Academics and athletics: playing for the same team: NCAA president discusses the challenges of leading the organization in an era of academic reform

Black Issues in Higher Education, April 8, 2004 by Ronald Roach

The fact of the matter is overall college sports is a losing proposition. It takes in a remarkable $4 billion a year in revenues, not just from media but Prom the selling of seats, tickets. But it spends $5 billion a year supporting student-athletes. And so I think it's a mistake to believe that there's a lot of revenue coming in. That goes not just for the small schools but for the big schools as well, namely that it's difficult to meet all the costs.

I think student-athletes have a wonderful opportunity to get an education, the most important reason they come to school, but also to participate in high-level sports. While they're on campus, whether they're in basketball or football or track and field or baseball or any other sport, they have the world's best coaching, and they receive that as well as a scholarship. Those student-athletes are very well-prepared for time world after college, and the investment of their time in athletics is well-compensated by the education they receive, the coaching they receive, and the position they're put in as a result of moving on prom there, hopefully with a degree.

BI: In light of the legal case of the Colorado skier and football player Jeremy Bloom arguing against the NCAA's ban on earning income from the status as an athlete, how does the NCAA counter the perception that the sports establishment profits greatly while the most visible athletes in the revenue-generating sports may seem unfairly compensated?

MB: There's a whole range of issues here, but let me just address a few of them. The Bloom case (is one) of a young man who's both a talented football player and a talented skier. As he has said publicly, and his agents have said, he wants to be able to use his visibility in football to get endorsement contracts. That case was taken to the courts and he lost. We have roles about the fact that you can't use your amateur standing within collegiate sports to make money. That (would make you) a professional.

It's not that he can't play both sports. He can. He just can't use his visibility in football to enhance his marketability as he's trying to do. Moreover, his claim that he would have no ability to ski if he didn't do that--because skiing is an expensive endeavor and he needs special coaches; he's an Olympic-level skier obviously--well, again, that's not true because the Olympic committee is prepared to pay him to do that. He just wants to make a lot of money now. He should wait like everyone else (until he or she) gets out of college. That's an extreme case. He's appealing, but right now the judgment stands.

In the case of selling shirts, uniforms with your name and number on it, that's a trickier one. That one is open to debate, I think, whether the schools should be permitted to do that, to profit off of students. You can't on the one hand, however, let the student-athletes receive that money because it really does turn them into professionals. But should the schools be profiting off the selling of the shirts? I think that one is a tougher call. That one's open to question and the discussion is still ongoing in that case.