There was a time—it wasn’t long ago—when “off-field issues” was a term of choice. It referred to incidents away from fields of play. But those incidents are so pronounced these days—so frequent, so explosive—that “off-field” doesn’t capture the significance of what’s going on.
At least one sports leader has things pegged right. It’s Bud Selig, MLB commissioner. “Baseball is a social institution. It has social obligations and responsibilities,” he has said many times—and not just recently. And while Selig’s authority applies only to baseball his assertion extends far beyond that sport.
Courtesy: ngngsports.com
Let’s face it, though: the real issue is moving beyond rhetoric, to demonstrate what it means to act like a social institution. But, sadly, the action to date seems feeble—underwhelming, if not pathetic—and outrageously misaligned with underlying problems in professional and collegiate sports.
Want examples?
When the NCAA voted to give more authority to The Power 5 conferences—the really big schools with the really big athletic programs—that decision added fuel to a fire. What the NCAA did is akin to what might happen if the Federal government told the country’s biggest banks: “Set your own rules.”
When the NFL created a new position—vice president for social responsibility—the outcome seemed more political charade than meaningful response. Rather than turn to an experienced, proven, respected, and nationally-known outsider, the commissioner named an early-career insider without substantial portfolio. It was a weak move, coming at a time when the country was looking for the NFL to act large.
And when crises hit–for the Minnesota Vikings with the Peterson case (alleged child abuse) and for Florida State with the Winston case (sexualized references uttered in public)–there was one response about how to handle matters, then another, both within a matter of hours.
What’s the really sad thing about all of this? Doing what needs to be done isn’t difficult (at least not substantively). Let’s look at how it might be done. We’ll look at pro athletics, first, and then at college sports.
The first step on the pro side is for league authorities and the owners to make social responsibility a priority. That commitment needs to apply to league offices and franchise administrations, not just to what authorities expect of their players. Consider what has happened recently with the Clippers and Hawks (racial insensitivity by owners and management), Colts (owner’s drug abuse), and Washington’s (NFL) seemingly never-ending “naming issue.”
Then hire experienced hands, people who know what they are doing, that is, how to design and implement meaningful plans and programs. Set time targets for getting initiatives in place. Give them the authority and tools to make their work count. Then let them loose.
They’ll draft plans and programs. They’ll run pilot tests and revise things as needed. They’ll put full-scale efforts into action, evaluate progress, and report on the outcomes. They’ll revise the efforts as needed and make ongoing improvements.
What about oversight? Scrap the concept of having all of this managed by a vice president who reports directly to a commissioner. Instead put oversight in the hands of a national-level blue ribbon committee—advocates for the public good—who don’t have employment or other ties to the professional leagues. A VP can serve as the committee contact person.
Courtesy: bigstory.ap.org
And you don’t need to go hunting around to figure out what needs to be addressed. It’s on the public record: Spousal abuse. Racism. Sexual preference intolerance. Gender insensitivity and bias. Child abuse. Drug abuse. Head injuries. Those are seven areas … for starters.
Deciding how to proceed doesn’t require a Ph.D, either. It’s a three-phase, interconnected initiative: Information-Education (to reduce frequency and magnitude of occurrence); Intervention (to deal with issues when they arise, including having support programs in place for offenders and families); and Penalties-with-Teeth (for infractions).
All of the above applies to the college game, but another matter looms large at the college level: it’s the corrupting influence of money. It’s hard to tell the difference between college and pro these days—except that the college players don’t get paid. And when it comes to athletics, major schools act more like they’re located on Madison Avenue than on Campus Drive.
What’s needed? It’s a matter of bounding and rechanneling resources.
“Bounding resources” means putting controls on money—how much can be spent, where it comes from, and how it can be used. And the situation requires different remedies for big-time and smaller schools, respectively.
For big-time schools it’s time to do what the pros do now: cap spending. Put caps on how much money can be spent annually on two items that have gotten out of control: coaching staff salaries in revenue-producing sports and facilities improvement-expansion. The way to achieve the second outcome, in particular, is to put an annual cap on another item: how much money can be raised through athletic philanthropy. And don’t high-ball these caps, either. Analyze the data nationally for the Power 5 conferences and, then, pick cap targets that will accomplish a really important (and needed) goal: putting a governor on the outlandish (spending) “arm’s race” in major collegiate sports.
While most big-time schools have money to spend—and most of it comes from revenues that athletics generate—that’s simply not the case at smaller schools where a good share of revenue comes from subsidies. Subsidies emanate from student fees, allocations from the school’s general fund, and other means—not funds generated by athletic activity, directly and indirectly (e.g., gate receipts, merchandise sales). As I’ve written elsewhere at The Sports Column, athletic subsidies last year for public colleges and universities exceeded $2 billion dollars; and over 80 schools had athletic subsidies exceeding 70% of total revenues. That situation is intolerable: the NCAA needs to set reasonable limits on the percentage of athletic budgets that comes by way of athletic subsidies.
“Rechanneling resources” means using and investing revenues in new and/or expanded ways. Athletes in revenue-generating sports at major schools need to be compensated reasonably. One option is to set compensation levels equivalent to what graduate assistants earn for working on research projects and from teaching. Just as grad assistants’ pay is graded (at most schools) by level of experience, compensation levels for student-athletes can be set the very same way.
Then there’s the important matter of sports injuries. Many college sports involve physical confrontation, including many sports we haven’t historically viewed that way (e.g., soccer). The prospect of injury, especially head injury, looms large; and it’s the most troubling and pervasive health issue facing competitive athletics. With the prospect of injury—often long-term, severe injury—the NCAA needs to create a national health and medical insurance program for former college athletes who suffer from debilitating injuries. To make this workable, criteria will need to be developed for funding the care of former athletes. What won’t suffice is doing only what the NCAA is doing now (a forced action that came by way of law suit): evaluating student-athletes for the possibility of head injuries.
Finally, both professional and collegiate sports need to invest more significantly in sports-safety research, including work that leads to technological breakthroughs in equipment. Sports safety has always been an issue, but it’s especially important today. Why? As a society we’re more aware of the health consequences associated with competition. And today’s players are big, strong, and fast. The hits they give and take seem harder, and the hurt (that sometimes comes) can last a lifetime.
Courtesy: councilforunity.org
What do we need to make all of this happen? Leadership. Socially responsible leadership. But, sadly, that’s lacking, not only in sports administration, but in the institutions that oversee athletics, including at our colleges and universities. That’s an intolerable outcome. The lack of progress—with excuses, foot-dragging, defensiveness, and self-serving rhetoric—is shocking. It’s not that we don’t know how to do this; it’s more a matter of not wanting to do it. That onerous interpretation begs an awful question: Do these people even care?
If they do then owners, presidents, chancellors, trustees, and league commissioners will need to embrace a different metric for evaluating “success.” No longer will successful performance be measured only by wins, championships, gate receipts, media revenue, donor contributions, and the like. Those are important outcomes—athletically and for sports as a business—but they aren’t sufficient for claiming success as a social institution.
Bud Selig has it right, at least in concept. We’re just not there yet.
