Athletic Scholarships: Who Wins?
Athletic scholarships are designed to support physically
gifted and talented students. This simple description makes it
difficult to envision the problems associated with athletic
scholarships, but recently, athletic scholarships and the
programs linked with them have become quite controversial.
In spite of this controversy, athletic scholarships should be
retained, but college athletic programs should be reformed to
deemphasize winning at all costs and to ensure that all
student athletes are treated fairly.
College athletic programs are certainly valuable. These
programs increase school spirit and help to create a sense of
community. They also help to raise money: winning teams
spark alumni contributions, and athletic events raise funds
through ticket sales. In addition, athletic programs–like
programs in the performing arts and music–help to provide
a rewarding, balanced education for all students. Student
athletes make important academic, social, and cultural
contributions to their schools and thus enrich the college
experience for others. Finally, without athletic scholarships,
many students would not be able to attend college because,
as Alvin Sanoff observes, the aid for which many
economically deprived student athletes are eligible does not
cover the expense of a college education the way athletic
scholarships do (par. 5).
Despite their obvious advantages, college athletic
programs have problems. First, not all athletes–or all programs–
are valued equally. On many campuses money, equipment, and
facilities have traditionally been allotted to football and
basketball at the expense of less visible sports such as
swimming, tennis, and field hockey. Men’s sports have been
given a disproportionate amount of support, and “winning”
teams and coaches have been compensated accordingly. In fact,
according to Sue M. Durrant, until recently it was not unusual
for women’s teams to use “hand-me-down” gear while men’s
teams played with new “state of the art” equipment or for
women’s teams to travel by bus while men’s teams traveled by
plane (60).
Another problem is that college athletes at all levels
complain that their roles as athletes are overemphasized, to the
detriment of their roles as students. According to Francis X.
Dealy, some college athletic departments have become little
more than glorified training camps for professional sports
teams. This problem is compounded by overzealous recruiting
practices, with colleges accepting academically unqualified
students solely because of their athletic skills. These students
are exploited and overworked, treated as commodities rather
than as students, and given little academic support; many fail
to graduate (106). With the demands of heavy travel and
practice schedules, many student athletes, even those with
strong academic backgrounds, risk falling behind in their
studies. Moreover, their grueling schedules tend to isolate
them from other students, excluding them from the college
community. Given these difficulties, college athletic programs
are under considerable pressure to institute reforms.
The problems associated with athletic scholarships are
numerous and complex, but they have less to do with the
scholarships themselves than with the way dishonest and
exploitive athletic administrators run their programs. It is
understandable that the main focus of most collegiate sports
programs is winning. According to Vince Lombardi, the
famous football coach, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only
thing.” To the alumni, the administrators, and the fans, the
only measure of an athletic program’s success is its win/loss
record. A winning record attracts money and students; a
losing record does not. They seem to believe, as the
philosopher George Santayana has observed, “In athletics, as
in all performances, only winning is interesting. The rest has
value only as leading to it or reflecting it” (qtd. in Dealy 61).
This concentration on winning has led to some of the
worst abuses in college athletic programs. Francis X. Dealy
reports that this competitive attitude existed even in the first
American intercollegiate competition, an 1852 rowing contest
between Harvard and Yale. Harvard won, and so began a
fierce rivalry between the two schools (56). As Dealy observes,
“Judging from the intensity of the spectators and the
participants, the stakes included which school had the more
beautiful campus, the smarter faculty, the brighter student
body, and the more successful alumni” (59). The emphasis on
winning encouraged the recruitment of the best athletes, no
matter what the cost. In fact, Dealy observes that the first
athletic scholarships were in the form of salaries paid to
professional athletes to perform in the name of a particular
school. Without regulation, athletic scholarships were like
shady financial deals arranged in smoky back rooms (56).
Athletes became commodities to be bought and sold.
Fleisher, Goff, and Tollison report that until the late 1870s,
collegiate games were generally “marked by violence . . . and
controversy over eligibility requirements. Athletes moved from
school to school, . . . and club members hired professional
athletes to participate in intercollegiate events” (37). Several
organizations were formed to help control violence and to
standardize rules, but all had spotty participation and were
short-lived. In December 1905, in order to deal with violence
and to standardize rules of play, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) was formed in response to the concerns of
Theodore Roosevelt, then president of the United States. Even
though the scope of the NCAA has widened tremendously in
the last ninety years, one of its main concerns remains the
equitable distribution of financial aid and scholarships (Fleisher,
Goff, and Tollison 38-41).
Today the NCAA continues to address abuses associated
with athletic programs and scholarships, including aggressive
and often unethical recruitment techniques, a disproportionate
amount of money being awarded to men over women, and
academically underprepared athletes being admitted to and
retained by colleges and universities. The organization’s task is
a difficult one, however, because the problems have deep roots.
Recruitment of student athletes, a large and
controversial part of the athletic scholarship process, is often
unethical. Understandably, colleges and universities want to
recruit the finest athletes for their teams, but sometimes this
quest for the best has led to overly aggressive recruitment
practices. Dealy reports, for example, that until the late 1980s,
recruiters openly enticed talented high school football players
with promises of generous financial aid and merchandise,
including cars or expensive athletic clothing and shoes. After
several instances of unethical recruitment practices became
public, most notably the fact that one university had been
paying its football players salaries to play ball, the NCAA
intervened and became more vigorous in its attempt to
regulate the recruitment process. Recruitment is still the
principal means of matching students with available funds. For
this reason, violations continue to account for 60 to 70
percent of all NCAA infractions (Dealy 173-80).
Perhaps due to the intense competition for positions and
scholarships, unethical recruitment has not been eliminated.
Skippy “Tiptoe” Walker, assistant football coach at a large
Texas high school, reports that some of his athletes have been
recruited in ways that could be considered unethical 1. Walker
is quick to point out, though, that most of his athletes do not
receive scholarships. In fact, only two football players from his
high school have received athletic scholarships during the past
ten years. This statistic is in line with statistics from the rest of
the country. As reported by Dealy, very few high school
seniors–one out of every 118–actually receive athletic
scholarships (180). Understandably, competition for funds and
positions is stiff. Some students try to locate their own athletic
scholarships by paying a nominal fee to an independent
search service, which enters the student’s name into a national
database and also provides the student with a list of available
scholarships and schools seeking recipients (”You C.A.N.”).
Sexism is another serious problem in college athletic
programs. In fact, the economics of college sports almost
ensures that female athletes will not be recruited as
aggressively as male athletes are. The strongest teams, in the
view of colleges, are the ones that generate the greatest
amount of interest (and revenue). In general, the money-
making teams are the men’s teams. Because the emphasis is
on winning and making money, it is not surprising that
colleges and recruiters concentrate on men when building and
maintaining their sports programs. Since the introduction of
Title IX in 1972, however, this focus on men’s teams is illegal.
According to Title IX, “No person in the United States shall, on
the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”
(qtd. in Durrant 60).
Sue M. Durrant reports that although Title IX
encompasses nearly all facets of education, it is mainly
associated with increased opportunities for women in the area
of athletics (60). In fact, Durrant notes, “Title IX tilted the
balance of power. Title IX granted acceptability and status to
elementary school, high school, and college female athletes”
(61). During the first decade that Title IX was in place, the
number of women athletes in colleges doubled, and there was
rapid growth in female athletic programs at all levels of
education, particularly in colleges and universities (Durrant
61). Since this ten-year-span of compliance to the law,
however, there has been an obvious slowing of the movement
toward equality between men and women in collegiate sports
programs. Even as recently as 1997–ironically, the twenty-fifth
anniversary of Title IX–parity had not been achieved. As
Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala
commented in a documentary film that year, “In twenty-five
years, Title IX has still not been fully realized” (”Breaking
Through”). One of the areas in which this lack of progress is
most visible and measurable is athletic financial aid and
scholarships.
A 1992 NCAA study of gender equity in colleges that
play big-time sports showed the degree to which men’s sports
received more money than women’s sports. The following
graph illustrates this disparity in spending.
Fig. 1. Summary of Comparative Spending for Men’s and
Women’s Sports. Based on information from Douglas
Lederman, “Men Get 70 Percent of Money Available for
Athletic Scholarships and Colleges That Play Big-Time Sports
Programs,” Chronicle of Higher Education 18 Mar. 1992: A1.
The NCAA study found that men’s teams received almost 70
percent of the athletic scholarship money, 77 percent of the
operating money, and 83 percent of the recruiting money.
And, as a 1997 New York Times article reports, “for all the
progress women have made, they are still far behind men on
the playing fields” (Chambers A1). In fact, the 1992 NCAA
gender equity study found that “the finding for men’s
athletics continues to dwarf the money spent on women’s
sports” (Chambers A1).
Supporters of women’s programs argue that the
distribution of money should be based on enrollment, which,
as reported in a Chronicle of Higher Education study of
gender equality, would give women a slight edge over men
(Lederman, “Men Outnumber” A1). In order for progress to
be made in gender equity in college sports, it is important for
the NCAA and other independent organizations to continue
surveys like the NCAA gender equity study. And, as Durrant
points out, it is also important that complaints continue to be
filed when discrimination is suspected or encountered (63).
Admissions irregularities have also plagued college
athletics. Proposition 48 was an effort by the NCAA to address
the problems. When it was made public that some of
America’s star college athletes were unable to read (Dealy 111),
the NCAA was forced into action. Proposition 48, the result of
much compromise and maneuvering during the NCAA’s 1983
convention, required that athletes meet two basic academic
requirements before they could receive athletic scholarships.
Alvin Sanoff reports that the potential recipients had to score
at least 700 out of a possible 1,600 points on the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (or 15 out of 36 on the American College Test) or
attain a C average in eleven core academic courses. If the
student achieved only one of these requirements, he or she
was a “partial qualifier” and, although eligible for an athletic
scholarship, would not be allowed to participate in sports
during his or her first year (68). Since Proposition 48 went into
effect in 1986, approximately six hundred students per year
have received athletic scholarships under the “partial qualifier”
umbrella. Of these students, 90 percent were African-American
football or basketball players (Sanoff, par. 6).
In 1989, however, the NCAA voted to enact a series of
reforms, the most stringent of which was to take effect in
August 1995, when, as reported by Lederman, first-year
athletes would be required to achieve a 2.5 grade-point
average in thirteen academic core courses rather than 2.0 in
eleven courses as previously required. Students would also
have to score a minimum of 700 on the SAT in addition to the
GPA requirement (”NCAA Votes” A1).2
Because underprivileged athletes are most affected by
these rule changes, the proposed reforms were extremely
controversial. John Chaney, the men’s basketball coach at
Temple University, called the new rule “an insane, inhuman
piece of legislation that will fill the streets with more of the
disadvantaged” (qtd. in Sanoff, par. 7). The late tennis player
Arthur Ashe believed, however, that “any time educational
standards have been raised, the athletes have gotten the
message” (qtd. in Sanoff, par. 7). Preliminary results of ongoing
studies have indicated that the athletes are indeed getting the
message: the graduation rate of Division I scholarship athletes
entering college in 1986 was six percentage points higher
than the average graduation rates of athletes who enrolled at
those same colleges three years before Proposition 48 took
effect (Blum, “Graduation” A42). Other study results show
that the number of academically underprepared athletes
enrolling in Division I colleges dropped in 1991. As reported
by Debra Blum, however, these statistics do not necessarily
indicate improvement:
The decline in the number of academically
underqualified athletes going to Division I and II
colleges may mean that more athletes are meeting
the standard, as supporters of the standard
contend. On the other hand, the decline may
suggest that the underprepared students are simply
moving in greater numbers into junior colleges or
preparatory schools or, as some critics fear, that they
are not continuing their education at all. (”More
Freshmen” A39)
Despite the problems, colleges should retain athletic
scholarships–with certain changes. Academic support
programs should be reformed so that they are fair to all
student athletes–men and women, football players and tennis
players, winners and losers. Academics–not sports–must be
given first priority. Students who receive athletic scholarships
should not be exploited; they should be treated like other
scholarship recipients. Recruitment should be responsible,
academic standards should be maintained, and promises
made to athletes should be realistic.
In short, the scholarship athlete should be treated like
any other exceptional student on campus who loves his or her
subject and takes joy in the process of learning. Athletic
programs clearly benefit educational institutions, and athletic
scholarships should certainly be a part of any college system;
however, the focus of sports programs should expand to
encompass the personal enrichment of the whole student.
Shifting the focus of athletics away from winning will
ultimately benefit not only college athletes and the scholarship
programs that support them, but also the colleges themselves.
Blum, Debra E. “Graduation Rate of Scholarship Athletes Rose
after Proposition 48 Was Adopted, NCAA Reports.”
Chronicle of Higher Education 7 July 1993: A42-44.
—. “More Freshmen Meet Academic Standards Set by
NCAA.” Chronicle of Higher Education 21 Apr. 1993:
A38-40.
“Breaking Through: Our Turn to Play.” Lifetime Cable
Network. 19 June 1997.
Chambers, Marcia. “For Women, 25 Years of Title IX Has Not
Leveled the Playing Field.” New York Times 16 June
1997: A1+.
Dealy, Francis X. Win at Any Cost. New York: Carol, 1990.
Durrant, Sue M. “Title IX–Its Power and Its Limitations.”
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 45
(1992): 60-64.
Fleisher, Arthur A., Brian L. Goff, and Robert D. Tollison. The
National Collegiate Athletic Association. Chicago: U of
Chicago P, 1992.
Lederman, Douglas. “Men Get 70% of Money Available for
Athletic Scholarships and Colleges That Play Big-Time
Sports, New Study Finds.” Chronicle of Higher Education
18 Mar. 1992: A1+.
—. “Men Outnumber Women and Get Most of Money in Big-
Time Sports Programs.” Chronicle of Higher Education 8
Apr. 1992: A1+.
—. “NCAA Votes Higher Academic Standards for College
Athletes.” Chronicle of Higher Education 15 Jan. 1992:
A1+.
Sanoff, Alvin P. “When Is the Playing Field Too Level?” U.S. News
& World Report 30 Jan. 1989. 10 pars. CompuServe.
3 Mar. 1994.
Walker, Skippy “Tiptoe.” E-mail to the author. 1 March 1998.
“You C.A.N. Get Help with a Scholarship.” Scholastic Coach
Aug. 1992: 56.