It seems too good to be true: The University makes a windfall profit by contracting out its athletic apparel to Adidas while it appears socially conscious by adding in a clause that it can investigate the company's labor practices. But everything looks better on paper. While the University's new contract may seem like the perfect solution to labor abuses that plagued the previous contract with Nike, it will require the University to take a pro-active approach to prevent these violations - something it has every incentive not to do.

Since 1994, the honor of producing maize and blue jerseys has belonged to Nike, a company criticized for its use of sweatshops. However, when Adidas made an offer that Nike refused to match, Athletic Director Bill Martin and the Athletic Department made the switch, tantalized by the $7.5 million a year stipulated by the eight-year contract. In addition to doubling Nike's previous deal, Adidas also offered the University more input into the design process and the ability to monitor its labor standards.

There's not much to dislike about the money. After all, it will fund much-needed renovations to Crisler Arena and help the Athletic Department continue to be self-sufficient. But beyond the solely beneficial appearance of the contract with Adidas, it's clear that the deal offers the University no incentive to monitor the company's labor standards - other than the potential for a public-relations nightmare.

While the University's desire for more transparency on the labor issue is commendable, the terms of the Adidas contract hardly assure that sweatshops will disappear. If the University decides to investigate the company's working conditions now, it runs the risk of finding violations. That would put it in the uncomfortable position of either having to denounce the company and lose its lucrative contract or facing a firestorm of public criticism. Thus, the University's best refuge may well be ignorance.

Unfortunately, this problem is indicative of a broader problem: College sports have become so commercialized that the concept of losing such an attractive deal would make any university think twice about being socially responsible. In order to stay competitive with other schools and bring in revenue for building renovations and scholarships, the University must take the money.

But contributing to the global labor problem is unacceptable, no matter the justification. The University has a social obligation to find a balance between revenue and responsibility. With another flawed contract in place, perhaps the Athletic Department should have facilitated greater discussion before agreeing to Adidas's terms. The best way for this to happen is to the consult the University Board of Regents prior to signing these contracts.

But now, all the University can do is cross its fingers that Adidas isn't hiding a sweatshop in Nicaragua.