Menu
Download the app

SBJ subscribers – Enhance your experience with the revamped iOS app

Opinion

NCAA follows path of MLB history but fails to heed lessons

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

— George Santayana

Most junior high school students are familiar with the famous quote, but adhering to its principles is rare as political and business leaders often commit the same errors as their predecessors. For the NCAA, remembering the past experiences of Major League Baseball owners likely would have helped big-time college sports avoid some of the recent litigation, congressional inquiries, media scrutiny and public backlash that have engulfed it the past five years.

From 1879 until 1975, the reserve clause forced players to remain the property of their MLB teams until the team deemed their services no longer necessary. The perception of most fans and casual observers until the 1960s was that players should be content to be paid any salary to play a game. Members of the media often sided with the owners when player complaints arose because they shared the same player envy as the general public and because the owners efficiently courted the media’s favor. Though the owners were wealthy individuals and MLB games were popular, the business of sports largely remained immature with revenue curbed by limited television exposure and a lack of vast public resources being devoted to build palatial facilities. The few players who dared to contest MLB employment rules in court usually were defeated with the public paying little notice.

But the authoritarian power of MLB owners could not and would not last forever. The nascent MLB Players Association became organized and highly functional under Marvin Miller. In the late 1960s, the perception of some media members, fans and the general public began to change, especially as ticket prices escalated and media coverage grew. Though all-star outfielder Curt Flood lost his landmark free agency case against MLB in 1972, a change in perception had clearly begun to occur.

 
Arbitration wins by Andy Messersmith (left) and Dave McNally brought free agency to baseball.
Photos by: GETTY IMAGES (2)
In this environment, MLB owners could have implemented a variety of changes that would have granted higher salaries and established better working conditions for the players. Instead, MLB owners, believing that change could never occur, refused to yield on even minor principles on which MLB labor had operated. They lost a critical 1975 arbitration decision that granted Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally free agency. Instead of largely being able to control the dialogue and the changing labor environment, owners were forced to negotiate significant changes with Miller and a galvanized and emboldened players union. MLB ownership’s stubbornness and lack of foresight resulted in continued labor strife for the better part of 20 years, and a disastrous 1980s salary collusion scandal. Though it likely would not have been as profitable for the players, the history of the business of baseball would have been much different if the owners recognized the changing environment and relented on some of their positions, especially those that contradicted common sense.

The recent history of big-time college sports amazingly mimics much of MLB’s history. Despite money being generated in football and basketball for most of the 20th century, many observers perceived college athletes as engaging in a fun activity that was largely secondary to their educational experiences. The NCAA created rules to “protect” the athletes from commercialization and successfully implemented public relations campaigns designed to propagate the idea of the “collegiate model.” Though there were occasional lawsuits against various aspects of big-time college athletics, they largely were ignored by the general public, especially since the NCAA typically paid off litigants whose cases might cause significant changes in the public’s mind.

Unfortunately, at the same time that interest in big-time college sports was skyrocketing and cable television was paying large sums of money to broadcast games, the NCAA also was refusing to alter what it deemed “appropriate compensation.” Though the NCAA had previously changed what a full-ride athlete could receive (famously eliminating $15 a month in “laundry money” in 1972) it steadfastly refused to entertain any suggestions regarding what was appropriate compensation. After the NCAA created meticulous food limits that included provisions covering cream cheese and other spreads, University of Connecticut guard Shabazz Napier told a throng of reporters at the 2014 Final Four that he often went to bed hungry. Those rock solid rules were changed within two weeks to permit unlimited meals.

As bad as the optics were in the wake of Napier’s comments, engaging in highly commercialized activities that occurred off the field while also claiming to protect athletes from commercialization was far more damaging. Selling thousands of jerseys and engaging in licensed video game sales caused many to question exactly how the NCAA could claim one thing and blatantly engage in contradictory behavior. Ed O’Bannon’s lawsuit regarding the continual selling of his name, image and likeness long after he exhausted his UCLA eligibility potentially will change significant portions of how the NCAA does business.

It is amazing that the newly deregulated NCAA did not observe the previous failures of MLB. The NCAA could have implemented many of its policy changes of the past 18 months 10 years ago — on its own terms. That likely would have staved off much public criticism and potentially game-changing litigation (see Jenkins v. NCAA).

Regardless of how one feels about the NCAA, big-time college sports, compensation levels for athletes or any aspect of a rapidly evolving industry, there is no doubt that the NCAA tightly grasped its power thinking that nothing would ever change. Instead of being the primary instrument of change that clearly needed to be made, it is now largely backed into a corner, with its future as a viable big-time commercial entity in doubt. College sports certainly are not going away in the near or distant future, and they may continue to increase in popularity as the general public greeted the initial ruling in O’Bannon not with disdain that athletes might receive payments for their images, but with fervor for a newly implemented Division I football playoff. Despite its long-standing history as the authoritarian rule maker in college sports, the ability of the NCAA to be the dominant crafter of its future may become a thing of the past.

Santayana likely would have been disappointed in the NCAA’s inability to use the past to see the future.

Mark Nagel (nagelm@hrsm.sc.edu) is a professor of sport and entertainment management and associate director of the College Sport Research Institute at the University of South Carolina.

SBJ Morning Buzzcast: March 25, 2024

NFL meeting preview; MLB's opening week ad effort and remembering Peter Angelos.

Big Get Jay Wright, March Madness is upon us and ESPN locks up CFP

On this week’s pod, our Big Get is CBS Sports college basketball analyst Jay Wright. The NCAA Championship-winning coach shares his insight with SBJ’s Austin Karp on key hoops issues and why being well dressed is an important part of his success. Also on the show, Poynter Institute senior writer Tom Jones shares who he has up and who is down in sports media. Later, SBJ’s Ben Portnoy talks the latest on ESPN’s CFP extension and who CBS, TNT Sports and ESPN need to make deep runs in the men’s and women's NCAA basketball tournaments.

SBJ I Factor: Nana-Yaw Asamoah

SBJ I Factor features an interview with AMB Sports and Entertainment Chief Commercial Office Nana-Yaw Asamoah. Asamoah, who moved over to AMBSE last year after 14 years at the NFL, talks with SBJ’s Ben Fischer about how his role model parents and older sisters pushed him to shrive, how the power of lifelong learning fuels successful people, and why AMBSE was an opportunity he could not pass up. Asamoah is 2021 SBJ Forty Under 40 honoree. SBJ I Factor is a monthly podcast offering interviews with sports executives who have been recipients of one of the magazine’s awards.

Shareable URL copied to clipboard!

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2015/06/01/Opinion/Mark-Nagel.aspx

Sorry, something went wrong with the copy but here is the link for you.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2015/06/01/Opinion/Mark-Nagel.aspx

CLOSE