TONIGHT many Americans will watch the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) men's basketball championship game. This particular match-up is especially compelling. A relatively small and unknown (though now repeat participant in the championship game) programme from the Midwest, Butler, will play a Northeastern goliath—the larger, more established programme from the University of Connecticut (UCONN). An aura of corruption adds to the drama. The rich, powerful UCONN programme has spent the last few years plagued by accusations of NCAA recruiting violations. The NCAA has particular rules regarding recruiting and compensation of athletes. The rules are an attempt to draw a clear line in a rather murky area: players are supposed to be student-athletes, not paid professionals. This is in spite of the fact that college sports generate billions of dollars in revenue and produce many recognisable brands.

Foreigners often are perplexed by America's interest in college sports. What they often fail to understand is that the level of athletics is well beyond students playing club games. American universities essentially operate minor league sports franchises. The very best athletes who play football and basketball get the training and exposure they need to secure lucrative professional contracts. Some find this offensive. It has been argued that it exploits the student athletes who cannot be paid for their talent and labour, other than their athletic scholarships. Others find the low graduation rates among the top athletes, and questionable curriculum and standards, an affront to universities' central educational mission.

One alternative is to simply pay the athletes; in addition to their scholarships make them employees of the university. This could undermine some college sports programmes because larger teams could pay more. What often makes the NCAA so interesting is the regular emergence of small obscure, schools like Butler. Another alternative could be the establishment of actual minor league teams, like in baseball, that provide athletes a paid option in additional to college play. But in many ways the current system provides a better outcome.

Universities may enjoy positive externalities, even if they tend to lose money on their athletic programmes. Second, playing on a college team instead of a professional minor league one is often better for the athletes. Most players, even in elite programmes, do not get a professional contract, so their alternatives would be a few years as a poorly paid minor-league athlete or a stint on a college team that includes access to a college education. The education alternative has the potential to diversify an athlete's human capital, by developing skills other than those specifically related to basketball or American football. These skills are more valuable than wages they'd be paid as minor league athletes.

The problem is that many athletes do not get these skills because many do not graduate or take challenging classes. This is not such a concern for the exceptional athlete who secures a professional contract mid-way through his college career. The opportunity cost for them to stay in university is large and they risk injury by delaying going pro. But more should be done to ensure that athletes not bound for the pros get more from their academic experience. They require more support and encouragement to graduate. Many athletes do not enrol with the academic skills necessary to do well at university and they face large demands on their time, playing for the team.

The current situation may not be such a bad equilibrium, for either the athletes or the university. But the definition of “student athlete” in top tier programmes is a fuzzy one. Rather than forcing arbitrary distinctions, the NCAA would be better off making sure that athletic programmes do more to support the athletes who can benefit from the education they are given.