College athletes win revolution battle, but what about the war? | Oller
Steve Berman is ecstatic. A lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the groundbreaking antitrust cases against the NCAA, Berman can’t believe his good fortune, emphasis on fortune.
“When we started this, I never dreamed of this day,” Berman told USA Today, commenting on the proposed settlement between the NCAA and its power conferences that would pay $2.75 billion in damages to current and former athletes as well as allow schools to compensate athletes directly – or what I like to call pay-to-play on the legit.
“It’s a revolutionary moment in college sports,” Berman crowed.
I don’t know about you, but revolutions make me nervous. Depending on which side you’re on, the uprising either turns out well – ask George Washington – or doesn’t. Czar Nicholas II, anyone? Revolutions mostly are about power. Who has it? Who wants it? Who is willing to toss the baby with the bath water to get it.
Regardless of where your allegiance lies, revolutions almost always are bloody. But Berman is not concerned with the collateral damage as much as thrilled with where college athletics are headed: from the amateur outhouse, which the courts have determined stinks up the joint, to the professional penthouse.
A new day has dawned. Athletes have raged against the greed machine of academic institutions and their athletic departments and won.
Who lost? The peasants, aka fans who had little say in the matter but still will be asked to fork over even more money for a lesser product.
That’s right. Lesser product. At least on the field. Quick, who is the better quarterback? Patrick Mahomes or Will Howard? Who is the better point guard? Steph Curry or Bruce Thornton? Who wins between the basketball Buckeyes and Boston Celtics? Between the Kansas City Chiefs and Michigan Wolverines?
You get the idea. If college football players suddenly become professionals, and at some point (probably sooner than later) become employees of their school, why would anyone prefer that product to the NFL?
Family tradition? Sure. But the Cleveland Browns have that, too. School spirit, particularly among alumni? Yes. The name on the front of the jersey still matters, but it tends to matter less when the name on the back can be here and gone in the time it takes to say “transfer portal.” The band? At Ohio State, TBDBITL has a loyal following that makes Saturdays in the Horseshoe seem almost quaint. Then you realize you shelled out $500 to take the fam and quaint it ain’t.
No doubt the college game-day atmosphere still enthralls, but as the amateur label disappears, and college athletes turn pro – simply by staying in college – it makes sense that the aesthetic tradition-rich peripherals shrink in importance. Maybe not as much at Ohio State, where continuous winning will help hide the talent differential between the NFL vs. college, but for less successful programs revolution will be, well, revolting.
I’ve asked this question before, but why aren’t the Clippers more popular than the Cleveland Guardians? I mean, tickets are cheaper, the food is just as good and the beer just as wet. Could it be that fans want to watch the best talent? No offense to our Columbus franchise, but minor league baseball is not MLB. And college football is not the NFL. When 18-year-old college running backs get paid a salary, by definition they are professionals playing at a lower skill level than their counterparts on the Cincinnati Bengals or Pittsburgh Steelers.
My argument is not that college football and basketball will become less watchable. Our entertainment-obsessed society would pay to watch paint dry if it was marketed correctly, and if you could bet on it. But less enjoyable? And less worthy of our passion? I believe so.
A recent Twitter/X poll asked if the increasing professionalism of college sports impacts interest level. Almost half (49%) answered “No difference.” Another 42% responded “Less interest,” and 9% went with “More interest.”
If I am a conference commissioner or athletic director, that 42% worries me. It tells me the revolutionaries may win the battle but lose the war.
As for the battle, the terms of the proposed financial settlement include funding the damages pool over a 10-year period, with the payments coming in part from TV money that would have gone to the athletes if NCAA limits on pay had not been in place, as well as money from video games. The payments to athletes would reach back to 2016.
The bigger transformation is schools in major conferences will need to build a model in which they share future revenues with athletes.
Let’s be clear, whether athletes deserve to be paid is moot. The courts have spoken. The money will soon be on its way. And there is plenty to go round. The Big Ten brought in nearly $880 million in total revenue and distributed about $60.5 million to each of its 12 longest-tenured members, according to recently released federal tax documents.
The issue is not whether athletes deserve to be compensated. They do. But in reaching that decision, more than just perceptions are in play. The reality is that professionals are paid to perform a service. Fail to deliver and you’re out of a job. Throw an interception or miss a free throw and the paying customer has every right to beef. Don’t come at me with “They’re just college kids.” Age doesn’t matter. Do you let a 16-year-old fast-food worker off the hook for botching your order? Then why go easy on a 20-year-old paid linebacker for missing a tackle?
Yes, athletes just won the battle, but the war is just beginning. And civilians, which in sports means the fans, tire of war quickly. Sometimes they even revolt against it. In this case, perhaps by losing interest in minor league football.
Get more Ohio State football news by listening to our podcasts
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: College sports fans must get ready for sea change coming to athletics
