I caught
this over at ESPN. A men's college basketball player is sitting out rather than don the brand of shoe his school is contractually obligated to wear. This player believes he will be placing his physical health and future ability to play at risk should he wear this shoe.
Is it acceptable for our universities to punish players for accepting money from shoe companies while receiving money from those same companies for essentially the same service?
The sports programs at many major universities are main sources of campus income. Do we encourage putting that income ahead of a player's physical health, yet refuse to allow him or her the right to that same avenue of income?
I am a graduate of the University of Wisconsin. Like many students in Madison, I happily attended football, basketball, and hockey games. Like many students in Madison, I happily cheered for Ron Dayne and Dany Heatley. Like many students in Madison, I happily purchased UW sports apparel, helping to fill the coffers of the UW sports machine the entire time.
During my enrollment, 157 UW student athletes were implicated in a scandal involving a shoe store selling highly discounted merchandise to prominent UW players. Along with other disciplinary actions, the NCAA and the UW levied fines, decreased scholarships, and suspended players.
Today, I read this on ESPN:
Arkansas State's leading returning scorer is sitting out because he refuses to wear adidas shoes, which Indians players are obligated to wear because of a school contract.
Jerry Nichols, a 6-6 outside shooter who averaged 9.6 points per game last year, has had two knee operations and said he was wearing Adidas shoes when he first hurt the knee. The school says Nichols has to dress by its rules.
"We have a contractual agreement with [adidas], and it's not any different than any number of other contracts with other schools. There is not any stipulation or any research that shows any shoes are worse than any others," Arkansas State athletic director Dean Lee told The Jonesboro Sun newspaper.
Whether the player's physical well-being is in jeopardy or not, I can't really say. He certainly believes it to be the case, and should be allowed to make his own decision as to what footwear he can use.
My main point of concern is that the very same system that punishes student athletes for accepting endorsment money or receiving discounts based on their athlete status, is profiting from that which they have barred the student athletes from doing.
Lee said there is no room for compromise and that the school is obligated to put adidas shoes on the feet of athletes football, men's and women's basketball, baseball and track teams, along with several other sports.
"This is not picking on any one student athlete. This goes for all student athletes that are under that contract," Lee said.
The university has sold the rights to what it's student athletes will wear on their feet. Something the athletes cannot do for themselves.
Who has more at stake in this situation, the athletes who put their bodies on the line, or the university who can easily fill the roster spot with another willing player?
I don't idolize sports stars, and I don't feel they are more deserving of accolades than the non-athlete. I do, however, think that they put in an incredible amount of effort and put themselves at risk to play a sport they (hopefully) love.
I don't even think they should be receiving fists full of cash for playing these sports, but I sure as hell don't think the universities should be able to profit in a fashion in which they have forbidden their players to.
I even understand that some of that money can be siphoned into beneficial programs. That still doesn't excuse it in my mind. If the universities and the NCAA are going to set standards, they should have to adhere to them as well.