I understand your argument but most of the larger Division I athletic departments at state supported schools operate without or very little state provided taxpayer support. Your argument would hold very true for Division III as well as a most Division II schools, but major Division I is a different animal when it comes to how they financially operate. The majority of Division I schools have been forced to, in part, make up financial shortfalls by increasing "student activity fees". It is not uncommon for the majority of this sometimes $250 or more annual "activity fee" to be sent to the athletic department. This is not money provided by the state to the "non profit" institution. These funds are coming directly from students, paid to the school and then dispersed to the athletic department which can be shown is operating with a high degree of independence from the "non profit" institution. I think it would be difficult to argue that the University of Alabama athletic department is a "non profit" when they have almost complete control over their own finances and pay Nick Saben $5.5 million a year, far more than the president of the university......or any other employee of the state for that matter. On the other end of the ledger the large schools that generate tremendous revenue (Ohio State) funnel a portion of their "profit" back to the school. In some sense this can be seen a wonderful thing.....but then again it is also seen as a "payoff" to leave the athletic department alone and respect its independence. Remember Gordon Gee, the president at Ohio State? In answering a question about the possibility that he might fire Jim Tressel after finding out the violations committed in the football program he said "I am hoping the coach does not dismiss me". Yes, it was a glib remark but it spoke a great deal of truth as well. It is all outlined in this ESPN article:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...don-gee-recent-football-scandal-espn-magazine More than a few large schools are terrified of the athletic department and treat them in many respects as not part of the university. Best example is Penn State and the fear of Joe Paterno the administration held for decades. Thus, in my opinion, it would not be difficult to legally argue that athletic departments at many large state institutions operate as independent "for profit" entities and thus would be subject to antitrust action.
As for the unionization of college athletes you may want to take a look at a 2011 article that outlines the possibilities and how the NLRB might view the situation. You can find the article here
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ould-open-door-to-a-union-and-a-strike-072411 Note as well that it speaks to the problems this would present for Title IX. I would have agreed with you if this were early 2008, but the present administration has been extremely proactive when it comes to supporting existing unions and the creation of new ones. That is what would scare me. You have seen how many times Richard Trumka has been in the White House. He should have his own personal bedroom there. I can imagine supporters of a college player's union saying "well they just want their fair share". That line seems to have worked earlier this month.
Finally, another article in the New York Times lays out the arguments on both antitrust action as well as the move to pay athletes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-cartel.html?_r=0 If you sit back and look at things objectively you have to agree that tremendous rights fees associated with schools and conferences are pushing college athletics into areas that are fraught with issues that may look great in the short term......but would be devastating in the long term if not thought through.
