Ten years ago, officials from the Big 8 and Southwest Athletic Conferences became painfully aware that their conferences did not have the size of appeal for television revenues to compete optimally on a national basis.

They were simply too small, so they began discussions to combine their conferences to retain the headline universities, shed marginal competitors and negotiate TV contracts with a mega-base of appeal.

It worked. In the year after its formation, the new conference concluded negotiations that produced the largest TV revenues in collegiate athletic history. This move highlighted a fact that we have known for some time: College athletics is an enormous economic industry.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association could not bar relatively modest payments to student-athletes, a decision that is perhaps a forerunner to future challenges to a college sports system that generates huge sums for schools but provides little or no compensation to the student players.

The decision concerned only payments and other benefits related to education. But its logic suggested that the court may be open to a head-on challenge to the ban by the NCAA regarding paying athletes for their participation in sports that bring billions of dollars in revenue to American universities.

Throughout its history, the NCAA has defended the principle that students should play sports as amateurs and are limited to receiving no more than scholarships, books, room and board and other living expenses. The organization sets the rules for roughly half a million college athletes.

But as television deals have swelled across the decades, sending billions of dollars into the association and its member conferences — fueling arms races for top-notch facilities and big-name coaches — the model has come under increasing legal and political scrutiny.

In an opinion that was not part of the majority, but a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to invite such a challenge to the historical basis of collegiate amateur athletics. He wrote:

“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying a fair market rate, and under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”

In a statement, the NCAA said the ruling “reaffirms its authority to adopt reasonable rules and repeatedly notes that it remains free to articulate what are and are not truly educational benefits.” However, the lingering concern is that it could only be a matter of time before all of the NCAA’s restrictions on compensation are struck down as antitrust violations. Under those circumstances, colleges would be cast in the stark role not of educational institutions but rather cogs within an enormous industry, with compensation directed by market supply and demand.

In the actual majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports.” He further wrote for the majority: “There can be no question but that it needs ample latitude to play that role, or that the preservation of the student-athlete in higher education adds richness and diversity to intercollegiate athletics and is entirely consistent with the goals of” the antitrust laws.

When I was a sophomore undergraduate, I had a university-appointed job of cleaning, on my knees, the cork floors of the electron microscope lab for $6 per hour. That was my economic contribution, dictated by the market. Should not a Heisman Trophy quarterback be paid $250,000 per year for his true and stellar contribution to the university that results from tens of thousands of seats filled in the football stadium?

The decision of the court last week signaled a new focus on the casting of collegiate athletics as a business. However, voices have arisen that contradict the basic veracity of this facile and incorrect assessment of why we have those colleges and universities. We have them for one overpowering reason: to produce educated citizens for the betterment of our society; to give us teachers; to enroll doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants and other professionals for service to our people; and to be citadels of intellectual learning.

Simply stated, our universities are not — and should not — be “minor leagues” for professional sports entirely devoid of primary educational purpose. When we elevate physical prowess above intellectual development, we cheapen the very heart of a university’s purpose. We foster the temporal enjoyment of entertainment over education, and in the long run, we do a disheartening injury to our future.

The University of Chicago is one of the most renowned universities in the world but, even though it produced the first Heisman Trophy winner, it separated itself from economic sports competition — and it thrives. The Ivy League has no athletic scholarships, and still it is our most revered of our schools. Doesn’t that tell us something?

Don Tortorice is a former attorney and professor at the Law School of the College of William and Mary.

Recommended for you

(4) comments

Jim Tomashoff

Very few college athletes in very few college sports will have the opportunity to earn money as a result of the Courts decision. In all likelihood only a few "stars" in college sports, primarily football and basketball will benefit at all in this way. How many college athletes, having attained a degree of fame due to their fame on the gridiron or court, go on to be professionals in their sport? Any guesses?

All Sports 2%

Basketball Men 1%

Basketball Women 1%

Football 2%

Baseball 9% (That's total, not the percentage that make it to the Big Leagues)

Ice Hockey 1%

Soccer (Men) 1%


The vast majority of college athletes, whether on scholarships or not, have the benefit of going to college and can avail themselves of the benefits of doing so.

Patricia Bryan

The only possible good thing I think about this is that maybe the athletes will stay in school for four years instead of jumping to the NBA which I think is the one that attracts them the most. At the same time, more "agents" will suddenly appear and the legal profession will be enhanced by some of the things it will have to do. Will sports that don't bring in the big bucks like basketball and football fade away due to lack of financial support? Not sure this hasn't opened Pandora's box as far as amateur athletics go, but maybe the "student athletes" will pay their tuition instead of getting a free education, which supposedly is worth a lot.

Russell McAllister

I am grateful for this excellent summary. The use of our universities and colleges as farm teams for professional sports teams has long been viewed as devoid of educational value. So many of these so-called "students" depart after a year or so on a campus, taking so-called "classes" (remember UNC?), as a travesty of the so-called "scholarship" awards. What a terrible example for real students who are genuinely interested in an education! These "farm team factories" masquerading as universities should return to genuinely amateur sports and let the professionals set up and run their own farm teams.

Sally Larson

I guess that's the end of sports scholarships.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Comments that violate any of the rules above are subject to removal by staff.

Thank you for reading!

Please purchase a subscription to continue reading. Subscribe today and support local community journalism.

Digital Only Subscriptions

The Pilot

Get unlimited digital access and support award-winning local journalism, for just $5 a month. This includes access to the electronic replica edition of The Pilot.

Starting at
$5.35 for 30 days

Already have a Print Subscription? Get Digital Access Free.

The Pilot

As a print subscriber, you also have unlimited digital access. Connect your account now.

Home Delivery

The Pilot

Our best deal: Get all the news of Moore County delivered to your home each Wednesday and Sunday — and receive unlimited digital access to thepilot.com.

Starting at
$27.82 for 90 days