The Dartmouth men’s basketball team has voted to unionize. This was made possible because “NLRB regional director Laura Sacks concluded that an employer-employee relationship does exist between the Dartmouth basketball players and the college.” This means that athletes should be directly compensated for playing a sport at the university and the formation of a union gives these employees power over Dartmouth. Through this act of unionization, college athletics has taken a new turn and is now outside of the scope of a university’s purpose. Athletics was once a way to help student development but is now a business. This new move sets the stage for us to question the point of universities investing in their athletics programs.
We all attend college to become educated and develop as people. That education is meant to be holistic, evident through an emphasis on academics, social development and skill development. This is done through classes, clubs and other opportunities that educational institutions provide to their students. It is all ultimately designed to help students develop as human beings, figure out their place in society and grow to be capable of succeeding in the world. This theme applies to college athletics programs. Sports teams help students to physically develop and gain essential skills such as teamwork, time management and perseverance. As an opportunity for students to develop and grow, it makes complete sense for colleges to invest in an athletics program.
However, once we start to argue that athletes are employees of a university, it is extremely easy to question why we would even need an athletics department. On one hand, athletics programs may help to bring in donors and generate money for the university. However, if that is the primary intent, then the benefit is no longer helping students develop for the sake of student development. The lens with which we view the program is now as a business, rather than a developmental opportunity. While colleges need money, their primary focus is not to bring in revenue. In that sense, athletics has no place in an institution with the goal to prepare students for the real world.
This argument is based on the root cause of needing an athletics program at an educational institution. If the underlying reasoning is because of the intrinsic value that students get from being a part of it, then it makes no sense to pay students. They are supposed to be the ones benefiting from the program, and as such should not receive compensation. On the other hand, if the reasoning is that college athletics is a business that can generate university money, then athletes should be paid. Therefore, if athletes are getting paid, we must question if institutes of higher education should be dedicating time and resources to a program not centered around serving students.
The recent changes occurring in the business of college athletics underscore a larger cultural change where college sports are prioritized over academics. UConn, for example, is known as the “Basketball Capital of the World.” This title tells you nothing about the school’s effectiveness at educating its students and preparing them for the real world. When society focuses more on a college’s athletics programs as compared to everything else that the institution has to offer, it sets a dangerous precedent. UConn is a fantastic university that offers students a great education, conducts high-level research and has a ton of opportunities for students to thrive and develop outside of class. Unfortunately, this reputation seems to matter less than how good our basketball program is.