IS IT TIME FOR A LEGISLATIVE DEATH SENTENCE?

Richard Vedder, economics emeritus from Ohio University (yes, that's another Mid-American program) welcomes California's legislative mandate that college athletes get paid.

His column, starting with commentary on a survey (recall, dear reader, that economists aren't fond of surveys) likely reflects his experience with #MACtion.  "[Students] are indifferent to college sports, think it shouldn’t have much impact on college admissibility, and that student athletes should be able to make some money over their athletic success."  Around the Mid-American, I have to wonder how many survey respondents are aware of the activity fees that support the intercollegiate sports, meaning students who use food pantries are paying for nutrition coaches for the players who might get a few bucks from their images turning up on a video game.

Substantively, Mr Vedder welcomes legislative action.

Moving from campuses to capitals, California almost certainly is going to tell the NCAA: go to hell. The Governor (Gavin Newsom) is expected to sign a bill passed with broad bipartisan support allowing students to profit off their name, image, and likeness. Mark Emmert, the head of the NCAA, who in an earlier life was president of the University of Washington, has fulminated aggressively, hinting that California schools could be shut out of national championship competition, a threat that I view as both unlikely to be approved even within the NCAA and almost certain would end that sports cartel in its current form, as it would finally lead Congress to act about this national scandal called college sports.

It's not clear how this California law applies to, say, Stanford or the University of Spoiled Children, but do you toss the Bears and the Bruins out of whatever number that Pacific conference trades under these days?

Then, for better or worse, Congress gets involved.

Meanwhile, Congress is starting to stir. Mark Walker, a Republican Congressman from North Carolina, wants to yank the NCAA’s tax-exempt status if it does not change its policy on athletes financially benefiting from their own name. My friend and colleague Dave Ridpath, president of the reformist Drake Group, tells me that there is growing interest on Capitol Hill among such Democratic stalwarts as Connecticut’s Senator Chris Murphy (who has been especially outspoken) and Florida Representative (and former university president) Donna Shalala, as well as such conservative Republicans as Ohio’s Steve Stivers, in federal intervention reducing the sleaze, anti-academic nature, and scandals miring contemporary intercollegiate athletics.

On the one hand, Donna "Queen of Clubs" Shalala is a Democrat, meaning she isn't likely ever to encounter a tax she doesn't like, particularly if it looks like "the rich" are getting soaked.  On the other hand, she earned that high sheepshead ranking by her work at Syracuse (at the time a football factory), Wisconsin (which she managed to turn into a sports factory, whilst demonstrating the value of bringing in out of state students for the parties), and Miami (I'll be polite.)

I hope Mr Vedder is aware of Representative Shalala's possible conflicts of interest.

A National Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics consisting of prestigious Americans almost entirely directly unconnected with collegiate sports is one intriguing proposal. As a former member of a federal commission myself, I am abundantly aware of their limitations, and extreme care is needed in crafting one, not allowing it to be controlled by politicians or those in the collegiate sports industry. But at the worse a piddling amount of money is wasted, and at best some good ideas can come about that preserve the peculiar American institution of intercollegiate athletic competition and its entertainment value, while reducing the excesses and the corruption associated with it. Limits need to be placed on the use of athlete’s time, control needs to reside within academic areas of universities, the NCAA needs to be neutered, team practices, season length, and coaching staffs need trimming, etc. During the Cold War, international treaties were required to control the arms race; so perhaps a “treaty” is needed via the political process to contain the arms race in intercollegiate athletics.

I'm not sure what he means by "prestigious" Americans or what "directly unconnected with collegiate sports" means. Wasn't the original conception of the regulatory commission to assemble Dispassionate Experts, meaning people who understand something about what it is they're regulating, whilst with the probity to resist the subornation that accompanies any such action?

Now, if we're going to have such a treaty, the first thing that has to go is weeknight football.