Wrong solution

In UAAP, a dominant FSA can tilt the balance of competition so the challenge is to recruit the best possible import. That comes with a price.

- JOAQUIN M. HENSON

Schools with big budgets will bring in the best talents while schools with lean budgets will suffer. That's not levelling the playing field. The standard of competition becomes a function of how much a school can afford to pay an import. With the proposal of two FSAs, imagine at what cost they'll come.

When Gambian center Omar John went down with an ACL injury in NU’s first game, it became difficult for the Bulldogs to stay competitive the rest of the last UAAP season. NU battled without a Foreign Student Athlete (FSA) until the end and finished seventh of eight.

To address a similar situation handicapping any team in the future, the UAAP Board of Trustees asked for a solution from the Board of Managing Directors and the proposal that was made is to allow two alternating FSAs so that in case one goes down, the other can still hold the fort. Unfortunately, the proposal is the wrong solution to the problem. If the idea is to keep a level playing field, the right solution is to eliminate FSAs all together because they undermine the integrity of college sport. The NCAA saw the light, bit the bullet and did it in 2021.

The reality is FSAs are simply imports who are peddled from school to school with agents bowing to the highest bidder. They come with signing bonuses, big salaries and fat bonuses, turning UAAP into a virtual commercial league. This leads to local players demanding more from their schools and the spiraling effect is dangerously inimical to the purity of college sport.