In the world of intercollegiate athletics the current “hot conversation” is should the athletes receive compensation for their participation? It seems their $40,000 a year scholarships aren’t sufficient, so there is a lot of talk about a players union.

Given my personal bias regarding unions I will just leave it at that. There will be many conversations pro and con to follow. However, I think to fully grasp the situation we need to go back to the source of much of the controversy.

Back in the day, when a college education didn’t cost the price of a very nice house, a full athletic scholarship was room, board, books and tuition plus $40.00 per month laundry expense. I don’t know how many of my athletes used the $40.00 for laundry, but each month they had a little money in their pocket. Not much, but something. Today that wouldn’t be enough for a single date.

Most of the month, especially in the off-season, they sat around with no money in their pockets. So, you might be thinking, they could get a little money from home for spending change. In most cases … not a chance. They were asked in some cases to send money home. Yeah, they were poor.

Society had sold them the American Dream. College Education=Great Life. In many cases they were sitting in the middle of an affluent student body that said, “look but don’t touch.” Their classmates drove nice cars, went on dates and attended parties. I know what you’re thinking, they should just “suck it up.” And, how good are you at that?

There were too many temptations to do something to have a piece of the dream. Most of them spelled trouble. Many coaches could see this so they arranged for a little “outside support.” There are many athletes today that a union might require them to take a cut in pay. Look, I am not judging anyone or anything, but rather offering up some background to a very complex problem. More on this later.