As I sit down to write this, the biggest sports news of the day is "The U". The University of Miami is in trouble for alleged violations in the athletic program, mainly football, committed over the last 20 years. Whether or not the allegations prove true is a discussion for another day. For today, my purpose is only to look at why this situation is destined to repeat itself.
First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I have already mentally tied this situation to a situation from the American past. In the 1970's, "welfare" programs born in the 50's and 60's had an impact on our country. That impact is perceived to have been so universally negative, that the country reformed "welfare" programs almost to the point of elimination. Forty years later, "welfare" programs have a hard time finding fans in our society.
I became far too familiar with government assisted housing or "The Projects" as a child. I went to school with and became friends with kids from that background. However, I was not a fan. Not because I did not see the good that came out of some of these situations (including in my own extended family), but because I saw first hand the lack of accountability the programs created for some (maybe even many) of the participants. While I was a big fan of the money given in churches or charities being used to help people in poverty, the recipients of the money always knew where the money came from and, it seemed to me, felt some sense of accountability to those who were providing them help. Moreover, the people giving the money were doing it voluntarily. On the other hand, some recipients, who found checks in their mailboxes did not have the same sense of responsibility or accountability to their community. Long story short, in my experience, if anyone is charitable enough to help his neighbor, it is better that the neighbor know who is helping. This arrangement avoids some misguided notion that the one giving the money is actually the enemy and should be disliked because they were successful enough to have money or a job (or the latest, athletic ability ). In the public housing projects of 1960's and 1970's, one of the complaints often voiced was that those who went to work were "robbed" by their unemployed neighbors. Hard to imagine, but for the uneducated stealing from the provider might have made some sense because of the distance between provider and recipient (the actual transactions occurred in Washington D.C.).
In 2011, that entire situation has been turned on it's head. Today, we look to tough neighborhoods, and the kids from them, as some of the most fertile ground for college football recruiting. Today, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) has replaced the federal government in the collection and redistribution of the wealth. The nations universities are in the business of separating thousands of young men from the proceeds of their labor. Talented athletes, who have a "free market" value in the millions can be had for a $15 to $40 thousand yearly scholarship.
The interesting question will be whether we begin to see the same backlash we saw against "welfare queens" in the 1980's and the ensuing "welfare" reforms of the 1990's. My instincts tell me that the young, increasingly poor, and powerless athletes will have a difficult time finding a voice in the system that is addicted to the billions in revenue they are generating. Like welfare in reverse, the generational entitlement system is growing. As the parties involved create newer and better ways to exploit and divvy up the rewards of the college athlete's work. Meanwhile, the athletes themselves fall further and further down every list. Television networks, NCAA executives, coaches, college administrators, and even journalist are all finding more and better opportunities available to them. Soon (but apparently not soon enough), new Super-conferences will be able to offer their colleges a larger pie to carve up. Some colleges are beginning to create their own networks. Money now rules the entire athletic system, as colleges battle for position at the trough. Society has shrugged off the last vestiges of our former fairy-tale about the "student" athlete. There is now a singular focus, insuring that the actual athlete's are not "compensated" and are only entitled to the college education (and degree) that many of them never obtain.
As the story goes, football and basketball programs generate the revenues of the athletic departments. Those funds are then used to pay for the scholarships of golfers, volleyball players, swimmers, soccer players, and the list goes on. Always wanting more money and having new places to spend it, the colleges are negotiating bigger and better deals for themselves, to the exclusion of the athletes. The only question I have is: Where is the outrage about the "welfare" system the NCAA is building? Is "welfare" only an issue to be hated when the people receiving the benefits are "poor" and those creating the benefits are not? Will anyone write the story so that the people actually creating the income are looked upon as over-worked, over-taxed people generating money for the benefit of others? Will the story ever be written that these young men from the cities and small towns are actually providing scholarships for their suburban counterparts and building the athletic department budgets? When will the animus rise to such a fever pitch that the issue are addressed?
Unfortunately, over time, the numbers of beneficiaries are outpacing the numbers of providers. As this mushroom grows, the athlete's on the bottom are being covered completely by the weight and size of the upper plant. As sports networks multiply and television contracts grow, the business side of the games places a larger and heavier burden on those who can and must sustain it. The question is never even asked, "What is fair?" Instead, the search goes on to find the next superstar college football or basketball player who dared to take a car or a home (in addiction to his $25,000 yearly voucher) toward a degree he will never get, while bringing in millions or much more to a University. Unlike the upper middle class, who had the power and knowledge to win over a majority and stop the transfer of their wealth to the poorest among us, these youngsters are unlikely to create an anti-tax sentiment that allows them to keep what they produce.
Sometimes "Racism" manifest itself not in what we say about each other, but in the questions that are so foreign to our thought patterns that they are never even contemplated, much less asked. The extravagant and costly systems (NCAA) created and empowered to justify what is patently unfair are only as strong as the agreement our society makes to see things the same way. It is not until someone says, "I refuse to pay higher taxes so that someone else can benefit" that we begin to see that maybe the path we are on is not a foregone conclusion. Apparently, the real problem with the 70 percent tax rates of the 1970's was not that they were too high. They were poorly marketed. If the tax rates had been 100 percent (or really close to it) and we had contrived rules to stop the taxpayer from actually, personally receiving any of their money, the system might still be in place. It could have been called "scholarships", instead of "welfare".
