College football fans love August when teams start camp, forgotten recruits reemerge, bench players rise up the depth charts, and national championship contenders abound. This August is different.
Anticipation of the coming season with its new playoff format has given way to speculation about the future of college athletics itself. Two decisions, one by the NCAA Board of Directors establishing autonomy for the "Big 5" conferences and the other by Federal Judge Claudia Williams upholding athletes' right to limited compensation for certain revenues, will, according to many pundits, change the landscape of college athletics. The NCAA Board of Directors gave the "Big Five" athletic conferences legislative autonomy to make decisions that will widen the existing gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in college football. Judge Williams dismissed the NCAA's understanding of and commitment to amateurism as inconsistent and without principle.
Both decisions affirm that "big-time" college football and basketball programs are industries that operate according to the economic laws of the marketplace and are, therefore, subject to the federal laws that regulate transactions in the marketplace. The NCAA argued in the O'Bannon case that their restrictions on compensating athletes protected the "educational mission" of college athletics and the "popularity" of college sports. Compensating athletes would, according to the NCAA, kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Yet on the basis of the testimony presented, Judge Williams concluded the NCAA's fears were unfounded. Among other considerations, she concluded that fan allegiance is based on "loyalty to the school" and would not be adversely affected by limited payments to athletes. In fact, it was not even clear from the testimony whether college athletic programs would suffer economically if all academic requirements were dropped.
In her ruling, Judge Williams sought to protect the economic interests of the college sports industry within the parameters of anti-trust law. She clearly set aside issues related to the integrity of the industry itself including the viability of the industry's only regulating body, the NCAA. Football fans of the elite colleges have no reason to be concerned about the O'Bannon ruling. The goose will continue to lay her golden eggs.
College presidents, faculty, and students, however, have reason to be concerned. The goose will lay golden eggs no matter how commercialized college football and basketball become. The question is not about sustaining the profitability of college sports but about the integrity of the enterprise itself. If amateur athletics are no longer viable, should college football and basketball be more than a minor league for NFL and NBA? Should college athletic departments be held accountable for the genuine integration of athletics and academics? Should the winners and losers in college sports be determined through competition on an equal playing field or in the marketplace? Finally, should wealthiest among the athletic elite submit themselves to an NCAA empowered to enact genuine reform on behalf of the interests of student athletes and fair competition, or should they permit the "arms race" to continue unabated? These questions should be answered, regardless of golden eggs.