A reader parts with Pollitt's critics:
While the many responses to Katha Pollitt have tended to make her argument look more persuasive, not less, to me there's one thing missing in all the back-and-forth: Where is the conservative outrage against college sports as an economic phenomenon?
At least with regard to football and basketball, here we have mainly public institutions (state colleges and universities) crowding out private enterprise. Defenders of the NCAA status quo like to point out that college football and basketball programs often turn a profit, but that only increases what should be the conservative case here. If the activity can be done profitably, then the government has no business doing it at all, right? Isn't the government engaging in profitable commercial activity exactly what conservatives mean when they talk about "socialism"?
If colleges could not award scholarships based on athletic merit but instead had to run varsity football like they run, say, varsity ultimate frisbee, then the NFL would have to establish for-profit development leagues – just like baseball or hockey has, or even, on the margins, basketball. Without major NCAA competition, professional football and basketball leagues would prosper, and they would be wholly private, profit-earning enterprises, whose players would earn salaries set by the free market rather than toiling without pay. Is there any conceivable application of conservative economics that would not prefer that system, or indeed view the alternative of government-run minor leagues crowding out the private sector as abhorrent?
The irony is that, in the dark heart of socialist Europe, soccer teams actually conduct themselves on a much more capitalist basis than does the NFL, which relies on socialist state-run athlete factories to develop talent. Soccer clubs hire young players, and pay them, and expect to make a profit running developmental minor-league teams. The capitalist player-development model in European soccer actually offers more realistic chances for economic opportunity and advancement for underprivileged players than does the socialist player-development model in American football or basketball. So why aren't American conservatives crusading to end athletic socialism and privatize sports?
Another writes:
Another aspect to consider regarding college athletics is the Olympics. US colleges are funding a huge number of the Olympic athletes, who are not just representing the US, but many other countries as well. There could surely be another way to fund and train these athletes, but since this is a system that at least in this respect is proven to work, it seems counterproductive to end it rather than make the reforms needed to deal with abuses. Here's a blurb from Stanford's athletics website:
Stanford sent more athletes to the Beijing Olympics than any other college in the U.S, winning 25 Olympic medals. If Stanford were a country, it would have ranked #11—tying with Japan—in total Olympic medals.
The Dish 