ILLYCH/iStock/Getty Images Plus
When the National Collegiate Athletic Association announced last month that Division I teams can now sell advertising space on player uniforms, the decision was framed as a practical necessity—a way to help fund the $20.5 million universities are now allowed to share with athletes under the terms of the House settlement. But pragmatism shouldn’t blind us to what we’re losing. There are some lines that, once crossed, fundamentally change what college sports represent.
I don’t dispute that college athletics operate as a commercial enterprise. Television contracts run into the billions. Coaches earn multimillion-dollar salaries. Stadiums and bowl games bear the names of banks and snack foods.
But acknowledging commercialization doesn’t mean we must embrace its every manifestation. The NCAA’s decision means the steady erosion of any space not already monetized. First came stadium naming rights, then corporate logos on fields and courts, and now the uniforms themselves. Where does it end? Will we soon see branded referees? Sponsored plays? At what point do we acknowledge that we’ve transformed college athletes into walking billboards?
Uniforms have always occupied a special territory: They represent the college, not the marketplace. When players take the field wearing their university’s colors, those jerseys connect them to every athlete who wore them before and every fan who cheers for them now. Slapping a corporate patch onto that tradition doesn’t just add advertising; it breaks the continuity with the past and changes what that uniform symbolizes.
Supporters will point to professional sports leagues. Sure, the National Basketball Association, National Hockey League and Major League Baseball all allow uniform advertising. But that comparison misses an essential difference: Professional athletes are employees who freely negotiate contracts, knowing their uniforms carry ads. College athletes, despite the new revenue-sharing rules, remain students representing educational institutions. Unlike a professional sports franchise, universities still have obligations beyond maximizing revenue.
The timing is particularly revealing. These uniform patches aren’t being introduced because colleges suddenly discovered that athletes deserve compensation. They’re appearing because a legal settlement pressured universities to share revenue and administrators immediately started hunting for ways to recoup those costs. Rather than examining bloated athletic department budgets or questioning whether every football program needs luxury facilities, leaders took the path of least resistance: more advertising.
The revenue projections from advertising on uniforms—$500,000 to $12 million per institution—sound impressive until you examine them closely. For many programs, these figures won’t come close to covering the new revenue-sharing obligations. Colleges are trading away something intangible and irreplaceable for a slapdash solution to a problem they could address through budget reallocation.
More importantly, this decision sends a bad message to the athletes themselves and the other students watching them. We’re telling them that everything—even the jersey representing your institution—has a price. That there’s no moment too sacred, no symbol too meaningful to escape commercialization. That the answer to every financial challenge is to find something new to sell. Recognizing that college sports are commercial doesn’t require us to surrender every last noncommercialized element. Universities claim to educate young people about ethics and values, which sometimes means resisting the excesses of consumer culture. Now every second we look at a college athlete will involve yet another sales pitch.
Finally, there’s the problem of control. Legal considerations make it difficult, particularly for public universities, to pick and choose which private actors they want to do business with. Colleges that want to be selective in their choice of commercial partners could run afoul of the First Amendment. In fact, businesses you might not think of as age appropriate have sued school districts for stepping on their constitutional rights once denied access to established school advertising programs. The same could happen here. Imagine a business mired in scandal successfully gaining access to college athlete uniform space. Once the advertising genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to put it back inside.
Some limits matter. Some traditions deserve protection, not because they’re profitable but because they remind us that not everything should be for sale. The NCAA had a chance to draw such a line. Instead, it chose the advertising patches—and revealed exactly what it values most.
