National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2001
« back to 2001 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Comment
|
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
The last thing you probably want to read is yet another piece on amateurism. But there is one angle (and that may be the only angle) of the matter that we have not addressed sufficiently. And that is the faculty perspective on the amateurism proposals.
Well, there really isn't a faculty perspective; there are many different viewpoints. But when we think through these proposals, I believe we will discover that they merit the faculty's strong support.
I am well aware of the arguments against the amateurism proposals. Most of the concerns revolve around issues of money, especially its sources, competitive inequalities, and the significant difficulties the new legislation would create for collegiate coaches. All of these raise legitimate doubts about the proposed legislation, and I share the anxieties of those who have voiced such concerns. Some of the worst-case scenarios, particularly with respect to third parties intruding themselves into the process at the high-school level, worry me more than a bit.
But I am willing to risk those adverse effects because the overriding result of this legislation is that it enhances student-athlete welfare and supports the educational enterprise, two objectives about which all faculty can agree. The legislation enables teen-agers to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams. Some youngsters have special talents: They are gifted musicians, writers, singers or actors. They may enroll in a university to pursue their gifts on scholarship regardless of their prior careers in those fields.
Why not give student-athletes the same opportunity? The chance to fail is one of the greatest gifts we can give to youngsters because imbedded in that is also the chance that they might succeed. Either way, it becomes an excellent learning experience. If the teen-agers are not successful, they still have a world of options open to them. Most important, they can receive an education and use the God-given talents they have to support their studies -- just like other gifted students. It is not surprising that the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee supported the amateurism package unanimously.
I understand that some of my colleagues are emotionally attached to the concept of amateurism. But it is important to keep in mind that the history of amateurism is exclusionary. It limited athletics competition to those who could afford to support themselves in other ways. Baseball began as a game of gentlemen; working class men could not join clubs, even if they had the time to do so. Up until the 1960s, the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association Championships at Forest Hills (now called the U.S. Open, and played at Flushing Meadow) admitted only amateurs to competition. Most of the participants were upper-middle-class whites. Althea Gibson was the rare exception. And Pancho Gonzales, one of the professionals barred from competition, contended that his Hispanic heritage was a factor in decisions to ban professionals from the tournament.
Historically, amateurism has been a cover for an assortment of ills. It seems hypocritical, for example, to prohibit student-athletes from collecting modest prize money when a number of our member institutions reap millions from their athletics prowess. The amateurism package does not solve every issue, nor is it intended to do so. Most important, it strips intercollegiate athletics of some hypocrisy and restores a dream to student-athletes, both in athletics and academics. These are worthy objectives that override real, but nonetheless subsidiary, concerns.
David Goldfield is the faculty athletics representative at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and is president-elect of the Faculty Athletic Representatives Association.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy