) and many others paying the players even more than they take in directly from their football operations, just to keep school spirit flowing. (Go Dawgs!) But let’s keep it conservative. In 2005, the 121 Division 1-A football teams generated $1.8 billion for their colleges. If the colleges paid out 65 percent of their revenues to the players, the annual college football payroll would come to $1.17 billion. A college football team has 85 scholarship players while an N.F.L. roster has only 53, and so the money might be distributed a bit differently. “You’d pay up for the most critical positions,” one N.F.L. front office executive told me on the condition that I not use his name. “You’d pay more for quarterbacks and left tackles and pass rushing defensive ends. You’d pay less for linebackers because you’d have so many of them. You could just rotate them in and out.” A star quarterback, he thought, might command as much as 8 percent of his college team’s revenues. For instance, in 2005 the Texas Longhorns would have paid Vince Young roughly $5 million for the season. In quarterbacking the Longhorns free of charge, Young, in effect, was making a donation to the university of $5 million a year — and also, by putting his health on the line, taking a huge career risk. Perhaps he would have made this great gift on his own. The point is that Vince Young, as the creator of the economic value, should have had the power to choose what to do with it. Once the market is up and running players who want to go to enjoy the pure amateur experience can continue to play for free. And you never know. The N.C.A.A. might one day be able to run an honest advertisement for the football-playing student-athlete: a young man who valued so highly what the University of Florida had to teach him about hospitality management that he ignored the money being thrown at him by Florida State. Michael Lewis, a contributing writer at The Times magazine, is the author, most recently, of “The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game.”
Mr. Lewis from Berkleey might have his own ideas but why do you think that when Harvard plays Yale they often play to over 50,000 fans? Is it the caliber of players? Is it that these poor exploited individuals are really the focus of the fans loyalty? My suggestion would be to stop letting into college these poor exploited individuals that have no chance of graduating. Let them live their lives unexploited hanging with their friends " many of whom are black and poor." Right now the only difference between thier lives in campus settings living in nice facilities, enjoying the partying, the fun of college, and the lives of their friends back home, is the opportunity to play football. Maybe with their talent they could one day play in the NFL and be financially successful. But to do that they probably need coaching, conditioning, competition and exposure. Just where are they going to get all those necessities? Why it's from being exploited of course. Meanwhile also working just as hard in the weight room is a member of the lacross team and his roomate who is on crew. They spend as many hours on their sports but somehow they still are doing well in the classroom. The school subsidizes their sports (from football revenue of course) and no one cries about their being exploited. But that's different. Why, well most of all the people from Berkeley have notice something about these athletes. It can not be said that " many of whom are black and poor" therefore the whole premise fails. I've felt that if there were real academic standards to playing D 1 football that the crowds and television ratings would be the same. Auburn-Alabama, Texas-Oklahoma, Michigan-Ohio St. would still be as big. And well let's face it, Army-Navy is still a very popular game. But what would happen, you'd see these same folks at Berkeley and elsewhere crying about how the black athlete was being deprived of the "college experience" just as they complained about prop 48 years ago. It's a genie that can't be let out of the bottle. Once players are played then all college athletes would have to be paid. They would no longer be students but employees. That means that they could unionize and demand collective bargaining. Work stoppages, NLRB complaints, racial discrimination suits, the works. What an improvement to college football that would be.
The writer's line of thought is askew of reality and intended solely to grab attention. That a reasonable person would approach the topic of higher education with such cynicism is a mystery to me, but it takes all kinds to populate this society of ours. There are two separate and unrelated issues here that the writer and others like him attempt to fuse together. The first is the opportunity for gifted young men and women to obtain a college education without paying a dime in return for contributing their talent on the athletic field. There is tangible value to this relationship between student-athlete and the school. At Notre Dame, that value is steadily approaching $200,000 for 4 years or $250,000 for 5 years. I'm guesstimating that the cost at state schools is roughly half that amount. Where could a high school graduate with no discernible workplace skills earn $25-50,000 a year and still get a full-time higher education, preparing them for much higher earning potential, while doing what he or she loves on the athletic field. It is an opportunity not to be taken lightly and not to be confused with professional athletics. The Vince Young analogy is a smokescreen intended to blur or even wipe out the line between amateur and professional sports. The second, unrelated to the first, is the revenue to the schools as a result of the public's willingness to pay for the entertainment value of the sports, in terms of attendance, viewing via media, and purchase of merchandise. How many schools qualify as "cash cows" in this regard? Very few in the total picture. Most schools struggle to balance their athletic budgets. The writer conveniently points out the biggest revenue generators and implies that their situation is the rule. He must think we are idiots to buy that rationale. Let's assume for discussion's sake that the rules are changed to pay student-athletes. What sports qualify? Where do you draw the line on what schools pay and how they determine the compensation? How many schools would be forced to drop athletics altogether because they could not generate enough revenue to meet the demand for the football program, which funds the rest of the athletic programs? Chaos. That's what would result under any form of what the writer proposes. He cites the poor black athletes in his rationale. Who is a mind reader? Who can determine what the true motivation of the vast majority of poor black student-athletes in attending college on athletic scholarships? He is insulting the intelligence of that segment of our society to infer that they don't want an education as a means to improve their life earnings potential. He infers that the motivation of the few extends to the many. Hogwash! By comparing the way the NFL operates to the way, in the wrtier's opinion, colleges should operate, the writer again is using a smokescreen to blur reality and further insult the reader's intelligence. The NFL does not allocate football revenues to support 20 to 25 other non-revenue sports. The NFL does not use TV revenues to help fund scholarships for deserving non-athlete students. Each NFL team is a private business with a corporate-type balance sheet that does not include buildings and grounds and an operating statement that does not include teaching salaries, energy costs, and maintenance of vast physical facilities. The writer's proposal clearly indicates that he is out of touch with the realities of higher education and does not understand the fundamentals of accounting. He has grabbed attention for a brief moment only to be revealed to reasonable people as an unthinking cynic who has thrown a column against the wall to see if it sticks. Unfortunately for him it has slid down to the floor.
This person <r>is either lying, or doesn't know what they are talking about:<br/> <QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> What Fran did was leaking private medical information that the student-athlete did not consent to being released. The student-athletes have rights. You can't just publish their grades, personal information or injury information without them giving their consent. When at Alabama, Fran would often not divulge information about injuries (and he is correct in doing so), but what he was doing at A&M was taking that 'private' information and selling it to high dollar bidder. Flip it the scenario, how would you like players spying on Fran's personal life and then selling the access to these reports on a private website...tax info, what type of underwear his wife wears, what he kids eat for dinner, who is daughter is dating etc..<br/> <br/> The scandal WAS what he did. Its not that the university was cheated out of making a buck. It was <B><s></s>NEVER<e></e></B> Fran's information to give.<br/> <QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> BULLSH*T. While the big money donations are what keep the numbers inflated, the average college football fan is anything but 'rich and white.' Alabama and Auburn generate a TON of revenue from a massive following of people that fall well below the 'average' income range. For every high dollar booster, there are tens of thousands of fans in the trailer park and in the mid-to-low level income housing areas buying jerseys and university merchandise...This writer is using a disingenuous broad brush stroke here.<br/> <br/> And I'm not 'picking' on Alabama/Auburn here. The same is true for every team in the SEC sans Vanderbilt. I would say the same is true for damn near every school in the Big10, Big 12 and Pac10 as well.<br/> <br/> Notre Dame piles on that income and I'd venture to say the vast majority of it is purchased by its massive 'subway alumni' as opposed to the actual alumni who are rather small in number by comparison. Its a small school. They only produce so many alumni a year.<br/> <QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> A good point buried in bull. The game has changed. Why have the school or its boosters give the kids money or 'chicken sandwiches' when you can have a program friendly sports agent do it? That's the modern trend in the game today. You can also have people who are 'fans' of the school with no real affiliation to the University supply gifts and favorable treatment (sweetheart leases on housing, cars etc)<br/> <br/> I know many of you aren't watching this but the Keller trial in Scottsboro, Alabama is about to bring the NCAA to its knees. What little 'power' the NCAA had investigations is being blasted on a daily basis in the court of law.<br/> <br/> You can read more about it here:<br/> <br/> <URL url="http://thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=6a16133958393ce6"><s></s><LINK_TEXT text="http://thedail...ry.lasso?ewcd=6a16133958393ce6</LINK_TEXT><e></e></URL><br/> <br/> Part of what isn't in the stories but is in the court record is that the NCAA's investigators were often coaxing answers from people who weren't exactly literate. If anyone has been following the day to day action on this, it isn't a pretty picture for the NCAA.<br/> <br/> Compare that to the kit glove approach taken by the NCAA regarding the Reggie Bush matter. In that case, there is little to no denying that that money and favors took place there. Yet they seem to be in no hurry, because they can't touch the guy. So long as everyone in the private sector shuts up, the NCAA has no power.<br/> <br/> <QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> Paging the Author's agenda dept, white courtesy phone please.<br/> <br/> I could keep this up and quote/counter the last 4 or 5 paragraphs of this but I would seriously like to ask this author this question:<br/> <br/> What business does a 2.5 GPA student with an 850 SAT have on a college campus getting a free $30k a year education if his only redeeming 'merit' is a sparkling smile and a 4.4 40 yard dash?<br/> <br/> Oh yeah, that free education that is always disregarded by the people who take this position.<br/> <br/> They treat that education as if its worthless. These players have access to resources and on-campus advantages that other students simply do not have..Sure, those resources are there...but the university doesn't go out of there way to make sure those resources are placed right in your lap. All it takes to set it up is a phone call. No waiting list. No background check to see if you qualify because your Dad worked some OT last year. Its all there for you. If you actually GO TO SCHOOL and graduate, rather than look for another handout, then you are positioned well in life to make something for yourself.<br/> <br/> Or you can buy into the line this guy is selling and keep looking for another handout...</r>
Corey, I have been following the Keller trial also, I didn't want to bring it up but since you did I will pat myself (and you) on the back. It is coming out that the NCAA violated a slew of their own directives during the "investigation" of the Alabama situation. I don't know that anything real will come from it though. Most football fans don't care whether they followed their processes or not, until they come after their own school. Alabama was guilty so anything the NCAA did to get them is okay. If the NCAA is not raked over the coals for this, then they will do the same thing to someone else. For some reason, USC is getting a pass, so the NCAA may be laying low waiting for the next victim to make an example of. The interesting thing is that many of the accusations against the NCAA is coming from a former NCAA investigator. I also agree that not many folks who provide commentary on bigtime college sports acknowledge the monetary value of the college education that the athlete receives. I know from experience the cost of that education and I sure wish my daughter had been one of those exploited athletes. 8)
KP <t>There's LOTS of stuff I don't talk about on a regular basis (or at all) on this board. The Keller trial is so out in the open now that it doesn't really hurt to talk about. Hell, most all of it is court record now.<br/> <br/> I'm with you. The testimony in this case has been eye opening, even to me. I knew of, or heard of, the NCAA's arm twisting and potential fabrication of evidence...But the truth here is starting to be crazier than I had imagined.<br/> <br/> The problem with USC's situation is that there isn't any booster involvement and the school/staff are pleading ignorance. If the agents don't talk, you can't prove anything. The NCAA really doesn't have much power.<br/> <br/> They broke their own rules in Alabama to bust the Tide and that is going to wind up crippling them in the end. They can't possibly try such arm bending tactics with a legal machine like USC.</t>
Corey, I have pretty much put the whole Memphis affair behind me. We (Alabama) screwed up, and I was hesitant to bring up the lawsuit myself because it may be construed as excuse making. You may be right about the USC situation, however if the NCAA really wanted them they could make any case they wanted to.
KP <t>agreed.<br/> <br/> I feel for Alabama fans because its one of those situations where the NCAA used 'any means necessary' to bust Alabama. They broke their own rules and there is court documentation/testimony now to substantiate this. In fact, a good bit of it isn't even being challenged.<br/> <br/> There are rules for a reason. Alabama has some shady as hell boosters to be sure. However, the NCAA and its selective prosecutions need to come to an end right now. They've become a tool for the 'agenda' crowd. They go after who they want, when they want. <br/> <br/> The article above mentions some points (few good, most bad) but they are right that the NCAA needs a good enema. Top to bottom. As an ND fan, I can't believe what the NCAA did to us.. What the NCAA did to Alabama just wasn't right. The people who claim the ends justify the means (no pun intended) need to wind up on the end of the 'make up facts' NCAA investigators.</t>