>>[Coach P] Since there is a much greater demand for the product of college football in this country than for other college sports, doesn't it make sense that there would be more opportunities in college football? It seems to me that this is a matter of supply meeting demand, not a matter of fairness. Is it unfair that there are more job opportunities in industries where there is greater market demand?<<
If we were talking about professional sports, or even private corporate sports (e.g., clubs), then I of course totally agree that supply and demand dictate the opportunity, i.e., the supply of athletes has to be proportional to the demand for market-based revenue.
But of course we're not talking about professional sports; we're talking about academic institutions that receive federal and state funding. We're talking about institutions that by mandate are open to all and offer opportunities to all in multiple arenas.
>>So shouldn't the question be about equal opportunity regardless of gender in all sports? Should women be given equal opportunity in the high demand sports such as football? I think the problem here is that the public is gender specific in their demand for sports products. For example, men's professional and college basketball are in much higher demand than are the female versions. For this to change, the public's perceptions and spending habits will have to change. There is no doubt that this has happened to a great degree since Title IX. There are many more college and professional sports opportunities for women than there were 34 years ago. But there is still not equal opportunity in terms of financial benefit.<<
Again, if you want to spin off certain programs from universities and make those private profit and loss entities, then I'm all for it and believe that any such entity should operate based on the laws of supply and demand. Of course, the vast majority of athletic departments run deficits -- so this is only going to work for a few big programs.
But here's where I see a fundamental fairness issue lurking. If we're awarding scholarships to help student-athletes get an education, then it would seem to me that those scholarships should be apportioned based on the percentage of the student body of the university.
The theory of trying to erect a wall of "sports-apartheid" between some programs within an athletic department was proposed and went no where -- because it's quite apparent to a majority of people in this country that you shouldn't discriminate against your mother, sister, and/or daughter.
To put this as simply as possible: if a male athlete is in the top 1% (or whatever) of all male athletes, and a female athlete is in the top 1% (or whatever) of all female athletes, then their ability to get financial aid to become a student-athlete at a college should be the same. Giving a group of people who choose a relatively unpopular sport (e.g., soccer versus football) an advantage over athletes in more popular sports, male or female, seems like the wrong thing to do and the wrong message to send in our institutions of higher learning.
