Stop Coaches and Administrators From Destroying the Noble Ideals Of Amateurism

The New York Times decided to take this hot take out of the freezer and into the microwave for some reason:

Paying student-athletes might sound like a fairer way to treat students who generate so much money and attention for their colleges (not to mention the television networks that broadcast their games). But paying athletes would distort the economics of college sports in a way that would hurt the broader community of student-athletes, universities, fans and alumni. A handful of big sports programs would pay top dollar for a select few athletes, while almost every other college would get caught up in a bidding war it couldn’t afford.

There are obviously no good arguments made in defense of peonage ball, but the argument that players must be exploited to defend the precious competitive balance of collegiate sports is surely the most surreally removed from the most basic facts. Yes, if players were paid we might have a situation where, say, Alabama and Clemson were in the BCS playoff year after year after year, a situtation that should it arise would permanently destroy all interest in college athletics.

Anyway, Barry Petchesky offers an equally logical edit:

Paying [coaches and administrators] might sound like a [fair] way to treat [the employees who recruit the athletes] who generate so much money and attention for their colleges (not to mention the television networks that broadcast their games). But paying [coaches and administrators] [distorts] the economics of college sports in a way that [hurts] the broader community of student-athletes, universities, fans and alumni. A handful of big sports programs [already do] pay top dollar for a select few [coaches and administrators who recruit the athletes who make the programs successful], while almost every other college [already doesn’t] get caught up in a bidding war it couldn’t afford.