cameron

There’s something familiar about the Protect College Sports Act. For generations, everyone in college sports was allowed to maximize their value. The coaches, commissioners, conferences, universities and networks. Everyone except the athletes creating much of that value. That was called “amateurism.” Pretty good business model when you think about it. The labor does the heavy lifting while everyone around it participates in the economics. That arrangement looks familiar. Who has disproportionately created the value in the sports driving this debate? Who has historically controlled the institutions and who was expected to simply be grateful for the opportunity? American history gives us enough context to connect the dots, but I’ll leave that alone for now. Then athletes gained economic opportunity and autonomy, and suddenly we started hearing words like “chaos,” “unsustainable” and “competitive imbalance.” Funny how the market is in crisis only when the athletes are finally allowed to participate in it. College sports has never been more popular or culturally relevant. Enormous audiences. Packed stadiums. Massive media contracts. Billions of dollars being generated. Yet somehow college sports is now in “crisis.” Truly difficult times for college sports I must say. Of course, the solution is greater control over where athletes play, when they can move and how they can be compensated. Funny how the emergency only begins when the people generating the value gain some leverage over the people who have spent years extracting it. So look beyond the word “Protect.” Who is being protected? Who keeps the authority? Who writes the rules? Most importantly, who is being asked to give up their leverage?