In Defense of Amateur Athletics, and Tim Tebow...

Whether California’s recently enacted “Fair Pay to Play” law would be a good or bad thing for college athletics is the hot debate of the moment in the sports world. Set to go into effect in 2023, the law will allow California college athletes to be compensated for their name, likeness and image.

To supporters, California’s law simply provides student athlete the same right to monetize their talents as people in any other field. 

Defenders of the Status Quo acknowledge that big-time college sports produce mega streams of revenue, revenues that are not directly shared with the sports’ stars. However, these revenues allow universities to fund scholarships for tens of thousands of athletes who participate in “non-revenue” sports.

Supporters of the status-quo system also make more “conservative” arguments. Fans  - as the “market place” proves - like the system that has been in place for more than 100 years. That is, college football became as popular as it became in large part because of its amateur rules. College football is NOT professional football. For millions of fans this is the point, the salient difference that explains why so many people are so passionate about the college version of the game.

When discussing “Fair Pay to Play,” another question comes to mind. Namely, will there actually be a “debate?”

Seemingly within minutes of California’s governor signing the legislation into law, pundits in unison delivered their verdict: Hallelugha! The days of the poor college athlete being exploited and treated like an indentured servant are finally coming to an end. (See sidebar essay, “The Myth of the Exploited Athlete.”)

Enter an icon of the sport, Tim Tebow. Cutting against the grain of former jock talking heads,  Tebow opined that the new law could damage everything that made college sports special.

Sports journalists, as well as a roster of rich and successful former college athletes, were aghast. In their view, not only was Tebow’s position indefensible, many seemed perplexed that Tebow was even given the opportunity to express his viewpoint.

The next day, news organizations didn’t run stories simply summarizing Tebow’s views. Instead “the story” was about how many of Tebow’s peers ridiculed and attacked the former Heisman winner for stating his personal opinion. “Tebow lampooned by peers for spouting malarky” could have been the headline.But is Tebow wrong? 

Is it “ridiculous” or “nonsense” to think that college sports as we know it will be fundamentally transformed if every athlete can contract with agents or marketing representatives to secure the best financial compensation package possible?

Critics of the NCAA’s amateur rules assure us that predictions of “doomsday” have been greatly exaggerated. But who is being ridiculous or naive here? 

We can be sure of one thing. If athletes are free to negotiate any contract that enriches them, they will. 

For starters, we can be confident four and five-star high school prospects will no longer wait until their third or fourth year of college to sign a contract with a sports agent or “financial advisor.” They’ll do this on the day they graduate from high school (if not sooner). 

But these agents might now find themselves competing with local “boosters” who will also be happy to “help” these young people (and their beloved school) with the players’ marketing deals and appearance fees. 

Common sense tells us that players seeking to maximize their earning potential will be more likely to choose programs that can deliver copious income levels. That is, legislation touted as promoting “fairness” will likely make the rich and successful programs even richer, and the non-blue blood programs even poorer and less competitive. The divide between the haves and have nots of college sports will probably expand.

The biggest beneficiaries of the legislation might be standout players who are open to transferring. Alabama head coach Nick Saban was probably prescient a couple of years ago when he asked the sport’s Powers That Be, “Do we really want (NFL-style) free agency in college football?”

Want it or not - good or bad - it’s coming, and “Fair Pay to Play” will no doubt ensure the college version more closely resembles the pro version.

In a post “Fair-Pay” world, persuading players to not transfer and/or “stealing” other teams’ proven players will probably become a coach’s most important job. Many of the in-demand transfers will no doubt come from lesser-known schools, schools where the players’ “marketability” may not have been optimized.

Also rarely mentioned in this “debate” is the fact that 99 percent of NCAA amateur athletes will see no change in their standard of living. Without question, the highest-profile NCAA athletes will never again lack for “pizza money.” But is a quarterback at a Division II team likely to receive a single endorsement opportunity? How about the MVP of the women’s lacrosse team?

True, college golfers will now be able to charge for lessons. Members of the women’s volleyball team might receive a token gratuity for helping with the annual junior clinic, but such “advancements” probably do not qualify as life-changing developments.

What’s more likely to happen is that a law marketed as increasing opportunities for the disadvantaged ends up reducing the number of student athletes from impoverished backgrounds who will be given the chance to improve their lives by attending college on an athletic scholarship.

How could such an “opposite effect” occur? By turning off legions of long-time college fans, fans who are already turned off by the pro model and don’t want the game they love to emulate the one they don’t.

It’s also quite possible that the real-world results of this reform could exasperate academic presidents and trustees, some of whom may decide to shut down athletic programs that are already at a competitive disadvantage, that are already bleeding money. 

Fewer passionate fans and fewer programs choosing to offer intercollegiate sports would mean fewer scholarships available to athletes interested in attending college.  This is a loss, not a win for would-be student athletes, and probably to society as a whole.

Also unknown is how team chemistry will be affected when some team players are paid handsomely, while other teammates - who work just as hard - receive only a pat on the back from coaches.

In pushing back against “Fair Pay to Play,” Tebow’s instincts are right on. Decision makers should think long and hard before implementing a reform that might imperil the golden goose that’s made so many positives outcomes possible.

College football, despite its flaws, is not broken. Indeed, in net, it’s an institution that has improved countless lives. More so than any American institution, it brings together participants and fans from all walks of life. As Oklahoma Coach Lincoln Riley said, “We have a great thing going, and hopefully we don’t screw it up.”

The Pandora’s Box this reform would open could indeed be a game-changer. The unintended consequences sure to come will change the way many fans view the game and ultimately harm many more student athletes than will be helped.