[National Review] College sports are usually enshrouded in scandal, but defenders reply that they do loads of good because they give "student-athletes" a chance at college they probably would not have otherwise. Even when that chance works out and the player graduates, he usually has a low-grade academic credential that bespeaks little gain in knowledge and skill.In today’s Martin Center article, two economics professors, Jody Lipford and Jerry Slice, examine the impact of college sports. Who are the students who supposedly benefit from sports programs, and who pays for those benefits?
One of their findings is that sports programs are largely paid for by other students, but how much they have to pay varies greatly with the type of school. At a big university such as the University of North Carolina, the cost is spread over a huge number of students, so their outlay in additional fees comes to just a few hundred dollars. But at small schools, the extra cost heaped on the rest of the student body runs much higher ‐ over $1,500 per year. Pretty steep for many of them.
Lipford and Slice also conclude that the students who attend those smaller schools are generally less affluent and less well prepared for college education. Thus, sports have something of a reverse Robin Hood effect.
As you’d expect from good economists, the authors are concerned about the opportunity costs. They write:
Resources have alternative uses, and resources devoted to athletics could be channeled to academic support or lower tuition bills, especially today when the high cost of a college education and heavy student debt loads are being questioned.
I once asked a guest author for the Martin Center who is a New Zealand native what he thought about our penchant for college sports. He replied that in his country, college is for studying, not playing sports. Very sensible of the Kiwis.
Emphasis added.
Some students 'paid' more than others. No mention made in this article of the Sandusky-Paterno student victims.