With the NCAA in court trying to preserve its cartel power to limit compensation for labor (players), Clay Travis at foxsports.com wonders why football and basketball players are stuck in a system that essentially forces them to go to college as a viable path to professionalism while players in baseball, hockey, golf, soccer and all other sports can go pro at 18-years old or younger.
Wrote Travis:
So how is that we came to have such disparate eligibility rules for sports? And why are football and basketball players treated differently than athletes in all other sports? And, for that matter, why are they treated differently than entertainers as well? After all, we don't ask Taylor Swift to spend three years singing in the Vanderbilt chorus or demand that Leonardo DiCaprio toil for three years acting in collegiate stage productions for USC before either individual is allowed to cash in on their talents. Indeed, you can scour the American landscape and hardly find a single profession that adults aren't allowed to pursue to the fullest of their abilities at the age of 18.
In Travis’ view, the difference can be explained by “political power, socioeconomics, and, yes, race.” He notes that players in baseball, hockey, golf, etc. by and large come from higher socioeconomic classes than those in basketball and football, and that they also are mostly white.
These are valid points, but Travis glosses over the real reason why no one is clamoring for baseball and hockey players to sacrifice their earning power at the altar of faux amateurism. Like anything else in America that doesn’t make sense, follow the money.
If there were some way to make a lot of money off of college players in baseball, soccer, and golf, while also ensuring those players receiver proper development, then the NCAA schools and the pro leagues would collude to make sure it happens. This is the case with college basketball and football, so those two sports have restrictive draft rules; this is not the case with baseball, soccer, tennis and golf and so prospects in those sports are free to turn professional after high school (or earlier).
There's no money to be made from college baseball outside of a handful of programs and not much money to be made from any league below the majors. Also, major league teams see value in controlling the development of their young prospects; it takes a lot of time to become good at baseball and college students don't have as much of it to devote to the sport.
And so baseball players can go pro out of high school, or they can re-enter the draft after at least a year of junior college or at least three years at a four-year NCAA college. (Travis notes that only 39 major leaguers have a college degree.) Pro baseball is cool with a system that allows it a shot to get 18-year olds under contract and make a bit of money with their minor-league clubs, while the NCAA gets some protection with the three-year rule.
Meanwhile, there is hardly any money to be made with a minor league for tennis, golf, and soccer. Therefore, players in those sports are free to turn pro after high school (or before), after their first year of college or whenever they damn well please. Like the rest of us they are free to pursue any job that someone doing the hiring wants them to do (child labor laws notwithstanding). As Travis said: “(Y)ou can scour the American landscape and hardly find a single profession that adults aren't allowed to pursue to the fullest of their abilities at the age of 18.”
You can find it in the basketball and football industries because of the money. Schools rake in the direct revenue from gate receipts, stadium sales, TV, merchandising, etc. They also get the indirect value of sports that come from marketing, increases in donations, and dramtic increases in applications from prospective students. Lots of people get as big a cut from that cash as they can negotiate in the market: coaches, administrators, support staff, etc.
The players get a cut that is artificially limited to the “cost” of a scholarship, room, board and other relatively minor benefits. Give the players more of the revenue and those making money from their (undercompensated) labor stand to get less of it.
That’s why the NCAA is fighting so hard against challenges to its system. The pro leagues aren’t officially part of that fight but, rest assured, the NBA and NFL are just fine with a free and effective minor-league system. The NBA, in fact, wants to raise the age limit for the draft, thus allowing the colleges to take on more of the costs for developing players. The colleges want the same so they can keep their best players for longer and make more money.
There are no such forces conspiring to make money off of amateur baseball, tennis, golf or soccer players. That explains why those players aren’t forced into a system that restricts their ability to negotiate salary and earn their market value. Race, class and political power are secondary factors—unless by “political power” one means the corporate-friendly courts filled with judges appointed by corporate-friendly politicians who inevitably will find a way to rule in favor of the NCAA and maintain a system that works for their benefactors while screwing the labor.
About the Author
