College Athletics and the Power of Brand Logic

The 2nd assumption of structural framing is that organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization and appropriate division of labor (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 47).  To “enhance performance” or, in this case, ensure compliance, there needs to be personnel solely dedicated to enforcing and overseeing standards.  

They must also fall outside of organizational control of the athletic department (i.e. appropriate division of labor).  The outside control speaks to the necessary inherent distrust.  There are several anecdotal cases that support the need for checks and balances.  There are academic institutions, such as Southern Methodist University in the 1980s that could not control its football program and was habitually afoul of NCAA compliance.  On the other hand, there were relatively clean programs.  There were programs that prided themselves on the simple that their student athletes graduated and did things the right way.  Sometimes, the semblance of compliance is in stark contrast to reality.  This was Penn State University.

Penn State was a beacon in college athletics due to the fact it incurred no sanctions or major violations.  It was one of the few Division I programs to have this distinction.  Unfortunately, the symbolism did not reflect reality.  Jerry Sandusky, an assistant coach, was using the pristine image of the athletic program to partake in misconduct on a criminal level.  Sandusky was molesting and sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus.  Not only did Sandusky have carte blanche to utilize the campus and its facilities for ill will, Joe Paterno, the head coach, and senior leadership at State College had knowledge of this misconduct and failed to act on it (which was the NCAA infraction). 

Paterno, a coach of over 46 years, did great things for college athletics as a whole.  A great program, that he helped build, displace too much trust in one person (several people, actually).  There was not enough appropriate oversight to address unethical behavior and misconduct.  The overseers had a vested interest in not divulging information contrary to the image that was Penn State athletics.

Proffitt and Corrigan (2012), question “brand logic” that seems to have taken precedence over compliance in college athletics.  They contend that the desire for Penn State University to maintain its pristine persona facilitated Sandusky’s egregious behavior of sexually abusing children to continue with impunity.  “What needs further interrogation, though, is not the consequences of the tragedy for this brand and the athletic-educational institution for which it stands, but the extent to which a ‘brand logic’ contributed to or shaped university officials decisions” (2012, p. 322) Leadership at the highest levels had knowledge of impropriety (an assistant coach witnessed misconduct and notified them) yet did nothing to address it.  In conjunction with ethics and professionalism, it can be argued that the Penn State leadership also had a fiduciary duty to protect children on its campus.

Proffitt’s and Corrigan’s focus is not necessarily on individuals, per se, but on “corporatized” (i.e. structural) motivations.  “The football teams $72.7 million in 2010 revenue is but one indicator of the brand’s value to the university” (2012, p. 323) The lack of focus on the leadership (or lack thereof) at the highest levels is not to justify their actions but critique the convenient structure in collegiate athletics that make it easier to unethical choices. “The pressures  facing intercollegiate athletics---be self-supporting, win, and reflect well on the university---mean that university and athletics administrators constantly have to take brand logic into their decision-making” (2012, p. 323)

Proffitt and Corrigan (2012) raised some interesting points regarding the need for schools to be self-supporting.  Only 20-30 athletic programs generate enough revenue to cover annual expenses.  Penn State is one of the few schools to operate at a sustainable level without relying on the school’s general fund or student fees generating revenues of $106.6 million and expenditures of $88 million.  But the fact that so few schools are self-sustaining speaks to the need to feed the proverbial beast.  The need to seek more revenue may lend to brand logic being the driver of decisions.  It would not be in the interest of Penn State to hurt the branding of “JoePa Mugs” and Nittany Lion sweaters.  Penn State ranked in the top ten schools in royalties and from merchandise by Collegiate Licensing Company (Proffitt & Corrigan, 2012).  It is fair to assume that protecting the brand was in Penn State’s interest.  In fact, the university hired Ketchum, a global public relations firm, to protect its brand.  Quinnipiac University president opines, “If a faculty member with a child had done that same thing, or a dean or a vice president or president, I don’t think it would have been a close call that it would have been turned over to the police and be handled as a criminal manner”.  The structure of Penn State allowed the pressures of profit and prestige to supersede compliance.