Two Threats to the Ivy Athletics Model

The Gary Walters ’67 Princeton Varsity Club Awards Banquet is among my favorite events during Reunions weekend.

What most inspires me every year is not the glittering collection of trophies on display but hearing graduating seniors talk about their commitment to service, their appreciation for the quality of a Princeton education, and the life lessons they learned by participating on Princeton teams.

The gala’s emphasis on celebrating our athletes as students and citizens exemplifies the Princeton approach to athletics—an approach which is under serious threat on two fronts.

One threat involves the impact of so- called “name, image, and likeness” (NIL) deals, which permit college athletes to accept money in exchange for the use of their name or picture.

The second threat stems from legal proceedings that could force the League to treat varsity athletes as employees.

To preserve the integrity of Ivy League athletics, we must respond to the forces threatening it. Too few people truly appreciate how the Ivy League model differs from the big-money approach at other conferences.

The League’s organizing principles begin with a commitment to hold “paramount the academic programs of [each] institution and the academic and personal growth of the student-athlete.”

Princeton implements that precept in several ways.

Like other Ivy League schools, we give no athletic scholarships. Varsity athletes get the same need-based aid that other students get. If students quit teams to spend more time on their studies or other pursuits, their financial aid package is unchanged.

To minimize conflicts between academics and athletics, Princeton reserves a block of time in the afternoon for practices, extracurricular, and co-curricular activities. Classes generally do not meet during that period, so team members can pick the courses they want.

Ivy League presidents must approve any extensions to season lengths, and we vigilantly resist changes that might interfere with academic success.

Princeton’s undergraduate Office of Admission ensures that athletes, like all our students, are well qualified for Princeton’s demanding curriculum.

We hire coaches who understand what it means to be an Ivy League athlete and who care about the education and personal development of the young people on their teams.

The picture is often different elsewhere, especially at schools that prioritize national championships in football or basketball. Too often, coaches get multimillion-dollar salaries and athletes pursue less-than-demanding degrees.

That approach is generating threats that could seriously damage the Ivy League’s very different model.

Under “name, image, and likeness” deals, college athletes can now accept money from outside entities in exchange for the use of their name or picture.

Some versions of NIL contracts might seem, if not innocuous, then at least limited in impact: for example, a shoe company might pay a famous college athlete to endorse its products.

Boosters at some schools have, however, structured deals that resemble blatant pay-to-play transactions. Last year, a handful of underclassmen left Ivy League basketball teams for conferences where they reportedly secured six-figure NIL deals.

As big-money conferences scramble to control the impact of NIL, they are embracing models in which universities pay athletes directly. For Princeton, that’s a non-starter, but the rules are changing rapidly.

As I write this column, the NCAA is in the process of settling an NIL-related lawsuit in a way that appears to preserve, at least for now, the option for conferences to continue competing for national championships while avoiding pay-to-play arrangements.

It is possible that the big-money conferences will eventually change the rules to exclude the Ivy League from national competitions or impose conditions inconsistent with the educational goals of our varsity programs.

That would be a shame: like many Princeton alumni, I enjoy it when our students win on the national stage. But Princeton will not accept conditions that undermine our educational model, and, in the last resort, that commitment might compel us to play in a separate division, as we already do in football.

The second threat is existential. Courts and the National Labor Relations Board are now considering claims that could force the Ivy League to treat its varsity athletes as employees.

That issue is at stake, for example, in proceedings about the Dartmouth men’s basketball team’s effort to unionize. Also, Penn and Cornell alumni are among the named plaintiffs in a suit seeking to apply federal wage and hour law to varsity athletes.

These claims strike at the heart of Ivy League athletics. At Princeton, varsity athletic programs, like our other extracurricular activities, exist for the benefit of the participating students, not the administration, donors, or alumni.

We want students to play only if doing so enhances their education. Any form of pay-to-play would damage that fundamental commitment.

One alum, a former athlete who loves Princeton athletics, recently suggested to me that we are approaching a moment that demands a thorough reformation of our varsity programs.

Both he and I hope that is not so. We agree that Princeton’s current approach to athletic competition has tremendous educational benefits.

But to preserve our approach, we must have a voice in the national conversation about college sports reform. That starts by raising awareness for how our model differs from that at Alabama or even Stanford.

I hope that many alumni will join me in spreading the word about the importance of safeguarding the Ivy League model and the Princeton philosophy of “education through athletics.”