Howard Wasserman of Sports Law Blog recently pointed out the following observation:The head coaching positions [for many college] football and men's basketball teams are endowed. [For example, Stanford football] coach Jim Harbaugh is the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football [and their] Basketball coach Johnny Dawkins is the Anne and Tony Joseph Director of Men's Basketball.In response, I cannot resist asking the following question: Why is it that when a wealthy alumnus sets aside money to recruit a college coach, the alumnus is called a "donor" and the payment creates "an endowed chair;" however, when a wealthy alumnus sets aside money to recruit a college athlete, the alumnus is called a "booster" and the money is called "dirty" or "illegal?
Any thoughts, please post them in the comment box.
Posts
2 comments:
While most donors are merely fans that want to give a little extra cash to their favorite team, what's always been interesting to me is the donors that unload huge sums of money in exchange for power, influence, and full-access to the athletic department.
I remember a few years ago T. Boone Pickens gave $165 million to Oklahoma State, which at the time was the biggest donation ever...only to have the money go right back into the hedge fund that Pickens was managing.
Another amusing story I remember was when Bobby Lowder secretly flew Auburn's president and athletic director to Louisville to interview Bobby Petrino in his private jet. Lowder wasn't happy with Tommy Tuberville but hadn't even fired him yet before the secret interview.
Is a gift of tens of millions of dollars really worth giving up your independence to some power-hungry donor? I don't think so, but I think the $$$ are too tempting for most schools.
The problem comes with the fallacy that major college sports participants are "student-athletes". The coaches are professionals and their players are "students". Therefore, there is a moral imperative not to taint the "students" by inducing them through $$$.
The reality is the "students" are simply professional athletes playing for a discount rate and happen to attend a university/college. I strongly believe that college athletes should be paid. I agree the scholarships they receive should be considered as part of that payment, but the reality is that the universities they represent profit greatly on this deal. The moment we face this reality and pay college athletes, the bottom line of universities around the US will be hit. This would be unacceptable. (insert sarcasm) Where are the unions when you need them? Heck, in the end, the universities may even be able to get a bailout.
By no means am I a conspiracy theorist, but once the world confronts this fallacy, universities will lose significant money as well as power over the athlete. Therefore, the NCAA and universities across the nation participate in the smear tactics associated with "boosters". Athletes can't be paid not because they are students, but because it is fiscally responsible to maintain the status quo. For now, the payments will remain behind closed doors while, for the most part, everyone turns their cheek.
Post a Comment