Do Universities Put Too Much Emphasis on Athletics?

In the United States, the world of sports plays an important part of our national culture. Professional sports enjoy mass media coverage, a vast fan base and billions of dollars spent by spectators each year to pay for impressive sports parks and equally impressive salaries of the coaches and players. The athletes of today receive fame and fortune rival to that of most celebrities making this career highly coveted. It is very rare for an athlete to develop the skills needed directly out of high school to be able to play at professional levels. Recently, major league teams have adopted age restrictions on young athletes aspiring to play on the professional level. The three most highly followed American sports, football, baseball and basketball all have similar rules in regards to these restrictions. The NBA states that a player must be at least one year removed from high school and at least 19 years of age ("Article X: Player Eligibility and the NBA Draft" ). The NFL is more stringent, ruling that a player must be at least three years out of high school ("Official List of Underclassmen Declaring for Draft"). The MLB states that a player can be drafted right out of high school, but if they choose to attend college, they must complete three years in order to declare themselves eligible ("First Year Player Draft: Official Rules"). Taking into account these rules and regulations set on budding athletes, it is in their best interests to attend college to improve their game and visibility to be able to move on to the next level. Universities capitalize on these athletes for many reasons including, bringing in revenue from companies, alumni and boosters, increasing national visibility of the school, and also to foster a community within the university to support their college athletic teams. An on going debate has arisen with the popularity of college sports and the college athlete. Many people wonder if universities are devoting too much funding to athletic programs without equally supporting academics. Athletics are central to the overall college experience, and without crucial university spending, the students and college programs they use would greatly suffer.

In the 2004-2005 school year, universities around the nation spent a total of 3.8 billion dollars on athletic teams. This includes facility maintenance, coach salaries, scholarships for athletes, and other critical expenditures (Brady). In the article “Football Is a Sucker’s Game” by Michael Sokolove, it is stated that major college football teams use “the mantra of the need to spend money to make money”, and this is true with any university. In order to have your athletic teams compete on any sort of national level, a well developed program needs to be set in place that can compete with the major powerhouses which once achieved; monetary support will come in via boosters, alumni and corporate sponsorship. When universities invest in their athletic programs, it is like investing in the future. The university has created an atmosphere of pride and camaraderie through athletics for students attending the school that leaves an everlasting bond to that given institution. Universities capitalize on this bond later in life by asking for funds and support that many are willing to give. In “The Unpaid Professional”, author Andrew Zimbalist states “(When) a school goes to the Rose Bowl or to the Final Four alumni feel proud and open up their pocketbooks.” An example of this is former University of Oregon track athlete Phil Knight who later went on to found Nike Athletics and who now is a major supporter of Oregon sports. Not only as a corporation does he contribute to the university, but an individual alumnus he has gone on to support academic facilities as well with the building of the Knight Library and law library. Through the bond Knight developed at the university he later felt inclined to give back to the institution that had given him so much. Universities need to spend money on the programs that ignite the flame of pride in their students, such as athletics, to ensure that later on, their students will reinvest.

Not only are athletic programs responsible for bringing in booster and alumni money, they are responsible for bringing national visibility to the university. Sokolove claims that, “Teams that do not win do not excite their boosters, fill up stadiums, appear on national TV or get into postseason play, thereby endangering the revenue stream that supports the immense infrastructure.” The idea is when a team performs in the national spotlight, not only are they increasing revenues, they are increasing the public knowledge of smaller college institutions. In the 2006 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, the nation was stunned by little known George Mason. Not only did this Cinderella team make it into the Final Four and achieve national praise,