Northwestern Exploits Its Athletes? Please, Athletes Exploit Their Schools

X
Story Stream
recent articles

In his upcoming book, The Soft Edge, Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard writes that in "the real world it's grit that makes us smart." He goes on to write that smarts isn't "defined by 800 math SATs. It's more about the importance of hard work, perseverance and resilience."

As NetApp CEO Tom Goergens told Karlgaard, "I know this irritates a lot of people, but once someone is at a certain point in his or her career - and it's not that far out, maybe four or five years - all the grades and academic credentials don't mean anything anymore. It's all about accomplishment from that point on." Goergens doesn't even know where some of his employees went to college.

Maynard Webb, chairman of Yahoo's board of directors told Karlgaard "What I'm looking for is talent. But talent isn't just intellect. Talent is also what you've done. If you're an entrepreneur trying to break through, it's hard work."

Importantly, the common sense offered up by Karlgaard, Goergens and Webb is everywhere on display in our dynamic capitalist society, and it always has been. Hard, innovative workers succeed no matter their academic credentials, and as the Forbes 400 is littered with college dropouts, the idea that college education itself imparts wisdom essential for achievement in the real world is laughable. People succeed and thrive without it all the time.

College education is a credential. It's a door-opener and nothing more. For those who think college will give them the intellectual tools to achieve in the real world, think again. For those who feel college gave them the intellectual tools to succeed, we should feel very sorry for them. They're probably pretty average people.

The reality is that no job requires a college degree. All of us who have been to college intuitively know this. The notion that real world knowledge can be gained from a professor teaching us that economic growth is a creation of government spending, or that it is an economic retardant for that matter, or that we can learn how to be entrepreneurial when the latter is all about disrupting the existing order, does not rate serious discussion.

All of which brings us to last week's ruling in favor of the ability of college athletes to unionize. Implicit in such a ruling is that college athletes are being exploited. While their doings on the field of play shower revenues on their schools, they're not compensated for the billions they generate. And for spending so much time on the practice field over the classroom, these same athletes are robbed of the educational tools attained by their fellow students, and who will use them in order to achieve great success in the real world. Oh please.

Karl Borden played the exploitation card in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Borden laments that college football players in top conferences leave school "after having contributed to a business worth billions, but with little to show for it and, too often, few skills to negotiate post-football life." Really? Most of us would click our heels at the thought of having a resume reflecting attendance at a name university, not to mention the myriad employment doors that open for those who's playing days end 'early' after four years of big games played in front of massive, mostly worshipful crowds.

Seemingly missed by Borden is that Johnny Manziel and others like him are the rare, revenue-generating exceptions to the underachieving scholarship recipient rule. Indeed, college-sports history is filled with 'can't-miss' prospects who ultimately flamed out at great cost to their universities. For Borden to suggest that players deserve a cut of a multi-billion dollar business is for him to ignore the nosebleed cost of athletic scholarships granted to players annually, and that all too often earn the schools rather negative returns.

The ‘exploitation' card presumes what is observably false to anyone who follows college sports. The reality is that most don't come close to living up to their scholarship, so while it's shooting fish in the most crowded of barrels to point out what non-athletes and their parents pay for the Stanford, University of Virginia, and University of Southern California credential, athletes get it for free. Some would correctly point out that participation in college sports is marked by four years of grueling practices, so it's hardly free, but again, the rewards are many; including the adulation of alums, fellow students, not to mention the millions who watch on television. And for the rare 1 percent who make it to the next level, the pay for having starred in college is in the millions.

The emotional among us will still say that the athletes should share in the collegiate bounty, but if true, isn't it also true that the numerous flameouts who take a scholarship that they don't live up to, and that was theoretically taken from some other worthy athlete, should pay back the school for the school having lost money on the scholarship? And what about Aaron Hernandez? Florida gave him a scholarship, but the end result is that his post-Gator life will be a constant blemish on the school's reputation; perhaps reducing donations from alums understandably bothered by his matriculation to Gainesville in the first place.

Skeptics will go on to point out that time spent practicing subtracts from time in the classroom, but this assertion truly misses the point. Though the deluded and average will suggest otherwise, many non-athletes tune out the "education" portion of college as is, and then for those who actually show up to class each day, what's learned during those four years brings little relevance to post-collegiate life.

College is once again about credential attainment, and because it is, college athletes get the best deal of all. Quite unlike the students who graduate with little to no name recognition, but with a credential that opens doors, athletes, if they choose to, graduate with not just the credential, but massive name recognition that makes employment a much easier attainment if professional teams don't come calling.

Karlgaard writes that, "The smartest people in business are not those who have the highest g; they are those who regularly put themselves in situations requiring grit."  Taking Karlgaard's correct assertion to its logical conclusion, college athletes get the best education of all while on campus, time spent on campus is all about grit, so it's no surprise that Wall Street and other highly competitive business sectors are filled with individuals who in some instances spent more time playing than studying while in college.

The concept of college athlete exploitation is rooted in a wholly false narrative that is belied by observable realities. It's been said in the past by the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger that the U.S. is no longer a serious country, and if readers are looking for non-public policy exhibits that animate Henninger's point, the drive to "unionize" athletes "taken advantage of by greedy universities" is a good place to start.

 

John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, Political Economy editor at Forbes, a Senior Fellow in Economics at Reason Foundation, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading (www.trtadvisors.com). He's the author of Who Needs the Fed?: What Taylor Swift, Uber and Robots Tell Us About Money, Credit, and Why We Should Abolish America's Central Bank (Encounter Books, 2016), along with Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics (Regnery, 2015). 

Comment
Show commentsHide Comments

Related Articles