Editor’s Note: This essay is one side of a point-counterpoint on the place of collegiate athletics in higher education. I invited two contributors to respond to the same prompt from opposing perspectives. You can read about the project and the prompt here, and the companion essay presenting the opposing view here.

College and university athletics have long been a sore spot for many academics, who don’t believe competitive intercollegiate sports programs have any place at institutions of higher learning. The controversy has only intensified over the years, as college sports at the highest levels have also become big business.

As a former small-college athlete and coach, not to mention a lifelong college sports fan, I’m admittedly biased. But I believe, despite the myriad problems currently besetting college athletics, it is still, on balance, a force for good on most campuses.

Those problems include the ones that have been around since the beginning: namely, cheating and the lowering of academic standards to attract and retain top athletes. But recent court decisions have opened the door to a whole new set of problems, including transfer rules that discourage loyalty and persistence and NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) payments that have effectively turned players into hired guns and big-time college sports, particularly football and basketball, into professional minor leagues.

I find these developments lamentable and worry they’ll eventually ruin the games I love. So far, however, they do not appear to have done so. When it comes to the major revenue-producing sports, football and basketball, the product on the field or court is arguably better than it’s ever been, and fan interest is at an all-time high. That is good for the games, good for students and alumni, good for athletes, good for the institutions, and good for the communities they serve—in some cases, entire states.

Before we examine the positive effects of college athletics, however, we must recognize that neither the institutions themselves nor their athletic programs are monolithic. There are all kinds of different colleges, of different sizes, with different needs and different problems. And the sports themselves can vary widely in terms of cost and popularity. Even at the biggest schools, with the most storied programs, only a few sports actually pay for themselves. The rest just cost the institution money. The question is, is it worth it?

The answer, I suppose, is “it depends”—on the institution, on how much it has to spend to keep its sports programs afloat, and on the return it’s getting on its investment. 

Recently, I spoke at a small college that has traditionally had very competitive sports programs. You could call it a regional powerhouse at its level. It only offers a few sports—men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, softball, golf, and tennis—but those teams have won multiple conference championships over the years, advanced to national tournaments, and generally performed well. Their success is a point of pride for the entire small community.

While I was there, the president took me to a basketball game. It was well-played, hotly contested, and pretty well attended. The home team pulled it out in the end, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Afterward, I complimented the president on her college’s school spirit. She confided in me that enrollment had been in decline for years, that sports were one of the few things still bringing students to campus, and that they were about the only thing attracting community members. Without their athletic teams, she told me, the college would probably die.

I also think about two much larger institutions in my home state of Georgia, Georgia State University—where I teach—and Kennesaw State University. Both have experienced significant growth since starting football teams 10 or 12 years ago, to the point where they are now the two largest institutions in the state. Their teams aren’t even particularly competitive—nowhere near the level of the University of Georgia or Georgia Tech—but there seems to be something about just having a team that appeals to students, excites alumni, and encourages donors.

Does anyone seriously believe top public institutions like Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, North Carolina, Alabama, and Florida would be what they are today without their famous sports teams? Would top high school students in those states still be clamoring to get in if not for football weekends and the chance to camp outside the arena for Duke tickets?

No, there’s something about college sports that builds community and camaraderie, that attracts top students as well as top athletes, that welcomes alumni back to campus on a regular basis and helps pry open their wallets, which often doesn’t just go to the big-time sports teams but also helps fund scholarships and support other sports, as well as music and the arts.

Sports also provide opportunities to attend college for many students who might not otherwise have been able to do so—who, indeed, might never have considered setting foot on a college campus if not for their athletic talent. If we believe this is a public good and we’re serious about encouraging “diversity,” sports are among the best ways to do so. Even if some of those young people aren’t serious students when they arrive, even if many of them don’t go on to graduate, they still gain some benefit from being exposed to higher learning. It makes their lives better and helps society, too.

Is modern big-time college athletics a cesspool of greed and corruption? Are sports teams incredibly expensive to field and maintain? The answer to both questions is “yes.” And yet, I believe the good still outweighs the bad. College leaders at every level must think so, too—or perhaps have learned as much from experience—because they continue to sponsor teams.

If we truly love our colleges and universities, the answer to the problems of college sports is not to do away with them. That would likely have the opposite of the desired effect, sending some campuses into oblivion while greatly diminishing the effect of others. No, the answer is for academic and athletic leaders to continue working together to solve the problems posed by NIL, the transfer portal, academic integrity, and funding challenges, such that in the years to come, college athletics will become more sustainable and stronger than ever.

Follow Rob Jenkins on X.