The NCAA's EMI

Do female college basketball players become pregnant at lower rates than female professional basketball players? Do female college basketball players have fewer children than male college basketball players? Suppose both statements are true.

Evidence from anecdotes is hardly ever convincing, but I do remember Christmas night, 2004, going out to eat a local diner with some friends (we, too, were surprised that any establishment was open). To our luck, we actually sat at a table directly across from two of the starts of the nearby college basketball team (two future NBA draft picks from a final four team that year). To our surprise, we were also sitting directly across from these players’ children.

Evidence from ESPN is hardly ever convincing, but in the case of Candace Parker it appears that the WNBA star actually missed the 2009 season due to pregnancy. Not only is it amazing that a professional athlete would choose to miss a year of her career, it is amazing the sport would seemingly be so supportive of an elected year off. Obviously, I am unfamiliar with the formal and informal policies and attitudes of the WNBA towards pregnancy. I imagine it would be similar to the challenges most women in the work force face – pregnancy could cost them a promotion, higher wages in the future and obviously also the immediate losses of productivity for the business. Perhaps Parker’s status in her industry (she is arguably the face of her sport and has been given expectations that she might be a Jordan-like usher of women’s professional basketball) affords her a level of job security most role players might not afford. A similar explanation could be made for Lisa Leslie’s decision to miss the 2007 season - Leslie was one of the most productive female players of all time.

Perhaps this competition phenomenon explains why there are not more female college basketball players who miss time due to pregnancy. Even the most irreplaceable and recognizable stars of the college game could not only lose playing time and an opportunity for a professional career, but they could also risk forfeiting their scholarship status (as far as could be determined, it seems that the policy of the NCAA is that students may be granted an extra year of eligibility if they become pregnant but are not guaranteed one). College players, even revenue players as Sanderson discusses, have very little leverage.

In addition, socioeconomic status likely plays a role in the presumed lower number of pregnancies in women’s college basketball. Few college students have the resources or stability to provide for a child, let alone the typical, disadvantaged black student-athlete that plays college basketball. This is especially true given the recent study showing how poorly the NCAA covers the expenses of its student athletes (which likely also dampens the argument that the NCAA might spring for the costs to distribute birth control measures to its female athletes). Perhaps also there is a selection bias inherent amongst the female college athlete population. These individuals, in addition to being talented, are likely very disciplined, responsible, and accountable, and thus would be at a low risk of becoming pregnant without considerable foresight.

All qualifications aside, it seems that perhaps if these conditions for female student athletes at the collegiate level do in fact exist, then an even stronger case ought to be made in favor of actually compensating collegiate athletes – especially those who play revenue athletics. Anyone who follows college sports is likely familiar with how obsessive the NCAA’s policies to protect the amateur status are. All human capital arguments about the value of education aside (Becker), along with the less scientific, more subjective, American-mythos ideals about the principles of hard work and education, it is clear that the majority of these athletes are given a raw deal – especially those who take part in revenue athletes that generate millions of dollars annually for their programs. Allen Sanderson, an economics lecturer at the University of Chicago, has argued that the majority of these students suffer even further from a “reverse Robin Hood effect” as the funds from generated by athletes in revenue sports, who typically come from disadvantaged, minority, impoverished households, are actually used to fund scholarships for athletes in non-revenue sports, who typically come from advantaged, white, affluent households.

Therefore, by this account, choosing a scholarship just another track that produces, replicates, and solidifies inequality in America. A similar process is described by Samuel Lucas in what he terms “effectively maintained inequality.” Lucas writes “Effectively maintained inequality posits that socioeconomically advantaged actors secure for themselves and their children some degree of advantage wherever advantages are commonly possible. On the one hand, if quantitative differences are common, the socioeconomically advantaged will obtain quantitative advantage; on the other hand, if qualitative differences are common the socioeconomically advantaged will obtain qualitative advantage.” Student athletes on NCAA scholarships, especially low SES women who are thus provided additional disincentives for pregnancy, are essentially tracking for continued disadvantage.

Sources:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3967891
http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=2690361
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2875521
http://www.tampabay.com/sports/basketball/college/article1099926.ece
http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0018
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/books/review/23goldstein.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5793192
http://www.allbusiness.com/management/3494934-1.html
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/lucas/emifinal.pdf