How Universities Benefit From College Athletes

Introduction

College sports is practically an industry all by itself: it rakes in more than $11 billion in revenues annuallywhich is more than professional sports (Edelman). Universities thus make a great deal of money off college athletes, who, in return, get nothing more than an athletic scholarship (sometimes) to attend the university and its classes for free. They receive no payment (indeed, paying college athletes for playing is against the lawwhich is why the FBI is currently investigating several high profile colleges, like Louisville, for violating this law) (Hobson). When coaches break the law, it gives universities a black eyebut when athletes win trophies for the college, it increases the universitys brand image and value exponentially. Thus, college athletes not only enable universities to make money off their services directly, but these athletes also enable universities to develop their college brand and attract a following. More following means more attendance, which brings up the final way in which universities benefit from college athletes: successful sports program lead to higher enrollment in the college, which means more prestige and income for the school. This paper will show why these three benefits that colleges receive from college athletes are good for schoolsbut ultimately bad for the athletes themselves.

Background/History

Sports have long been a part of colleges and universities. They bring students and faculty together along with members of the community to cheer on athletes who are in the prime of their youth and want to engage in an extracurricular activity to further develop themselves as well-rounded human beings. Sports were never conceived as the whole reason for going to college. They were ancillary: they augmented the experience and made it fuller. But along the way, that relationship began to change. As the industry of television emerged and advertising become a lucrative revenue stream for content providers, sports suddenly took on a whole new dimension as far as colleges were concerned. Thanks to broadcasting rights (which could be sold for huge sums), advertising, marketing, and branding, universities now saw a way to exploit and benefit from that hallmark of youthful school saw revenue of more than $13 million from media...

…down the road with a professional organization. Thus, colleges actually allow their athletes to benefit in the long-term and all the money, investment, time, effort, energy, marketing, and tickets they sell actually goes in to enhancing the brand and image and visibility of the athletenot the college. The athlete is the one who is followed by fans for the rest of his or her career. The universitys reputation can go down in flames at any moment (again, see Penn State), but the athlete alone is responsible for his or her own reputation and can manage it independently of the university. The rebuttal to this argument is that in spite of a potential long term benefit that the athlete may or may not receive, the universitys revenue, brand, and enrollment are still nonetheless supported by the athletes success at the universityand yet the athlete is not monetarily rewarded or compensated or given a cut of the earnings. The athlete has to look for a professional sports organization for thatthe university keeps everything for itself.

Conclusion

While one could say that both athletes and universities benefit from their relationship, the fact is that universities benefit far more: they are the ones controlling the university, signing the broadcasting rights contracts and pulling in the ad revenue. They are the ones crafting their own brand and selling the jerseys and tickets and benefiting from increases in enrollment. College athletes may or may not go pro upon leaving their university, but while they are at school, they are obliged to work more than a full-time worker in order to be on the team during the seasonand yet for all their work…