Karl Marx once told us that capitalism is "vampire-like," and that it lives only by draining the jugular of labor.
A century later, mosquitoes - the bourgeois - are still sucking off oxen - the proletariat - and complaining about the blood quality.
On Monday, Vanessa Strobbe wrote a column addressing the uneven distribution of funds among UNM's varsity sports. Among her many complaints, she singles out the football and basketball programs, which receive better scholarship funding and "training tables" - a program where members of the team eat for free at five restaurants, five days a week.
Apparently, smaller sports at UNM don't get the same "perks" as some of their larger counterparts. The logic presented on Monday is that if the University can't afford to do it for all programs, it shouldn't do it for any.
But really, it's the least the Athletics Department can do.
By and large, universities use football and basketball players like oxen - as strong, durable laborers. The capital-driving gridironers and hoopsters are, in essence, exploited.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Football and basketball players generate the most revenue. They are what Marx would call the wage-workers. Their compensation, though, is minimal - in this case, a full-ride scholarship and training table. Essentially, the profit margins football and basketball report, while re-invested into the programs, are also used to expedite funds for the remaining varsity sports. The only three programs at the University that turn profits are - guess what? - football and men's and women's basketball. All other programs run deficits. Of the biggest losers, track and field burn through most of the University's money.
According to documents provided by the Office of the Custodian of Public Records, track and field runs a deficit of $358,459.
But for whatever reason, some think sports that stimulate the Athletics Department's bankroll aren't worth investing in.
That's like being a stockbroker, but instead of maximizing your client's million-dollar plot, you squander it by chasing long-shot, high-risk stocks. What makes it worse is you have hindsight and an inside-man named Martha Stewart. (That inside-man, in this case, is Rich Pickering, associate director of business operations for Athletics.)
Where would that leave you?
For one, broke. And two, hopefully out of a job. If the University had that mentality, we'd need a billion-dollar bailout package similar to the one the government gave to Wall Street creditors.
"Perks being dispersed only to a few sports programs is not based on any legitimate, fair system," Strobbe said.
Actually, it is.
Maybe if track and field generated moola, members of the team would have a training-table program. Since it runs a deficit, it's not justifiable to give them "a head of lettuce." Yet, as Katie Coronado attested to, she still gets 12 meals a week. So why complain? Investing more in athletic programs that don't turn profits is like opting to diversify your portfolio, except putting money in Enron after the company filed for bankruptcy.
It makes absolutely no sense.
To the contrary, football brings in about $630,000 while men's and women's basketball account for nearly $3 million in profit, according to the documents provided by the Office of the Custodian of Public Records. Keep in mind, Pickering said in an e-mail those figures already take into account training tables.
If we're going to talk about fairness, look at it through these lenses:
If football and basketball ran a deficit, there wouldn't be money in the budget to fund other sports' low turnouts.
Football and basketball generate the big bucks so the tennis team can sniff the felty aroma of Penn tennis balls and not just the generic, Wal-Mart brand. They work hard so track and soccer have respectable confines to compete in.
And I've never heard football and basketball players complain about it, because they probably aren't aware of it. It's an unwritten task, something they don't sign up for when they come here on scholarship. Think of them as your friendly sponsors: "This sport was made possible by (fill in a player name from either team)."
Simply, UNM can't achieve national recognition athletically by investing in mosquitoes.
"Even if most of the revenue is generated by the mainstream sports, if UNM wants to become a powerhouse like Texas, then it needs to evenly divide earnings among all sports," Strobbe said.
They're parasites. They'll suck you dry, then hop to another host. I'm not saying smaller sports, like track or skiing, provide nothing for the University, just that they zap the institution's monetary funds in exchange for that national championship.
It's a gradual process. It's give and take. You need a foundation, pillars and an infrastructure before you can slap together the roof. Regardless of whether people like it, football and basketball are the cornerstones of this University. Texas didn't get to where it is now by suddenly giving exorbitant amounts of money to track. It started off with football and basketball. That's just the way it is.
Marx said that equality would be achieved through class struggle. But this sort of conflict will do nothing to make things equitable among sports at UNM. Taking potshots at programs that are the primary caretakers of the University is misguided.
And making unequal scholarship allocation and training tables a rallying cry may be noble, but in order for equality to be achieved, the success of football and basketball is paramount. Their strength ensures all teams get ample menu choices - at La Posada or Saggio's.
Trust me, if you like pizza, pasta and canolis, Steve Alford and Mike Locksley are your biggest allies.
