Boyce Watkins on the latest Michigan scandal.
… One can hardly blame Michigan Coach Rodriguez for pushing the players too hard, since universities make it clear that winning percentages matter far more than graduation rates. The University of Kentucky’s decision to pay nearly $30 million dollars to John Calipari, a coach known for both corruption and a lack of academic integrity, sends a message about the importance of winning games over educating athletes.
We know that corruption rolls down hills and at the bottom of this pile are the players, their families and the entire African-American community. NCAA athletes in revenue- generating sports are typically kept in special dormitories, forced to live on rigorous athletic schedules, and pushed to place football ahead of everything else. All the while, the administrators on central campus, as educated as they are, turn themselves into unenlightened blind mice when confronted with the reality of athletic exploitation.
… Massive reform is needed not only within the Michigan football program, but also within all of college sports. Congress must step in and challenge the NCAA for anti-trust violations, as well as its tax-exempt status. NCAA revenues during March madness rival that of the NFL and NBA, so it’s time to note the NCAA for what it truly is: a professional sports league that artificially restricts the wages of its employees…
September 20th, 2009 at 6:51AM
The NCAA is a not-for-profit organization the same as George Washington University is. Do you really think the federal government could design a tax law that would someone get money out of the NCAA without having it apply to all private universities?
Also, a little nitpick. Separate dorms for athletes have been banned by the NCAA due to the athlete only dorm that used to exist at Oklahoma.
The real scandal, as was mentioned, is how little value an athlete scholarship really is worth. Majoring in general studies in Michigan and leaving school when your eligibility is up greatly increases the chance of future failures.
September 20th, 2009 at 7:32AM
superdestroyer: Here’s an abstract of an article by a specialist in tax law arguing that you can indeed do that, or at least begin accomplishing something very like that — and suggesting how:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1336727#
September 20th, 2009 at 9:37PM
I prefer the term "not-for-profit" or "non-profit" rather than "tax-exempt" because of a joke I once heard. The punchline was: "We don’t call it PROFIT… we call it SURPLUS!" Any organization, tax paying or otherwise, has to be generally in the black in order to exist as a going concern.
Besides the tax and "non-profit" issues, these companies have some other differences from the ordinary company. For instance, they can take (tax-free) contributions, must show community benefit, and, for ones like the NCAA, aren’t supposed to be politically active.
They have to file tax forms. These forms are called 990’s. Go to guidestar.org to get a copy of your favorite tax-free organization’s 990. You can find out how much the head honcho, and many of the little honchos, are paid.
September 21st, 2009 at 7:57AM
The real problem here is that you can’t argue BOTH that college athletics are big money-makers that ought to be taxed, AND that they are money-losers that divert funds from academic purposes. The second is correct.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:36AM
Mr Punch–
I think you can. You can argue that most programs are money-losers (which they are), and that some programs are money-makers and should be taxed (which they are). Not least, the prospect of taxation might bring some sunlight to bear on the dark corners of college athletics.