Cash, check, or charge?

Sporting News, The, July 1, 1996 by Douglas S. Looney

University of Washington President Gerberding says that "privileged old orders yield slowly, but many of them finally do yield." That's the optimistic view. Walter Byers says the larger truth is that the powers in intercollegiate sport--about 25 football schools and perhaps 35 in basketball--don't want to change because they "are doing very, very well. The beneficiaries of monopoly practices don't want to change the monopoly." And it can be argued that, conversely, some weak athletic schools might fight the change for fear a new, capitalistic system would force them out completely.

Maybe, suggests Byers, it will come down to a--court case over antitrust when people start disputing the old notion that the rules are in place to ensure competitive balance when, in fact, they are in place to ensure economic gain--a clear antitrust violation, if proved.

Those who favor the status quo will use all sorts of specious arguments, including the one that there is not enough money. Baloney. There is plenty. But if people who care--the university, boosters--don't want to pay to have a good football team, then the school won't have a good football team. Nothing wrong with that.

In addition, Cedric Dempsey suggests there is a lot of room for the NCAA to grow its business, especially in the areas of licensing, marketing and international development. And here's a real easy source: Get on with the idea of a football championship, which could net $80 million.

Most change is painful Labor strikes--including the recent baseball strike--are over change. Women's suffrage was over change. Same for the Industrial Revolution, environmentalism, affirmative action, immigration. So be it with college athletes. It is possible, suggests Marvin Johnson, that players may revolt to be treated like real students. They may unionize.

Meanwhile, the howling winds are picking up velocity. Douglas S. Looney, who has specialized in the coverage of college athletics for 26 years, is a contributing writer to The Sporting News.

RELATED ARTICLE: Four athletes, four situations

No matter their economic circumstances, college scholarship athletes almost universally agree that there needs to be a way for money to find its way into their hands legitimately.

But what would make sense, given the diversity of the players?

* At Standford University--where an athletic scholarship is worth more than $25,000 a year--Peter Sauer just finished his first year as a Cardinal basketball player. His dad, Mark, is president and CEO of the Pittsburgh Pirates; his mother, Georgia, is fashion editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In his family, Sauer says, "There was never a problem financially. We were always comfortable." Without a scholarship, he concedes he still would have gone to college. Sauer figures he spends around $100 a month for movies, extra food, expenses beyond his schoolarshipp. "Everybody," he says, "wants extra money to kick around him. I'm just fortunate." He ponders the idea of free enterprise: "That might be the way to do it. That's capitalism."