There are cogent arguments to be made for paying student athletes and creative proposals for doing so. Unfortunately, errors in fact and assumption get in the way of Hung Vu's argument in favor of paying football and basketball players "for their efforts and for the revenue they bring" ("Money madness," April 6).
First, a clarification: CBS is reported to have paid $6 billion for 11 years of March Madness rights, not $11 billion for six years, as stated in the article.
As to assumptions, Vu asserts that athletes "are here for the short term, in order to raise money for the academic departments." The NCAA reports that in 2008 (the most recent year analyzed) only 25 of 333 Division I athletic programs realized positive net generated revenues. Further, 72 percent of all revenue was so-called "allocated revenue" received from student fees, university transfers and government sources. Far from contributing financially to academics, in over 90 percent of cases, athletics are heavily subsidized by the university.
Next Vu argues in favor of paying "those who earn," that is, football and basketball players. Unfortunately, these "money-making machines" are not generating nearly the windfall that Vu perceives. Although 50 to 60 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision football and men's basketball programs turn an operating profit, according to the NCAA, only two to four percent of Football Championship Schools do the same. And taken together, just a quarter of Division I men's basketball programs are self-sustaining.
Vu's opinion is that universities should, "pay those who earn, even at the expense of other programs." Putting aside whether there are even a significant number of athletes earning more than their programs cost, paying them "at the expense" of non-revenue sports would almost surely result in Title IX violations, which could, in turn, result in pulled federal funding, including that for student aid. Certainly that is not "better than nothing."
Athletics are an important - and fun - part of a university's culture, and the NCAA could certainly stand for a measure of reform, perhaps to include compensating college athletes directly. That said, a "solution" based on a misunderstanding of the economic realities of big-time college athletics does little to advance the discussion.
Megan Moyer\nCLAS
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 3 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 6 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
