How About a Free Market for College Athletes?

In 2010, CBS and Turner Broadcasting agreed to pay $10.8 billion to broadcast the NCAA men’s basketball tournament from 2011 to 2024.  As a result of this contract, fans of this tournament can watch these games on four different networks.   And perhaps more importantly (for those of us who work during the day), we can see these games on our computers in our offices.

Certainly all these games make us fans very happy.  And all that money has to make coaches, athletic directors, and other university administrators happy.  But what about the people we are actually watching?  

The people on the court are referred to as student-athletes.  And according to the NCAA rules, these athletes are supposed to be amateurs.  In other words, other than a scholarship, these athletes are not supposed to be paid.

A few days ago, CBS News did a story on whether the labor market the NCAA employs should be changed.  This story focused on a lawsuit filed by former college star Ed O’Bannon, which disputes the NCAA practice of not compensating players for using their likeness in video games.  The discussion, though, quickly turned to the issue of whether or not college players should be paid (more than a scholarship).  As one can see – both in the article and in the four videos included in the story – I tend to think the scholarship is not adequate compensation for many athletes.

To illustrate, consider the Indiana Hoosiers this season. An examination of the player statistics reveals that Victor Oladipo produced 7.37 wins for Indiana (the Wins Produced calculation for college basketball was similar – in fact, amazingly similar — to what has been done for the NBA).   We are working on the economic value of a win in college basketball, but a conservative estimate is that a win is worth at least $100,000 for a program like Indiana.   Given the number of wins Oladipo produced and the conservative value of a win, Oladipo’s production was worth (i.e. his Marginal Revenue Product) about $737,000 (and again, this is a crude and conservative estimate).

The following table reports the same calculation for each player Indiana employed this season. 

Indiana 2012-13



Wins Produced

 per 40 minutes


 Revenue Product

Victor Oladipo




Cody Zeller




Jordan Hulls




Kevin Ferrell




Christian Watford




Will Sheehey




Remy Abell




Jeremy Hollowell




Maurice Creek




Hanner Mosquera-Perea




Jeff Howard




Austin Etherington




Derek Elston




Raphael Smith




Taylor Wayer




Peter Jurkin








A scholarship to Indiana is valued at less than $30,000.  So at least nine of these players were exploited (which simply means they were paid less than their Marginal Revenue Product).

So should the NCAA re-write the rules so that Oladipo gets paid $737,000?  This is not what I would propose.  Historically, the NCAA has seemed intent on writing as many rules as possible to regulate college sports.  And such rules – not surprisingly – benefit the groups who have the biggest influence on the rule-writing (i.e. university administrators, athletic directors, and coaches). 

What I would propose is stop with the rule writing.  Simply allow each team to compensate its players in whatever fashion necessary to get the athlete to come to campus.  I would suspect that for most athletes, the current system would continue.  In other words, most athletes (across most sports) would simply receive a scholarship to play sports and attend school.

For a few players, though, the situation would be different.  A player like Oladipo generates far more revenue for a college program than his scholarship is worth.  Consequently, in a free market some school would be willing to pay more for Oladipo’s services.  

One might wonder where this money might come from. After all, the NCAA claims that many college sports programs are not profitable.  Such claims, though, seem dubious.  Colleges are generally not-for-profit, and therefore, excess funds tend to get spent (since an owner can’t claim these profits).  With respect to college sports, one obvious place these funds get spent is in the pay of college coaches.  For example, Tom Crean – head coach at Indiana —  was paid $2.24 million in 2011-12.

The salaries paid to NBA coaches are somewhat difficult to find.  But there was a report that Erik Spoelstra – head coach of the world champion Miami Heat – is being paid $2.75 million in 2012-13.   In sum, Crean is being paid a salary that is not much different from an NBA coach.  But NBA teams make far more in revenue than a college team (sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has argued NBA teams earn 10 times more in revenue than a top college team).  So how can Indiana afford Crean’s wage?  Obviously the restrictions on player pay are a big part of this story.

So if we paid more to the players, coaches like Crean would likely get less.  But wouldn’t the fans also suffer?  After all, if the players can be paid, the top teams will simply get all the top talent.   And that would ruin the competitiveness of college basketball.

That would be a great story, if the current system looked very competitive.  But college basketball – under the current system – is hardly competitive. Consider the players Kentucky has been able to recruit in recent years.  For example, four of the top 40 recruits signed with Kentucky in 2012.  In 2011, Kentucky signed four of the top 20 recruits.  And in 2010, Kentucky nabbed four of the top 30 recruits.  In 2013, Kentucky is even more dominant.  So far, Kentucky has commitments from five of the top 18 recruits.  This is the pattern we see without paying the players more than a scholarship (at least, we assume Kentucky isn’t paying anyone more). 

Would Kentucky be able to get even more players if it could pay more than a scholarship? I suspect that the opposite is more likely to be true.  It seems likely that Kentucky recruits this many players because the pay for each is well below free market rates.

And the players go to Kentucky because they suspect – despite the outcomes observed this year – that they have the best chance to win games at Kentucky. In other words, because players can’t choose a college based on compensation, they must sort themselves on some other criteria.  And the big attraction appears to be whether or not the player is likely to win in college.  So when one top player commits to a program, other top players have an incentive to follow.

As a consequence, the NCAA has never been that competitive.  A few years ago economist Jim Peach* looked at the distribution of Final Four teams from 1950 to 2005.  Peach found that 12 teams – out of the more than 300 Division I teams – accounted for 48.7% of all Final Four slots.   So the current system employed by NCAA men’s basketball – with player pay capped at the value of a scholarship – has not led to much competitive balance. 

And if the restriction on pay isn’t promoting balance, why should this system persist?  We already pay students to do other work on college campuses (as I told CBS News, we pay someone to grade my exams).  Why not consider college athletics as just another student job?  Again, for many of these students on campuses around the country, this job is probably not worth more than a college scholarship.  So the current system can stay in place.  But for the players who bring in most of the fans and produce much of the revenue, colleges should be allowed to compensate these student-workers with higher wages.  And such a system would eliminate many of the resources currently spent policing the NCAA system of restricting athlete pay.

Let me close by noting that virtually everyone objecting to the NCAA adopting a free-market approach to college sports, currently works and benefits from a free labor market.  And if these people were told that their wages were capped by a rule their employer created, they would likely object. In much the same way, people should also object to the current system of compensating college athletes. 

Again, it is these people we are watching this weekend.  And if the NCAA adopts a free labor market, more of the revenues our watching is generating will actually go to the people we are watching.

*Peach, Jim. “College athletics, universities, and the NCAA,” The Social Science Journal, 44, (2007): 11-22

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Armando says:

    Has anyone considered the possible effect this would have on the spectators as far as viewership? Would some people stop watching because the players are now paid? Would more people watch? Would there be no significant difference?

    I think it would be interesting to ask that question.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. meredith says:

    I think that college athlets should just be happy that they were talented enough to recieve a generous scholarship. No one should be payed to play a sport in college, especially when there is such a large number of students who can not afford to attend college. Athletes are amateurs and should not be paid. they will have time for that later in life.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  3. Ja says:

    Jared Thompson, I really like your idea.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Ja says:

    meredith, i respectfully disagree, in the major DI-A sports…many are not really amateurs/student athletes anymore…grades were secondary as to why they got in and are not the school’s priority once they are there, the scholarships are now not guaranteed necessarily for 4 years, and they travel and spend more time on the fields and in airports than your typical amateurs. Times have changed, i.e. in big-time college basketball and football.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  5. Justin Davis says:

    Great article with some exceptional ideas. The thought of a free market in collegiate athletics as described here seems to be a very valid option.

    The major issue here is the distinction between practical ideas and “best” ideas. I agree that a free market as describe here would be a potential “best” idea. However, the practicality of it must also be considered within the social, regulative, and institutional constraints that are already in place. The author(s) discus two of these major issues in the article – media contracts and NCAA big school leverage. However, they base the recommendations of free market outside the realm of realism given these constraints.

    The true question is what incremental and effective changes can be proposed that would be economically beneficially that would also be acceptable to parties with the voting stake in this scenario. I’m interested in what “true” ideas are out there for effective change propositions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. greg says:

    You could also stop making university level athletics a serious thing (outside of the US it really isn’t that serious) and just replace it with professional athletics and a non-insane more competitive and market based approach like in the European sports leagues? Most athletes in big sports shouldn’t pretend to have to get an education to play competitively.

    The utterly bizarre way sports leagues have developed in the US still baffles me. No relegations/promotions? Are you kidding me? I find the idea there isn’t a progression or regression to be made a bit insulting. A team should be able to be set up starting at the basic grassroots amateur level and theoretically advance to the highest league or that the worst team or two in any league doesn’t face demotion.

    At least the one thing about the US college sports thing is they don’t up and move to a city that offers them a better deal and rename themselves.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  7. Jamie Scharf says:

    This has been an issue that college basketball should have corrected by the 2000’s before college athletes were getting paid on the outside. With that being said, I still think college athletes should be paid on some sort of scale or the one proposed in the article above. This should happen because during march and april they are the most watched athletes in america and deserve some kind of pay. The article also mentioned that the NCAA has a 10.8 billion dollar deal. That’s a lot of money. The NCAA needs to sort this out before it gets even worse.

    Jamie Scharf, Tulane University: Freeman School Student

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  8. Adam says:

    Why do you assume Olidapo should be paid something near 737,000? Water has infinite value to me, but I don’t pay much for it..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1