[Goose]

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  


Cheers,

Pete F.

I totally agree that the commercial model of just about anything isn't "fair" and doesn't claim to be. That is the problem with the NCAA functioning as a hybrid of a commercial and a not-for-profit organization. The commercial, for profit part makes money from selling the rights to various parts of college sports. Some sports really aren't commercially "profitable" at all to the NCAA, and actually cost the NCAA money. Others are profitable to different degrees. No matter what definition of "fairness" for the distribution of this profit one chooses, the question will be: Should the NCAA maximize profit or maximize fairness? Profit and fairness have different units, so it makes them difficult to compare. Some actions may benefit both profit and fairness but to greatly different degrees. If one chooses a "hybrid" goal, which is where we are now, the two dimensions will always be in conflict with each other, as will conflicting definitions of how to measure "fairness".

It may appear that attempting to modulate the NCAA "fairness" metric is a good way to go. I think it is a hopeless task, becoming more hopeless every day as more "dimensions" are continually added to the fairness metric. It might work if the sports public would settle for "good enough", but it seems improbable that will happen. Someone will always be outraged about something (unfortunately justly so in many cases). IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

It may be that a separate regulatory body should be created that is composed of college presidents (or some such) that has no profit/loss motive at all. A second independent body then is hired to market the sports. The regulatory body spends the profits in as fair a way as possible and takes all the heat on the fairness side. Might work better that way? At least under those conditions it would be clear where the responsibilities lay. The marketing organization would make no decisions about how the profits were to be spent or distributed. If there was a "fairness" issue, the parent organization would be where the buck would stop. It would obviously be important to not have a "tail wag the dog" situation with the marketing organization, but at least if that was happening it would be obvious that the parent organization was at fault in not asserting control. Right now, it is impossible to know what the NCAA "management" is really thinking.

[Goose]

This is all dependent on the definition of "fair".  Each player getting their proportional share of the profits earned from their sport is only one version of fair.  But that assumes that each sport is independent of the entire athletic department along with its other sports, and independent of the greater university along with its many other stakeholders.  It also assumes that the commerce model is at least efficient and probably equitable.  There is little evidence that commerce in sports markets is efficient with regard to compensating the athletes.  In fact many sports have great disparity in power and exchange of information.  It is clear that US pro sports vary greatly in the structures that inhibit the market from functioning "fairly."  I get that you are mostly just pointing out the fallacy of seeming equality being the same as fairness, but every fight for fairness has its weaknesses.  That does not mean that the fight is not justified and that those pushing for fairness have less legitimacy than others who have more traditional views of fairness.  


Cheers,

Pete F.

I totally agree that the commercial model of just about anything isn't "fair" and doesn't claim to be. That is the problem with the NCAA functioning as a hybrid of a commercial and a not-for-profit organization. The commercial, for profit part makes money from selling the rights to various parts of college sports. Some sports really aren't commercially "profitable" at all to the NCAA, and actually cost the NCAA money. Others are profitable to different degrees. No matter what definition of "fairness" for the distribution of this profit one chooses, the question will be: Should the NCAA maximize profit or maximize fairness? Profit and fairness have different units, so it makes them difficult to compare. Some actions may benefit both profit and fairness but to greatly different degrees. If one chooses a "hybrid" goal, which is where we are now, the two dimensions will always be in conflict with each other, as will conflicting definitions of how to measure "fairness".

It may appear that attempting to modulate the NCAA "fairness" metric is a good way to go. I think it is a hopeless task, becoming more hopeless every day as more "dimensions" are continually added to the fairness metric. It might work if the sports public would settle for "good enough", but it seems improbable that will happen. Someone will always be outraged about something (unfortunately justly so in many cases). IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

It may be that a separate regulatory body should be created that is composed of college presidents (or some such) that has no profit/loss motive at all. A second independent body then is hired to market the sports. The regulatory body spends the profits in as fair a way as possible and takes all the heat on the fairness side. Might work better that way? At least under those conditions it would be clear where the responsibilities lay. The marketing organization would make no decisions about how the profits were to be spent or distributed. If there was a "fairness" issue, the parent organization would be where the buck would stop. It would obviously be important to not have a "tail wag the dog" situation with the marketing organization, but at least if that was happening it would be obvious that the parent organization was at fault in not asserting control. Right now, it is impossible to know what the NCAA "management" is really thinking.