As a medium-height, average-sized, not-quite-athletic guy, nobody ever paid me to play sports. This, along with not being a rock star, are two of the great disappointments of my life.
But for the physically gifted young men and women who attend big universities on athletic scholarship, the dream of being a high-payed, adored-by-the-masses professional athlete is very real. And the sports agents who represent them in their business dealings will do just about anything to sign them up as clients.
Of course, anytime a phrase like “will do anything to” is part of a discussion, there’s a problem. And last week I saw an episode of HBO’s Real Sports that vilified the sports agents who break rules accepted in their business that dictate what can and can’t be done to entice young athletes to become your client. Then this article on the subject ran in The New York Times.
There’s a problem here. And “entitlement” by the athletes, while being one, and flaunting of the rules by the agents, which isn’t OK, isn’t it.
Why aren’t these kids paid to play their sports?
Don’t bother with the old “they’re amateurs and it lessens the spirit of cooperation” argument; that one went away a couple of decades ago when even the International Olympic Committee gave up on it. And yes, there’s a pretty clear understanding that a university gives you an education plus free room and board in exchange for being on their sports team; so the athletes are paid.
But in big-name sports at Division I schools, there’s an absolute fortune of money being passed around, and to believe that young men who are a year or two away from being paid tens of millions of dollars should patiently wait their turn is naive. Simple as that.
Time for business change? You bet.
Because there are so many different groups with different interests in this, there’s no clear, quick, and easy path. The colleges wants what they want. The players do, too. The agents (who might be the bad guys here or might be the change facilitators making business change come along) have a stake, of course. And that leaves out the professional sports teams that these athletes will one day play for, the leagues those teams belong to, and the NCAA, who oversees the actions of the colleges while the kids are still “amateurs”.
They all have different agendas. They all have the right to something. Increasingly they all see all of the others as the enemy.
Coopetition, anyone?
I’ve pointed out the benefit of coopetition in a changing business environment a few time before. Like any business change it’s not the easiest thing to take on, both because business change is scary and because coopetitiion in particular is the kind of thing that will stop almost anyone in their tracks. Give up control, or money, to someone I compete against? No way!
The funny thing is, in this case nobody is actually competing. The athletes are already at a school, the agents are what they are, and the professional sports teams and leagues are operating pretty much from a monopoly position. And yet they all want to be in charge, with the rallying cry usually being about “protecting the interests of the young atheletes”.
Hogwash. This is about control. Coopetition and control in the traditional sense don’t work well together. And it’s the athletes who are getting screwed over, all right, but not by the agents.
Business change requires a willingness to examine your position, be honest with yourself, and change. May you be so lucky as to be in the position any of these groups are in. Either way: always be willing to look at the way you do things.
Update, 20 November 2010: And the taking money hypocrisy continues: How is it that the NCAA demands its players remain “clean” but then imposes financial penalties (actual fines!) on them to punish them for taking money?
do you really believe what you’re saying? collegiate athletes are compensated more than fairly. you are attempting to make an argument for the select few who will make it to the “pros” and failing miserably. there are literally millions of student athletes attending universities across this country, how many make it pro? how many could get into the university if they were not an athlete? how much are these athletes taking advantage of the school’s name, and commensurate nationally televised athletic performances? where do we draw the line? it’s truly ignorant to suggest the students aren’t benefiting. and btw, just how do you suppose these schools are benefiting soooo much. football is the cash cow for most schools. the extra revenue that is generated is primarily used to fund the “lesser” athletic programs[like rugby, or women’s field hockey]. OTL on ESPN just did a heck of a job presenting this very information a month or two ago. this affords opportunity to other students. often times, the schools make the player anyway…not the other way around. the first round of the nfl draft is virtually a who’s who of the SEC nowadays. perform exceptionally in a noname conference and watch your draft position plummet. the athletes use the schools too. when is the last time the number one rated[hell, how about top 500 rated…and i’m still being generous] highschool football player in the nation went to bloomsburg, or lockhaven, or bringham young for that matter…exactly. getting a free education[plus cost of living] is more than enough payment for playing a game. especially when a significant percentage of these students would have no chance of being admitted if they didn’t play sports. in that respect…to be rewarded a “free ride” is a joke. universities were, and still are intended for higher learning remember…but ppl get “scholarships” for running and jumping. the fact that the american public wants to pour dollars into them as if they exist for entertainment is irrelevant. that money is being appropriately applied to guaranteeing more students an education, rather than a select few a “phat” ride and some bling. you’re the answer guy? pfft. but based on the comments…i already knew that.
Well, you’re correct that there are a large number of student athletes outside the elite class who are more than well-compensated by being given a “free” education. And I wasn’t talking about them, nor was I indicting the system as it applies TO them.
Does that mean I was focused on the big guys? You bet. What I don’t understand is why that bothers you or why you believe that makes my point any less valid.
I also don’t understand why you gave a fake email address … or at least gave two different addresses on the two posts you responded to minutes apart from the same IP address. And I encourage anyone who comes across this to check out your other post, a rather nasty and vacuous personal attack, at http://answerguy.com/2011/06/03/statistics-lie-are-you-listening-hubspot-and-shareaholic/comment-page-1/#comment-4299.
Thanks for speaking up!