Blogs > Liberty and Power > No Anti-Trust Protection for Student Athletes

Aug 15, 2009 9:32 am

No Anti-Trust Protection for Student Athletes

If you like college sports but hate the way they are corrupting universities, you might like economist Tom Grennes's discussion of the athletic cartel (NCAA) on the Pope Center site.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jane S. Shaw - 2/25/2009

That sounds right, Mark. You're saying that if the NCAA's rules didn't have some government backing, they would be "kaput." It's possible that the NCAA exists through agreements with the universities (who are cowed by their athletic boosters) rather than the government, but I will check with other economists, including Tom Grennes.

William Marina - 2/23/2009

Prof. Grennes appears shocked at the situation in College Athletics. If he consulted the latest Chronicles of Higher Education study he would find that coaches in many cases exceed the income of college presidents, who have also been the subjects of some criticism. This is all old hat!

Fifty five years ago I was recruited by a dozen schools across the South. The Gators told me, given my grades, I could major in whatever I wanted! Gee, thanks! Also, that while Miami and others tutored with graduate students, the Gators used the Profs. in any given class. When I asked about the ethics of this, the Head Recruiter, Mr. "Bird Dog" Jones opined as how, no one had ever raised that question before. I did sign with Miami, but, fortunately also was offered an academic scholarship, which I accepted. While the "pay" for Jocks was low, it would have been higher than the academic scholarship. So, what's new?

Mark Brady - 2/23/2009

Although I don't follow college sports, I found Thomas Greene's discussion most interesting.

I have just one thought to share with you and our readers. Economic theory and historical experience suggest that successful cartels are always rooted in state privilege of one sort or another. What are the federal and state laws that support the NCAA? Get rid of those and there would be no need to invoke another round of government intervention (antitrust laws) to deal with the harmful consequences of the first round of government intervention.