The Nike contract
with UNC-Chapel Hill:
'The power of money here at home'
A term paper by
The Nike Seminar
April 30, 1998
In 1997, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Nike Corp. concluded what may be the richest deal ever between an apparel manufacturer and a college athletic program. 1 The company provided the school with what it valued at $7.1 million in gear for its athletes, and it gave $4 million in cash to Carolina's coaches. Nike paid UNC an additional $400,000 to the Chancellor's Academic Enhancement Fund. In exchange, Nike received the right to outfit the school's athletes on all 28 varsity teams with uniforms bearing the company's logo. The deal, a renewal of a 1993 contract, sparked campus controversy in which some students protested alleged mistreatment of workers at Nike-contracted shoe factories in Southeast Asia and others demonstrated in the company's defense. University Chancellor Michael Hooker criticized the company's critics as well as news coverage of the issue. The chancellor likened the controversy to "a witch hunt mentality" and described the media focus on Nike as "intellectually dishonest." 2
News media generally framed the story as a campus conflict focused on factory labor conditions on the other side of the world in East Asia. Missing both from news coverage and the chancellor's remarks, however, was an historical element that strikes closer to home and the heart of Chapel Hill: The Nike story was not the first time that the university has faced controversy over amateur athletics, outside money and their effect on the school's academic mission. Repeatedly this century, sports scandals have shaken the school and rippled through college ranks nationwide. The Nike controversy has reminded some faculty members and administrators that UNC may be overdue for another such scandal.
The history of big-time college athletics, then, colors the controversy involving Nike and UNC. It also offers lessons on how the university might prevent recurrent controversies involving sports and money from tarring the Tar Heel athletic program, diverting the school's academic mission and diminishing UNC's institutional integrity. And it prompts consideration of alternatives to the commercialization that has crept into university athletics and academics.
The history: love of the game
The word "amateur" comes from the Latin word amator -- lover. In the modern English sense of the word, an amateur is an athlete who plays for the love of the game, not for the money -- the amateur ideal.3 Modern amateurism originated on mid-19th century English and American college campuses, where university officials looked upon sports as a healthful way for their young well-to-do students to let off steam. Students were free to assemble and manage teams for themselves. 4 This period included the 1896 revival of the modern Olympic games, which defined an amateur athlete as one who "participates and always has participated in sport as an avocation without material gain of any kind." 5 This distinction between amateur and professional had prevailed since the original Games of Olympia in 700 B.C.6
But as college athletics grew more popular, college students saw their games taken away from them by school administrators.7 Schools began to offer athletic scholarships to students who quit part-time jobs that paid for their educations so that they could join campus athletic teams.8 It was scholarships, in fact, that fed the century's first big controversy over money and intercollegiate sports.
In 1929, a report titled American College Athletics prepared for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching made front-page news nationwide. The story's Page 1 headline in The New York Times, for example, read "College Sports Tainted by Bounties, Carnegie Fund Finds in Wide Study." The 347-page report on 130 programs described college athletics as "overcommercialized,"9 found that "one in seven athletes" was "subsidized," and charged that Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and other universities were guilty of abuses involving "slush funds" and "recruiting." 10 The report addressed growing concerns about the balance between academics and athletics and about financial aid for players, which the report called "the deepest shadow that darkens American college and school athletics." 11
In 1935, Frank Porter Graham, first president of the consolidated University of North Carolina, issued a reform plan that cited the Carnegie Report and focused on aid to athletes in the Southern Conference. Under the Graham Plan, every varsity athlete in the conference would be required to sign a statement affirming that he had received no unauthorized financial assistance from any source and that the only authorized aid would be for academic promise, not athletic prowess. The plan was based on the amateur ideal, sought to place the school's growing athletic programs firmly under university control and aimed to reassert the primacy of intellectual over athletic activity on campus.12
The Graham Plan raised a storm of objections, many from influential business and industrial sectors well represented among alumni.13 The controversy reflected deep social and political conflicts within North Carolina -- labor versus capital and social reformers versus industrialists.14 Graham was cast as a liberal and a reformer antagonistic to industry in part because he once had posted bail for a jailed union activist.15 Following intense opposition, Graham concluded that the ideals in his plan held little appeal with a public accustomed to athletic boosterism and the pursuit of a buck.16 Faced with threats to his presidency and weakening resolve among other Southern Conference members, Graham backed down. Southern Conference presidents approved some of Graham's proposals in February 1936, but they reversed themselves within a year.17
The Graham Plan and its fate set a pattern for similar controversies and reports that followed every two decades or so -- a 1952 report by the American Council on Education, a 1974 report to the American Council on Education, and the 1991 Knight Foundation Commission report.18 The repeated pattern included expressions of moral outrage, proposals for reform and finally capitulations to creeping professionalism in amateur athletics. Despite the pattern, powerful objections to big-money sports have persisted.19
In 1961, a point-shaving scandal, which first appeared in intercollegiate sports a decade earlier, tainted the Tar Heel basketball team at the annual Dixie Classic tournament in Raleigh. A professional gambler, disgruntled over the outcome of a game, stuck a gun in the stomach of a player who had failed to throw a game and demanded the money back.20 Reacted one angry alumnus, still unreconciled to athletic scholarships: "If you pay boys to play, you should not be too surprised if someone else pays them more to lose." The point-shaving revelations fed a growing contemporary discontent over glorification of material gain at the expense of loftier goals. National scandals, such as cheating on television quiz shows and payola in the recorded-music business, raised questions about the moral tone of American culture. The answers often were that discipline, honesty and fairness were sinking under a climb for material gain, and college athletes increasingly exemplified the bad behavior.21
College administrators, led by UNC President William Friday, again sought wholesale reform. They proposed cutting basketball schedules nearly in half, to 14 games a season. They aimed to curb recruiting and outside influence by mandating that no more than two scholarships a year be awarded to players from outside North Carolina. And, to the dismay of many fans, they canceled the Dixie Classic tournament.22
The debate gathered fuel in 1962 when alumni grumbled about the undistinguished record of the UNC-Chapel Hill football coach. Chancellor William Aycock responded: "No coach will be fired just for losing."23 Opponents called the remark un-American. One fan wrote President Friday that without teaching the will to win, "We shall be engulfed by the hordes of communism." 24 In an editorial on WRAL-TV in Raleigh, commentator Jesse Helms asserted that the individuals involved, not commercialism and professionalism, had corrupted basketball, and "deficient educational policies" had contributed to the problem. In a letter to a critic, President Friday responded: "I do not feel that the university could brook repeated involvement in scandal and at the same time hold up our heads in the world of higher education." 25 Helms responded that to deny fans the pleasure of athletes' performances would be "to disdain the enthusiasm and competition of college athletics" and to foster "dullness and disinterest." 26 Meanwhile, UNC basketball coach Frank McGuire, after receiving a stern lecture from the university and sensing the school no longer was committed to big-time college basketball, left UNC for the pros in 1962. But the point-shaving reforms stuck, and officials refused to resurrect the Dixie Classic. However, the historical pattern reappeared, officials soon relaxed other measures, and North Carolina college basketball grew increasingly popular and profitable. McGuire later returned to the college game.27
Bill Friday: been there, done that
College sports' latest indictment -- the Knight Commission's March 1991 report, Keeping Faith with the Student Athlete -- was partly the product of former University of North Carolina President William C. Friday, co-chair of the blue-ribbon panel. Friday brought more than a measure of distinction to the commission; he brought experience in dealing with controversy involving big money and college sports.
Friday had been in office as UNC president only two months when he faced his first scandal -- recruiting violations at N.C. State University. The National Collegiate Athletic Association later imposed its strictest sanction on N.C. State for the violations -- a four-year probation. The experience and similar controversies that followed altered Friday's amateur ideal. He had been sports editor at The Technician, N.C. State's campus newspaper, and had played basketball and baseball. "I love sports," Friday declared in an interview. 28
But by 1989, Friday had heeded a national opinion survey conducted by pollster and UNC alumnus Louis Harris, who had found:
¥ 80 percent of Americans said intercollegiate sports were out of control.
¥ 80 percent said TV money was manipulating sports.
¥ Most Americans said college institutions were guilty of a double standard on admissions of athletes.
¥ Most Americans said colleges should step in to regulate college sports.
A result of the survey was creation of the Knight Commission. Friday and his fellow commissioners concluded:
¥ Some college institutions cannot handle big-time athletics.
¥ Other institutions, such as UNC and Notre Dame, can handle big-time athletics.
To preserve the integrity of the institutions and their games, the commission recommended:
¥ Each institution's president or chancellor must take charge of the athletic program.
¥ All athletic-program money should go through the head of the institution or his or her designee, and no one else -- definitely not coaches.
¥ Every few years the NCAA should go on campuses and examine all records of the above.29
That last recommendation has been followed only once -- at Wake Forest University. In Friday's view, that explains recurrent controversies involving money and college sports. "There's a lack of financial control, and there's too much money involved," Friday said.30
Exhibit A, in Friday's view, is the case of Nike and UNC. The company and the Chapel Hill campus first contracted in 1993. When a university committee studied the deal in 1995, its report reflected deep and lingering doubts about commercialization of the university. "The agreement provides Nike with a great deal of advertising value," the report read. "The university's name and image is for these purposes controlled by Nike."
The report reflected on the amounts of money involved in the 1993 deal: UNC received cash payments totaling $420,000 over the life of the contract "and a vast amount of products," the report read. It continued:
That our minds boggle at such figures does not prevent us from seeing also the advantages Nike gets from the agreement -- and from wondering whether that advantage does not signal a situation that is potentially dangerous for the university. We are concerned about the potential for the exploitation of student athletes and of the good name of the university. Our chancellor is recommending urgent attention to such contracts on the part of both the ACC [Atlantic Coast Conference] and the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association]. There are many pressures in the direction of increased commercialization of varsity athletics, and we commend the Department of Athletics for the degree of success with which it has resisted them. We hope the Nike contract will not prove to be the first hole in the dam. Big-money sports can so readily corrupt athletics programs.
Since then, the big money flowing between Nike and UNC has grown bigger. When the 1993 contract was renewed in 1997, millions of dollars flowed from Nike directly to UNC coaches, contrary to the recommendations of the Knight Commission and the concerns of the university's own 1995 study committee. For former UNC President Friday, now serving as president of the William R. Kenan Jr. Fund on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus, recurrent controversies in college sports stem from deals such as these, which in his view involve too much money and too little top administrative control over a private company's negotiations with campus employees
-- in this case, coaches.
"Here is a classic illustration of the problem," said Friday, "an outside company dealing with personnel here on campus. This should never be. We don't allow other companies to do that. That contract should never have been negotiated -- with the chancellor, maybe, but not with the coaches. Where did the money go? The $7 million is not cash. That's a dollar value of equipment. The cash went to the coaches, except for $400,000, the chancellor's discretionary academic fund, which is Nike's effort to buy into the administration. I don't think a great institution does this kind of thing.... It's the institution's integrity that gets put on the line."32
Friday acknowledged that pressures behind such deals are fueled by popular culture. "Our country treats sports as religion," Friday said. "Now, even the NBA and the NFL are becoming concerned with image. Too much money is being paid to these people. And we've confused celebrities with heroes. Celebrities are as greedy as we can be."
Friday is not alone in his criticism of popular culture and its fascination with sports as entertainment. UNC-Chapel Hill Athletic Director Dick Baddour agrees. "Society clearly puts too much emphasis on sports," he said. "It's all out of whack."33 President Bill Clinton agrees. "America," he said at a recent conference on race and sports, "is a sports-crazy country." 34 UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Michael Hooker also has expressed concern about the culture's fascination with sports as "big-time public entertainment." 35 Nike Chairman Phil Knight has predicted that the phenomenon will become an issue in the year 2000 presidential campaign.36
What's wrong with the worshiping of athletes as celebrities and the commercializing of sports? Prof. John Dizikes, professor of American studies at University of California at Santa Cruz, is writing a sports history about the question. His arguments against commercialization rewind the debate heard during the 1930s when Frank Porter Graham attempted reforms following the Carnegie report and again during the 1960s when Bill Friday attempted reforms in the wake of the point-shaving scandals.
"It leads to a very great deal of cheating and dishonesty," Dizikes said. "It drastically reduces the significance of play itself. The only thing is winning. The emphasis on competition diminishes the importance of participation. Because Denver won the Super Bowl this year doesn't make John Elway any better as a quarterback.
"Also, it diminishes the collective of the team," added Prof. Dizikes. "We have a culture that pays pious tribute to the idea of teamwork. But the market determines importance on the basis of celebrity. Nothing has been able to resist the power of commerce. Everything has been touched by it. The Olympics, for example: It's hard to think of an ideal more corrupted by it."37
The way big money corrupts the game on an individual level was told in a recent story in The Chronicle of Higher Education. "If a kid is sitting there in his third or fourth year," said one observer, "and he sees that the coach is making money, the school is making money, the bookies are making money -- everybody is making money off this game except him -- he might say, 'This is my only chance to get something. This is my only chance to put something away.' "38
Some North Carolina athletic officials think of another public institution in danger of corruption by commercialization: high school athletics. The North Carolina High School Athletic Association, a private non-profit group on the Chapel Hill campus that has organized North Carolina high school sports since 1913, is leading an effort to curb commercialization of the high school game by Nike, among others. NCHSAA executive director Charlie Adams, who this year is serving as president of the National Federation of State High School Associations, in Kansas City, Mo., has initiated talks aimed at regulating summer camps run by the tennis shoe corporations and the Amateur Athletic Union, an organization that conducts all-star summer camps without high-school sanction. The arrangement concerns high school coaches, who see AAU coaches as threats to their oversight of the high school game. Others see the arrangement as an effort to establish a vertical monopoly to control a flesh trade in talented athletes of tender age.
"Now on the payroll of Nike and adidas are people of questionable character -- 'street coaches' -- paid as much as $35,000," said Rick Strunk, an associate of Adams at NCHSAA. Strunk added that the NCHSAA has special concerns about Nike. "Nike has shown disregard for high school athletic rules. They have flown high school athletes to Beaverton, Ore., given them merchandise, violating the rules in some states. And Nike did it unilaterally, without checking with high schools."
What's wrong with commercialization of high-school hoops by the AAU and companies such as Nike?
"It can skew the process," argued Strunk. "Street coaches don't have the best interests of the kids at heart. They want to make a quick buck. There is absolutely nothing academic about their input. It's only exploitive. The high school coach, on the other hand, is involved with academics.
"It has evolved into a meat market," Strunk continued. "The AAU originally was an outlet when you couldn't make the high school team. It has a negative impact -- kids jetting all over the place in Nike gear. Then they find themselves on the high school bus going to a game wearing local gear, and it's just not very glamorous."
Charlie Adams' effort to regulate the commercialization has moved to the NCAA, where Strunk said Adams' initiative to rein in Nike and the AAU has been well received.39 But Bill Friday predicted that Adams' effort won't be easy. "It's the power of money," Friday said. "Charlie Adams is going to become a very controversial figure. He's putting his hand to the wall and saying, 'No Nike situation in high school.' "
Where some at Chapel Hill see exploitation by Nike, however, others admire the company's innovation in and integration of industry and amateur athletics. "The Nike sponsorship of high school basketball camps has changed the recruiting process for an athlete, and that has hurt the power of the high school coach," said John Sweeney, a professor of advertising and a student of sports marketing in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at UNC-Chapel Hill. Nevertheless, Sweeney added, Nike occasionally carries success to excess. "The Nike sponsorship of coaches with shoe contracts was the first step into the controversial partnership between colleges and the company -- a partnership now debated because Nike's corporate social problems become the concern of public institutions," Sweeney added. "Nike's innovations though sometimes succeed to the point of genuine controversy."40
For Bill Friday, Nike's success at commercializing amateur sports has come at the expense of educational institutions, both high schools and universities. "It distracts the university's attention from what it's supposed to do," said Friday. "The more money you get, the more involved you get. The trouble is, it's inevitably self-destructive. Scandal is going to happen again. It's happened about every 25 years. We're overdue today, and with vastly more money at stake."
For Friday, debate over alleged sweatshop conditions in East Asian shoe factories diverts attention from the most salient issue in the debate over Nike and UNC, an issue that involves the same elements of sociology, politics and money that contributed to the Frank Porter Graham controversy six decades earlier. "This 'slave labor-sweatshop' issue distracts from the real issue," said Friday. "It's the power of money here at home."
What would Friday have done had the Nike contract been his call?
"I would have said no to Nike," said Friday. "It's like this: Take an Anthropology class. A publisher comes to Professor Peacock and says, "I will pay you $50,000 a year if you will require this textbook in all of your sections. What's the difference between that and Nike? Nike pays the coach $100,000 if his players wear its shoes. And if I'm a book publisher, I can buy a professor. The issue is freedom and independence of that institution. The trouble: That money becomes a habit. Your loyalties to the institution are subsumed to your loyalties to the company."
In the case of the Nike contract with UNC, the company's money is worth $4 million for coaches --in amounts, in some cases, well above their annual coaching salaries.41
Some examples of Nike's payments to UNC coaches illustrate Friday's point:
¥ Women's soccer coach Anson Dorrance ended a long association with adidas to accept a deal with Nike. In his final year of a four-year contract with adidas, Dorrance received $22,000. By the fifth year of his Nike contract, Dorrance will receive $150,000 from Nike. Dorrance's base state salary in 1996 was $63,000.
¥ Men's soccer coach Elmar Bolowich received $6,000 from adidas in 1996-97
in the final year of a four-year pact. He will draw $15,000 annually from Nike through 2001-02.
¥ Women's basketball coach Sylvia Hatchell, who earned $ 10,000 per year in
her previous Nike deal, will receive five times as much annually over the
next five years.
¥ Dennis Craddock, the track and cross-country coach, will draw $15,000,
three times his old annual Nike salary.
¥ Baseball coach Mike Roberts, who will step down at the end of the 1998 college season, drew $3,000 annually under his old contract. He will receive $10,000 this season.
¥ Dean Smith, who in October resigned after 36 seasons as the UNC men's basketball coach, still received $250,000 from Nike, which Smith donated.42
Defenders of the Nike-UNC deal say that without it others -- including taxpayers and students -- would have to come up with the money for uniforms and shoes. Others have suggested that the university's Educational Foundation, the athletic booster group also known as the Rams Club, easily could afford to subsidize athletic equipment. The club's net assets of $80 million and endowment of $67 million make it the second wealthiest booster club of its kind in the country. Rams Club officials say the group's charter prevents it from buying apparel and shoes for players. But its critics say the club could get financially creative if it had to. Critics cite the Rams Club's financing of the entire cost of construction of the Dean Smith Center, the school's basketball arena; of $40 million of the cost of recent renovations of the Kenan Stadium; $22 million in planned additional renovations at the Kenan complex, and of a $700,000 road built to serve wealthy Rams Club contributors who attend basketball games.43 As for taxpayers, they already are paying for UNC athletics to the tune of $800,000 a year to subsidize operations of the Smith Center.44
Bill Friday said the school can manage without the company's millions: "We've even had deficits before," Friday said. "We won national championships in 1957 and 1983 without Nike and TV. I saw it all happen without all this. So what's the big deal? Besides, I object to Nike. They're exploiters. They exploit universities and players."
Further, Friday said, the Nike deal carries a hidden cost. "UNC evaluations are slipping," Friday said. "I don't agree with U.S. News & World Report rankings, but they reflect perception. Emory is up. U.Va. is up, Texas, Duke, Vanderbilt, too. And where have we spent the big money in recent years? On the Dean Dome and at the Kenan Stadium expansion. Have we done the same with libraries, classrooms, academics? What's the residual effect of that decision-making? Institutional integrity. Your job as leader of the institution is to do what's best for the institution. Mostly, that's what's best for the people of the state, too. Privatization of public institutions is a condemnation and denial of the have-nots."
Chancellor Michael Hooker's endorsement of the Nike deal speaks volumes to critics, most of whom have muted their objections. Meanwhile, the chancellor has continued to defend the company and its relationship with the university, and he has expressed unwillingness to tackle issues involved. In an interview, for example, Hooker said: "Since Frank Porter Graham, we have not examined this issue of the role of athletics and the university, and Frank Porter Graham had his head handed to him when he did." Asked whether he was worried about having his head handed to him if he were to tackle the issues surrounding the Nike-UNC deal, the chancellor replied: "I don't worry about it because I know that's what would happen to me."45
But criticism of commercialization of university programs is a perennial of campus debate. As the criticism has revived with each sports controversy, so has it fed debates over commercialization of the academic curriculum.46 Concern over commercialization has not declined as private market economies expand into countries around the globe and into arenas formerly regarded as strictly public and non-profit. Elements of this debate are regularly condensed in "Doonesbury" cartoons. But the simmering arguments have not been fully aired in the case of Nike and UNC-Chapel Hill. Does the relative quiet indicate acquiescence to the contract? The history suggests that the quiet is likely to be broken. In that case, the debate once again will revolve around a central question: What is the university's primary mission? If past is prologue, the question seems likely to be repeated, sparked by athletic scandal.
To break the cycle and minimize risk to UNC-Chapel Hill's integrity and reputation, the following recommendations summarize suggestions covered in this paper for steps that UNC-Chapel Hill's leadership should take:
¥ Follow strictly the Knight Commission recommendation that all negotiations with and revenues from commercial enterprises be handled, not just reviewed, by the school's top administrator or his or her designee.
¥ Demonstrate vocal and public leadership on such issues as the commercialization of basketball at the high-school and the college levels. Lend support to the North Carolina High School Athletic Association's effort to strengthen and reinforce vital links between high schools and their student-athletes. Take a leadership role in reforms being considered by the NCAA.
¥ Use the bully pulpit provided by the chancellor's office. If, as many academic and political leaders say, sports has "gotten out of whack," then few other positions in society offer the independence, opportunity and responsibility to focus attention and lead discussion on such broad social issues as commercialization of society and its public institutions, such as university campuses. The Frank Porter Graham's experience, as interpreted by Chancellor Hooker, for example, can be interpreted as a positive lesson, rather than a negative one. Graham did spark controversy when he grappled in the 1930s with intercollegiate athletics and big monied interests, but he remains a revered and respected figure on the UNC campus and beyond long after his death due in part to his willingness to thoughtfully and constructively engage such issues.
¥ Demonstrate leadership by restoring balance to athletics through, for example, focusing on and increasing funding for non-revenue athletics, such as intramural sports and facilities.
¥ Demonstrate UNC's academic leadership by commissioning study of and convening a colloquium on the relationship between academics and athletics and the UNC-Nike contract's role in that relationship. Consider alternatives to athletic funding by Nike, such as public sources, nonprofits organizations -- such as athletic booster clubs -- and private foundations.
1. Elling, Steve (1997, December 19). "Showing them the money," The (Raleigh) News & Observer, p. C1.
Further, in April 23, 1998, remarks to the Nike seminar, UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Michael Hooker said: "We now have the most lucrative Nike contract."
2. Stancill, Jane (1997, November 7). "Forces gird for Nike protest linked to UNC-FSU game," The (Raleigh, N.C.) News & Observer. p. B1.
3. Weiss, Anne E. (1993). Money game$: the business of sports. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, p. 114.
4. Ibid, p.115.
5. Ibid, p.116.
6. Tunis, John R. (1928). $port$: heroics and hysterics. New York: The John Day Company, p.237.
7.Weiss, p. 121.
See also: Thelin, John R. (1994). Games colleges play: scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 45-46.
8. Weiss, p. 122.
9. Thelin, p. 45.
10. Thelin, pp. 13-14.
11. Grundy, Pamela (unpublished dissertation). Chapters IV-VII, p. 14.
12. Ibid, pp. 14-15.
13.Hofstadter, Richard (1979). The paranoid style in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p. 209.
Hofstadter has drawn the connection between athletics and industry in America: "The American male character was believed to have been quickened and given discipline by the sight and pursuit of opportunity. For this process to take place it was important that business be carried on fairly -- the sporting vocabulary was never far below the surface -- and that newcomers be able to enter the game as entrepreneurs on reasonably open terms."
See also: Grundy, op cit, p. 13.
14. Grundy, op cit, p. 21.
15. Ibid, p. 15.
16. Ibid, p. 24
17. Ibid, pp. 24-25.
18. Thelin, op cit, p. 10.
19. Ibid, p. 198.
20. Grundy, op cit, p. 23.
See also: Thelin, op cit, p. 105.
See also: Personal interview with Dr. William Friday, March 12, 1998, Kenan Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
21. Grundy, op cit, pp. 27-28.
22. Ibid, p. 29.
24. Ibid, p. 34.
25. Ibid, pp. 37-38.
26. Ibid, p. 39.
27. Ibid, p. 41.
28. Friday interview, op cit.
See also: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill computer file: Institutional self-study report : The Nike contract (1995). Available: http://www.unc.edu/pubs/academ/selfstudy/file.103.html, fn on Page 6.
30. Friday interview, op cit.
31. Institutional self-study report : The Nike contract (1995), op cit.
Prof. Richard W. Pfaff, co-author of the 1995 passage, wrote the author on April 27, 1998, that the passage "could have been written yesterday" and that little has changed since 1995 to minimize his co-authors' "full agreement that a strong note of caution should be sounded."
32. Friday interview, op cit.
See also: Rock, Steven (1997, October 6). "Coaches' pay, outside income soaring," The (Kansas City) Star, p. A1. The newspaper story reprints a quote of Kit Morris, director of the Knight Commission, who told the Boston Globe in 1995: "Coaches are selling something they don't own -- the university's name and image." Morris added that if a school's purchasing agent did the same thing, "He would be led off in handcuffs." Morris now works for Nike.
See also: Notes of April 9, 1998, visit to the Nike seminar by UNC-Chapel Hill Athletics Director Dick Baddour, in author's possession: The UNC-Chapel Hill athletics program is "somewhat not in line with the Knight Commission recommendation," Baddour acknowledged. "All revenues should come in through the university administration."
33. Baddour made his remarks during an April 9, 1998, visit to the Nike seminar. Notes in the possession of the author.
34. Associated Press (1998, April 15). "Clinton panel tackles sports," The News & Observer, p. 10C.
35. Hooker made his remarks during an April 23, 1998, visit to the Nike seminar.
36. Knight made his remarks during an April 28, 1998, visit to the Nike seminar.
37. Telephone interview with John Dizikes, professor of American studies, Feb. 18, 1998, University of California at Santa Cruz.
38. Naughton, Jim (1998, April 17). "Why athletes are vulnerable to gambling: incidents lead the NCAA and colleges to examine a long-standing problem," The Chronicle of Higher Education," p. A52.
39. Telephone interview with Rick Strunk, associate executive director, N.C. High School Athletic Assn., Chapel Hill, Feb. 26, 1998.
40. Electronic mail message from Sweeney, John, professor of advertising at School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, March 20,1998.
41. Peeler, Tim (1998, January 14). "UNC's new sports media contract worth $10.5M, five-year deal with The Village Companies goes into effect July 1," The (Durham)Herald-Sun, p. D1.
42. Elling, Steve (1997, December 19). "Showing them the money," The (Raleigh) News & Observer, p. C1.
In an April 24, 1998, interview with the author, Coach Smith confirmed that he donated all his cash income from Nike.
43. Alexander, Chip (1998, January 18). "Rams Club boosts its finances and critics," The News & Observer, p. A1.
In an April 27, 1998, interview with the author, Rams Club Chairman William M. Moore Jr. confirmed that the group's charter restricts spending to scholarships and facilities. However, Moore added that the club may be forced to change its policies to allow advertising in the facilities it supports -- the Dean Smith Center, the university's basketball arena, for example -- in order to increase revenues.
In an April 30, 1998, interview, Moyer Smith, president of the Rams Club, said the group cannot afford to support the athletic program's equipment needs. Smith said the athletic program has no alternative to Nike's support and that the only other alternative would be to cut the number of athletic programs being offered at the school, which, Smith added, may happen anyway.
45. Notes of April 17, 1998, interview with Chancellor Michael Hooker, Chapel Hill, N.C, in possession of the author.
46. Barnett, Cynthia (1998, March 29). "Virtual professor may find a home at UNC," The (Raleigh) News & Observer, pp. 1A, 16A, 17A.
Alexander, Chip (1998, January 18). "Rams Club boosts its finances and critics," The News & Observer, p. A1.
Amato, Neil (1998, February 7). "An effort to rein in recruiting: NCHSAA director seeks support for basketball reform," The Durham Herald-Sun, p. C1.
Associated Press (1998, April 15). "Clinton panel tackles sports," The News & Observer, p. 10C.
Barnett, Cynthia (1998, March 29). "Virtual professor may find a home at UNC," The (Raleigh) News & Observer, pp. 1A, 16A, 17A.
Davidson, Gary (1997, December 30). "UNC coach snares Nike deal," USA Today, p. 2C.
Dizikes, John (1998, February 18). Telephone interview from University of California at Santa Cruz.
Easterbrook, Gregg (1998, January 5). "Scholarships for jocks, after they quit playing," U.S. News & World Report.
Elling, Steve (1997, December 19). "Showing them the money," The (Raleigh) News & Observer, p. C1.
Friday, William (1998, March 12). Personal interview with author, Kenan Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Grundy, Pamela (unpublished dissertation). Chapters IV-VII, pp. 2-46.
Guttmann, Allen (1988). A whole new ball game: an interpretation of American sports. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Hofstadter, Richard (1979). The paranoid style in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jensen, Jeff (1998, January 19). "Amateur athletics shun negativity besieging sports," Advertising Age, p. 4.
Ledbetter, Orlando (1997, November 30). "Clean up recruiting? Good luck," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, p. 3D.
McChesney, Robert W. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press. (Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison)
McGraw, Mike; Rock, Steven and Dillon, Karen (1997, October 7). "Amateur message lost in big money morass," Austin American-Statesman, p. C1.
Moore, Paula (1997, August 8). "Nike knows how to flex its muscles," Denver Business Journal, p. 3A.
Naughton, Jim (1998, April 17). "Why athletes are vulnerable to gambling: incidents lead the NCAA and colleges to examine a long-standing problem," The Chronicle of Higher Education," pp. A51-52.
Peeler, Tim (1998, January 14). "UNC's new sports media contract worth $10.5M, five-year deal with The Village Companies goes into effect July 1," The (Durham)Herald-Sun, p. D1.
Rock, Steven (1997, October 20). "Educators frustrated by NCAA: Big 12 school leaders say discussion of more financial scrutiny likely," The Kansas City Star, p. A1.
Stancill, Jane (1997, November 7). "Forces gird for Nike protest linked to UNC-FSU game," The (Raleigh, N.C.) News & Observer. p. B1.
Strunk, Rick, (1998, February 26). Telephone interview with associate executive director, N.C. High School Athletic Assn., Chapel Hill, Feb. 26, 1998.
Sweeney, John (1998, March 20). Electronic mail from professor of advertising at School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Thelin, John R. (1994). Games colleges play: scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tunis, John R. (1928). $port$: heroics and hysterics. New York: The John Day Company.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill computer file: Institutional self-study report : The Nike contract (1995). Available: http://www.unc.edu/pubs/academ/selfstudy/
Weiss, Anne E. (1993). Money game$: the business of sports. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Witosky, Tom (1998, January 14). "NCAA probes recruiting: Coaches may face new rules in pursuing basketball talent," The Des Moines Register, p. 1.
Wolper, Allan (1998, January 10). "Nike's newspaper temptation," Editor & Publisher Magazine.