College Football is an incredible spectacle of a sport.
While other sports have a level of athletic skill, or physical grit, or power, the idea of putting it all together in a gladiator like spectacle, down to the wearing of painted armor and where the play isn't over until the ball is put out of play, or the carrier of the ball is violently put to the ground, is unique to Football.
There are so many intricacies to the game we could get into, we could go on about multiple books on the subject, but the rating and money doesn't lie.
America loves College Football.
The final championship and premiere games drive enormous sums of money into the pockets of administrators, coaches, television executives, and the economic tendrils of the game extend to even the local hospitality industries such as restaurants and hotels.
But for years, the only people limited in terms of money they could make from the sport were those playing the games
That is not to say student-athletes aren't compensated to various degrees, they are.
The problem lies in the equity of the compensation.
I would love it if more money was spread out to the student athlete's, whose public performance is used by the schools to further generate revenue and attract potential new students and donors.
I believe players should be able to make some extra money to capitalize on their talents and that the current system is FAR too restrictive in that regard.
So when I say I'm currently worried about the current climate of College Football rhetoric surrounding NIL, and the lack of a follow up plan in terms of regulation of specific industries, it's not because I'm looking to be a pessimist, or that I begrudge the players making a cut of the money they generate.
It's because I want to see the sport succeed and at the moment, there seems to be almost no rules in terms of money towards pay for play, and the potential for the gap between the haves and have nots will only widen.
It wasn't until I listened to The Obligatory Penn State podcast and having an open mind that I have come to this conclusion, where one of the hosts, Kevin Horn layered out a fantastic argument against the NIL based in logical consistency and still being for worker and student-athlete rights.
Kevin predicted, and I am now inclined to agree, that as currently constructed, without ANY limits on endorsements (or fake endorsements) the teams with the most resources and fervent fan bases will not only continue to get the most talent, they will likely get more of it and keep the athletes on their campuses for longer.
Most already admit that there is cheating going on that emulates this.
Rumors, as well as testimonial evidence suggests bag men at big schools have been going on for years and there is plenty of evidence that problem has led to the lack of equity in athletics already.
Now, the money can be out in the open, and there can be more of it.
Recently, a mid tier Miami gym owner, of zero national repute, all of a sudden became a trailblazer, offering the entire football team the opportunity to earn 500 a month to simply endorse his martial arts.
It isn't hard to imagine super wealthy, super bored, super egotistical billionaires continuing to look for new toys and opportunities to put their brand and id into the world and finding that funding a college athletics department at either an alma mater, or simply because they are a fan of the school for, will disproportionately affect the entire college football landscape.
Not only would the teams with the wealthiest and most willing donors attract the most highly regarded players; but they could likely keep them longer, as the allure of an NFL contract no longer holds quite the same weight.
If Robert Kraft wants to help fund an entire pipeline to the NFL and donate 10 million dollars from his personal bank account to Alabama (and his friend, Nick Saban), it would be just .5% of his wealth and the equivalent of someone worth 100,000 dollars donating roughly 600 dollars to impose incredible outsized influence over the sport. Instead of the gym owner, one NFL owner could make a tiny drop in his bucket and pay 111k to each player on the team.
The prestige of higher education and the nobility of helping athletes after years of exploitation would give just enough cover to justify endorsement contracts already approaching into the millions of dollars. And without any guard rails, I suspect the difference between the have and have nots will only expand, and winners in various athletic teams will routinely be the schools who are able to convince their donors who have vast sums of wealth, to invest that wealth directly back to their athletes.
Penn State has a good amount of wealth. According to some publications, they produce more CEO's than just about any other school in the country. However, it has not been easy for Penn State to recently to get the reinvestment into its athletic department like it has been for Clemson, Alabama and Ohio State. In part, that is due, I believe, to a relatively split fan base, one that opposes "overpaying" for athletics and finds the very idea of the current mix of money, education and athletics appalling; while another group of the same fan base wants their team to win National Championships, and if we can finally start paying the players, just do it.
I find myself absolutely rooting for the players, but I'm also rooting for a fair system. A system that creates benefits for all, and the benefits are spread equitably. It is still early, and adjustments are happening in real time as the impact of the decision continues to reverberate. Perhaps just like the other professional leagues, the college system will develop its own cap to prevent boosters and powerful alumni from being too aggressive in terms of buying the next generation of athletes.
It will be up to the leadership at the universities themselves whether or not they can actually take back control of their athletic departments for the greater good of their mission and their communities at large.
