The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) in the United States and the CCA (Canadian Curling Association) share intriguing similarities in their roles within their respective sports ecosystems. Both organizations have maintained a tight grip on their sports through monopoly and monopsony, influencing not only the major events they oversee but also the financial lives of athletes under their governance. This article explores these parallels in-depth, examining how both organizations exercise control and face challenges.
Monopoly Power in Sports: The NCAA and CCA Control Major Championships
The concept of a monopoly—where a single organization controls an entire market or event—is evident in both the NCAA and CCA structures. The NCAA governs all college-level athletic championships in the United States, particularly in football and basketball, while the CCA oversees major curling tournaments like the Brier (Canadian men’s championship) and the Scott Tournament of Hearts (Canadian women’s championship). For Canadian curlers, winning these events means earning the chance to represent Canada in the world championships, a prestigious accomplishment that the CCA alone has the power to grant.
While both organizations retain control over their respective major championships, they’ve each faced challenges to their monopoly status. The NCAA, for instance, lost its complete monopoly on selling television broadcast rights, although it maintains significant influence over college sports broadcasts. Similarly, the CCA’s control over Canadian curling is being tested by the World Curling Tour (WCT), which aims to attract viewers and sponsors. If the CCA struggles with its television contract negotiations, as some observers suggest, the WCT might grow in appeal to fans and players, eroding the CCA’s traditional monopoly hold.
Despite these challenges, both the NCAA and CCA still retain substantial influence. The NCAA recently bolstered its position by buying out the NIT, its main competitor in postseason college basketball. This buyout has further solidified the NCAA’s monopoly, indicating just how fiercely both organizations guard their dominant status.
Monopsony Power: Suppressing Athlete Earnings
Monopsony power refers to a situation where a single buyer—or in this case, an organization—has control over the market for a particular service or labor, effectively limiting earnings for the individuals supplying that service. Both the NCAA and CCA demonstrate monopsony characteristics by controlling the earnings of athletes.
In the United States, the NCAA has historically restricted college athletes’ ability to receive fair compensation for their skills and market value. While some athletes have found ways to bypass these restrictions, the majority of college athletes remain bound to the NCAA’s rigid policies, which limit scholarships and prevent direct payments. Many talented athletes from economically disadvantaged backgrounds miss out on significant earnings they might otherwise receive, trapped by NCAA rules that prevent colleges from paying them directly. Economist Robert Barro highlights how the NCAA maintains the moral high ground, framing its restrictions as essential for preserving amateurism while limiting the financial opportunities of student-athletes.
The situation is similar in Canadian curling, where the CCA has long controlled tournament earnings and opportunities for curlers. This control has led to the formation of the World Curling Tour, a competitive alternative for curlers who are dissatisfied with the limited earnings available through CCA-organized events. The WCT offers more opportunities for curlers to compete for prize money, providing an alternative to the strict financial control of the CCA. However, the CCA still holds considerable influence due to its control over selection for prestigious events like the Winter Olympics, making it difficult for the WCT to fully rival the CCA’s authority.
The Influence of Prestige and Legacy in Monopoly and Monopsony
The monopoly and monopsony power of the NCAA and CCA are reinforced not only by control over events but also by the prestige associated with these championships. For NCAA athletes, winning a championship in college football or basketball holds significant cultural and historical weight, attracting players and audiences alike. Similarly, the Brier and Scott Tournament of Hearts in Canada are prestigious events that carry historical significance, enhancing the CCA’s power over Canadian curling.
However, prestige alone does not eliminate competition. Both the NCAA and CCA must adapt to changing market dynamics. The rise of alternative tournaments, like those on the World Curling Tour, and the increasing financial demands of college athletes pose significant challenges to these organizations. While they maintain their grip on tradition-rich events, the evolution of athlete rights and commercial interests will continue to test their authority.
Challenges to Monopoly Power: Rising Competition
The NCAA and CCA may still hold the reins of their sports, but they face ongoing challenges from rival organizations. In the case of the NCAA, alternative leagues and initiatives have been established that seek to offer athletes more control over their careers and earnings. Although the NCAA’s control remains largely unchallenged for college championships, the pressure to offer athletes better compensation is growing, especially with the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, allowing athletes to earn revenue outside of their association with the NCAA.
The World Curling Tour similarly presents a challenge to the CCA, attracting fans, sponsors, and even some high-profile players who desire more financial opportunities. However, the CCA’s monopoly remains robust due to its control over Olympic qualification, a privilege that neither the World Curling Tour nor any other organization can currently offer. Curlers who aspire to compete in the Olympics must still align with CCA events, making it challenging for the WCT to fully replace CCA’s influence.
The Role of Broadcast Rights in Maintaining Control
One of the primary reasons that the NCAA and CCA can maintain their monopoly and monopsony powers is their control over broadcast rights. Television coverage brings visibility, sponsors, and a steady revenue stream that strengthens these organizations’ dominance. While the NCAA’s grip on broadcast rights has weakened slightly in recent years, it still retains significant control over major sporting events, ensuring that college sports remain a lucrative enterprise. Broadcast revenue continues to fund NCAA programs and incentivizes member schools to adhere to its regulations.
In Canadian curling, the CCA’s control over broadcast deals for the Brier, Scotties, and Olympic selection events strengthens its financial position and limits competition. The World Curling Tour has had to work hard to attract viewership without the same level of televised exposure that the CCA commands. If the CCA mishandles future broadcasting negotiations, however, the WCT could see an increase in fans, further challenging the CCA’s monopoly.
The Impact on Athletes: Limited Earning Potential and Strict Regulations
Both the NCAA and CCA have come under fire for restricting athletes’ earning potential. The NCAA’s strict rules around scholarships and financial benefits have sparked widespread criticism, especially as college sports generate billions in revenue for universities and the organization itself. For years, NCAA athletes were unable to capitalize on their own names or likenesses, although recent changes to NIL rules have given them some financial freedom. Still, the NCAA’s monopsony control continues to limit the extent to which athletes can earn, ensuring that much of the profit remains within the organization and its member institutions.
In Canadian curling, the CCA’s control over tournament prize money has similarly limited earnings for athletes. The World Curling Tour’s emergence was partly a response to athletes’ frustrations with low prize money in CCA events. By providing an alternative platform with potentially higher earnings, the WCT offers curlers a means to compete without as many financial restrictions. Nonetheless, CCA’s control over Olympic selection remains a major barrier for any competitive organization trying to challenge its authority.
Possible Futures for the NCAA and CCA in a Changing Sports Landscape
As more organizations and leagues arise to challenge the NCAA and CCA, both entities will likely need to adapt to maintain their influence. For the NCAA, changes in college athlete compensation could transform the collegiate sports model, requiring the organization to reconsider its stance on amateurism. The NCAA may also face additional pressure to share more of its broadcast revenue with athletes, particularly as public opinion shifts in favor of athlete compensation.
The CCA may find itself in a similar position, with the World Curling Tour continuing to grow and offering Canadian curlers a viable alternative to traditional CCA events. If the WCT can increase its prize offerings and sponsorships, it may become a strong contender for curling talent in Canada. However, until the WCT can compete with the CCA for Olympic qualification rights, the CCA’s grip on Canadian curling will likely remain secure.
The Ongoing Battle for Control
In both the NCAA and CCA, monopoly and monopsony powers shape the experiences of athletes and fans alike. Although these organizations face challenges from emerging leagues and changing market demands, their historical prestige, control over key events, and financial influence allow them to maintain a stronghold in their respective sports. As these organizations adapt to new pressures, the balance of power in college sports and Canadian curling may gradually shift, offering athletes and fans more choices and opportunities in the future.
