There are no easy solutions when games become big business. I grew up loving sports. Today, my feelings are more complicated. But I would still like to see things get better. I don’t regret being “on the outside.” I like it here. In 2010, I admitted to paying players and other questionable actions. Now, in this book, I’ve said even more about what I did and what I saw others do. I wanted to feel cleaner, feel better about myself, and be a better role model for my daughters.
In late summer 2011, I was invited by U.S. Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois to participate in a roundtable discussion entitled “Hypocrisy or Hype: The Impacts of Back-Room Deals, Payoffs, and Scandals in American Collegiate Student Athletics.” The forum was held in Washington D.C., on November 1, and moderated by six-time Emmy Award–winner Jeremy Schaap of ESPN, with a panel comprised of Congressman Rush, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, sports economist Andy Schwarz; Derek Samson, Assistant Managing Editor of Recruiting for Rivals.com (Yahoo! Sports); Shane Battier, former NCAA All-American and Memphis Grizzlies forward; Thaddeus Young, forward for the Philadelphia 76ers; Dr. Ellen Staurowsky, Professor of Sports Management at Drexel University; Warren K. Zola, Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs at Boston College; Mrs. Valerie Hardrick, mother of Kyle Hardrick, a University of Oklahoma basketball scholarship player; Kyle Hardrick, who was injured and lost his scholarship; Joan Jolly, mother of Andrew Jolly, a Hampton University football player who was injured and lost his scholarship; Ramogi Huma, President of the National College Players Association … and me, Josh Luchs, former loophole-finder, rule-breaker, and Pied Piper to pro prospects turned sports reformer. In the audience were members of other congressional staffs, sports advocates, coaches, university officials, and members of the media (including HBO) that wanted to hear what could be done about the sad state of college athletics.
To say I’ve come a long way is an understatement … from hanging out on the University of Colorado campus, handing Kanavis McGhee some of my bar mitzvah money, to arriving at the U.S. Capitol, on First Street between Independence and Constitution Avenues, walking down the marble steps to the Congressional Auditorium to be greeted by Representative Rush, a former Black Panther and the only candidate to ever defeat Barack Obama. It was a profound honor to be selected to serve on this panel of all-stars, Emmy winners, journalists, and world-class academics. Who would’ve thought I’d have come this far? But there I was.
Jeremy Schaap welcomed everyone and Congressman Rush did the intros. To set the tone of the day, Mr. Rush described the NCAA as “one of the most vicious, most ruthless organizations ever created by mankind. I think you would compare the NCAA to Al Capone and to the Mafia.” Reference was made to Pulitzer Prize–winner Taylor Branch’s recent article, The Shame of College Sports, in which he called the NCAA a “cartel.” No one on the panel disputed those characterizations. Andy Schwarz said that as a result of NCAA “collusion,” 344 Division I schools (the six big conferences) control and “pervert the amateur market.” He and other panel members said the solution is simple and obvious. Embrace free market economics—pay people what they’re worth. With $1.3 billion in profits, the money goes to facilities, coaches, recruiters … everywhere but to those who provide the profits—the laborers, the players. Worse, they sign away all rights once they accept their scholarship. Their likenesses appear on video games, their numbered jerseys are sold, and all the money goes to the school, none to them.
The NCAA does not treat players as employees for one basic reason: to avoid antitrust laws. If they were employees, the employers would be guilty of monopolizing the market. If they were employees, the schools would be responsible for workers comp claims and have to compensate players for the injuries sustained while under their “employ.” Instead, the schools maintain they are providing athletes with something of great value, an education. But in exchange for that education (for those who get it—only about half of players graduate), student-athletes put in sixty to eighty-hour weeks of practices, games, travel, and, oh yeah, school. Shane Battier acknowledged that his schedule as a professional basketball player is easier than what he had as a Duke player, and that he was a religion major because those classes were available when he wasn’t practicing. Jeremy Schaap pointed out the obvious conflict between the supposed high-minded academic goals of these educational institutions and their unbridled commercial greed when it comes to athletics. And we as citizens, fans, and voters support, encourage, and pay for it. On game day, University of Nebraska stadium is the second largest city in the state.
As for the value of the education student-athletes receive, it’s hardly a sure thing. Schools can revoke scholarships any time they want. Witness the cases cited by athlete moms Joan Jolly and Valerie Hardrick, whose sons, one a football player, one a basketball player, each had scholarships pulled once they sustained injuries. Both lost out in their efforts to win hardship appeals from the NCAA. Professor Staurowsky put it bluntly, saying that the way scholarships work is one college player is ushered out the door the moment there’s a better prospect. She referred to a quote from Walter Byers, former Executive Director of the NCAA, “Amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice.” She said, “College sports’ past is now catching up with it.” The NCAA created the pay-for-play concept with the athletic scholarship and now should have to compensate the “full measure of the contribution of the athletes.”
Thanks to a nonstop lobbying effort by the National College Players Association and President Ramogi Huma, athletic scholarships can now be “voluntarily” increased by $2,000, which is still between $1,000 and $3,000 per year short of the real cost of a college education, depending on your figures. Eighty-five percent of student athletes live below the poverty line. But inching up the cost of scholarships is hardly meaningful when the NCAA and its powerhouse schools are earning staggering record profits off the labor of their athletes.
Not only that, I pointed out, but as long as scholarships fall short, the door is open for “guys like me” who can provide the extra cash the players need. Increasing scholarships by $2,000 is “just like throwing a guy on a ten-story burning building a three-story ladder. It makes absolutely no sense.”
Asked to weigh in on better enforcement of the rules as they stand, I focused on my four points:
1. Sports agents are a problem but only part of it. The nonagents, the financial advisors, marketing guys, and runners are as much or more of a threat. They aren’t regulated. And they can be players, trainers, coaches, or family.
2. Coaches have agents and often use that relationship to circumvent the rules restricting agents’ access to players.
3. Compliance staffs are handcuffed because they’re paid by the schools they’re supposed to be policing.
4. There needs to be more accountability all around. Not just from agents or outsiders but from insiders, coaches, athletic directors, and college presidents. But all the enforcement in the world won’t solve the problem. The problem is the system is just plain unfair.
The panel took on the obvious question: Could a free market system be fair? Should schools pay more to a star quarterback than to a lineman, even though they’re getting the same scholarship now? The answer I and others voiced is that, in one form or another, it’s already the reality and stars get more. Once the athletic scholarship was allowed, amateurism was out the window. A scholarship is the equivalent of pay for services, provided in lieu of a salary. But the scholarships are hardly equal in value. A scholarship at a pricey school like Stanford or Duke is worth more than one at Penn State, and powerhouse sports schools like LSU and USC do more for you athletically than Portland State. Some guys get full scholarships while others only get partials. Some players are wooed by boosters; some aren’t. Some are offered a lot of money from agents; some only a little or none. Some are sought after by financial advisors, marketing reps, or runners, and some are not. It’s a free market system now but a bad one—unregulated, inadequate, underpaying, and underground. Almost everyone on the panel agreed that somehow players should be compensated for their contributions. Personally, I favor the agent-loan system over paying players with revenue from a school’s sports profits, especially recognizing NCAA members’ track records of resistance to giving up a dime of “their money” or even acknowledging a problem. But either way, some way, the answer is pay the players.
Near the end of the session, an audience member asked when we could expect to see real solutions. Representative Conyers put it in perspective: Who knew when we’d have a one-payer health plan, when we’d stop entering bad wars, or when there would be a real jobs program? So he sure didn’t know when college sports would be fixed. But Congressman Rush said a forum like this brings the situation to light, not to be discouraged, that there is growing support, and there will be change.
I believe there will be change. Maybe slow, maybe frustrating, but it will happen. That’s why when I was asked to be on this panel in Washington D.C., I made sure my wife and daughters were there. I wanted them to see their dad talk about how to offer fairer, more legitimate choices to young athletes in America. I like the person my daughters see and I now see in the mirror. I credit my wife Jennifer for saving my soul and never losing faith in me. If I can reform, so can sports.