The White House just hosted a panel discussion with six former college football players to discuss NCAA student-athlete issues. The president also attended the event for an hour.
Admirable, perhaps, but why on earth does the White House think a former football player can speak for all student-athletes, especially the approximately 88,000 women in Division I sports?
Of the more than 188,000 overall student-athletes in Division I, only 16 percent are football players.
college football makes money
When Front Office Sports posted about “”Roundtable on the Rights of College AthletesOn X (formerly Twitter), many posters questioned the lack of women in the group. Some were quick to point out that the roundtable was for soccer players.
Of course, many people seem to equate college sports with football and justify the latter’s superiority. This is because football earns most of its revenue generated through ticket sales, distribution to NCAA conferences, donors, concessions, advertising, royalties, sports camps, and media rights. In fact, about 45% of the revenue generated by Power 5 schools comes from broadcasts and bowl games.
Equating football with college sports is already problematic for this very reason. Recent conference realignment decimated the Pac-12 as all schools except Oregon State and Washington State left the century-old conference in search of more lucrative media deals.
While conference realignment may work well for football, it is a devastating move for many of the other sports played by student-athletes in the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. Teams that play midweek and more often than once a week are forced to travel across the country and across three time zones on a regular basis. Many students who chose Pac-12 schools to play closer to home will no longer be able to have family and friends come to watch them play as often. Historic rivalry matches will no longer be held. Pac-12 women’s basketball’s dominance is no more. Who knows what will happen to OSU and WSU, who are currently fighting to maintain control of their conference funds.
Football Out brings in the revenue of all other sports combined and often pays a significant portion of the bills for the rest of the athletics programs. That doesn’t mean football always carries its own weight. Stadium upgrades, expensive scoreboards, additional administrative positions, and exorbitant coach salaries often put programs in the red.
Before the pandemic, only 25 college athletic programs were actually profitable. At most Power 5 institutions, support for athletics also comes from a variety of other sources. In fact, 13% of Power 5 college sports funding comes from institutional and government support. The remaining 2% comes from fees paid by all students, regardless of whether they have ever stepped foot in a sports venue or are interested in sports.
College football isn’t the only sport
84% of DI college athletes play sports other than football. These student-athletes are just as committed as their football brethren, but their sport (with the exception of some men’s basketball teams) does not generate revenue. Does that mean they have no value? Or does the White House really think that football players can speak for all of the incredibly diverse sports, from water polo to track and field to golf?
If one of the purposes of the roundtable, as suggested by the White House, was to discuss injuries in college sports, a committee made up entirely of former football players missed the mark.
Although it is true that football players have the highest injury rate among college athletes, concussions are a problem for both men and women in college sports such as soccer, lacrosse, wrestling, and basketball. Female student-athletes are 33% more likely to be injured than male student-athletes. Female and minority student-athletes report more mental health concerns, including depression and anxiety, than white males.
The White House also proposed discussing ongoing discussions about compensation for student-athletes. So why talk to former players when so much has changed in recent years? In particular, the issue of name, image, and likeness (NIL) raises the issue of inequality among student-athletes. Even as it worsened, it revolutionized the ability of some student-athletes to monetize their competitive participation. Additionally, the transfer portal has created new ways for student-athletes to leverage their abilities and aspirations. This includes increased visibility and potential financial rewards. This isn’t his NCAA three years ago.
Football is a proxy for men and masculinity
X-deniers might explain that the exclusion of women was unintentional because the meeting was only for soccer players, but soccer players (with the exception of a few women who served as kickers) He is male. So by inviting only football players to talk about injuries and compensation, the White House invited only men to speak for all athletes.
Soccer is a stand-in for masculinity and male dominance. Football represents the pinnacle of masculinity in dominant American culture, and men can identify with the superiority of these most elite and masculine men, even if they are not football players themselves.
In more familiar terms, many people hear comments about strong, powerful, elite, athletic women that say, “Well, she’ll never play football in the NFL.” You’ve probably seen it before. Of course, most men won’t even play football in the NFL, but that doesn’t stop them from equating the men who can beat all the women with the men who can’t.
So when the White House invites a former soccer player to speak for all athletes, it not only reinforces soccer’s dominance over all other sports, but also the dominance of men over women. After all, would the White House ever invite six former elite gymnasts to represent football players?
These athletes undoubtedly brought valuable experiences and perspectives of their own, but their experiences only scratch the surface of college athletics.
So, for example, why did these former football players bring up Title IX compliance as an issue of fairness for female student-athletes? Did it occur to you to talk about how you can be targeted by vandalism, threats of gender-based violence? Did you bring up the risk of injury to women? Did they talk about how female student-athletes have fewer opportunities to go pro, and how most student-athletes receive lower wages than male student-athletes?
Not likely.
Despite the advances made by female athletes over the past few decades, sports remain the domain of men, and even the men within them are placed in a hierarchy of masculinity with soccer at the top. That’s why it’s not all that surprising that the White House assumes football players can speak for all student-athletes. Women’s issues are never exposed.
Certainly, former football players may have had important perspectives to share with the White House, but they did not represent student-athletes, particularly the approximately 47% of DI student-athletes who are women.
follow me twitter.