Are College Athletes Paid
The Ball and Chain
The term, “student athlete” is a polarizing one. In today’s America, college sports -- particularly football and basketball, are as much a part of the sports enthusiast’s landscape as is any professional sport. In any case, with enthusiasm comes money. In this case, billions of dollars are generated by television viewership, merchandise sales and university boosters. College athletes are the driving force behind an industry where television executives, university presidents, athletic directors and coaches are compensated in a manner which makes them among the most wealthy people in the world. The athletes receive in return an education from a well respected university, along with name and sometimes facial recognition in their fields of interest. However, …show more content…
the student on a physics scholarship receives the same opportunity for education and name recognition in his field that the athlete does. The difference is, the physics student isn’t selling millions of dollars worth of jerseys. The physics student is also allowed to pursue compensation for applying his craft as he sees fit while enrolled at the university while the athlete is not allowed to work or even accept perks brought about by his celebrity. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) serves as the oppressive monopoly which seeks to capitalize on the dreams of young athletes by requiring their servitude, likeness and name in exchange for the slimmest of opportunities to attract employment in their field of interest. Like any other oppressor or monopoly that came before it, the NCAA should be abolished and replaced with a model that is mindful of equality, as well as human and civil rights.
The NCAA has blocked every road that an athlete may have to capitalize on his hard work during his time at his respective university. Only recently has the legality of such roadblocks been challenged. Due to its litany of regulations designed to stifle player movement or compensation, many, such as Pulitzer prize winning author and historian Taylor Branch, have argued that the current structure of the NCAA rivals that of a slave plantation or drug cartel. Branch scoffs at the correlation between the terms “student athlete” and “amateur,” stating in an article in The Atlantic, “No legal definition of amateur exists, and any attempt to create one in enforceable law would expose its repulsive and unconstitutional nature -- a bill of attainder, stripping from college athletes the rights of American citizenship.” (Branch 2). At the heart of that argument is the question, what constitutes an employee?” Black’s Law dictionary defines “employee” as “a person in the service of another under any contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control or direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed” (Muhl 2). An athletic scholarship is clear example of a written contract which both overtly and implicitly stipulates that the school is willing to exchange an education for the athlete’s services on the school’s sports team. But until 2012, when the NCAA failed to ratify a ban on multi year scholarships that had been in place since 1973, it was illegal for a school to guarantee an athlete a complete education. The NCAA limited schools to one year pacts with athletes Of the 330 schools that cast a ballot in the 2012 vote, 205 voted against four-year scholarships, including lucrative football empires Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Though 62.1 percent of schools voted for the one-year status quo, a supermajority of 62.5 percent was needed to maintain the ban on four-year scholarships (Levin 1). While it is now permissible to grant four year athletic scholarships, it is not required or even recommended by the NCAA. Schools are free to continue offering recruits one year scholarships so as to maintain leverage over them in case they fail to perform up to expectations. Due to schools dangling the value of an athlete’s education in front of them as incentive to do well, it is a fair judgement to say those schools have the “power to control the (athletes) in the material details of how work is to be performed.” It is fair to say that an average 17-22 year old presented with an opportunity to earn upwards of $40,000 worth of assets will go above and beyond to gain the approval of their bosses, in this case their coaches. Consequently, it is also fair to say that student athletes meet the requirements of Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “employee.”
As employees of their colleges and universities, student athletes are the workforce that drives a multi billion dollar industry. In 2012, the Atlantic Coast Conference agreed with ESPN on a 15 year, $3.6 billion contract to televise its athletic events (Levin 3). Not to be outdone, also in 2012, the Southeastern Conference inked a ten year extension to their existing 15 year, $2.5 billion pact with ESPN to televise just its football games. Eight college football coaches, led by Alabama’s Nick Saban at $5.5 million, earn in excess of $4 million per year, 17 earn more than $3 million, and 50 are above the $2 million per-year mark (Berkowitz 2). According to the University of Alabama’s website, the estimated cost for two semesters at the university would cost an in state student roughly $24,000 and an out of state student roughly $38,000. The NCAA allows a school in their fold to award 85 scholarships to football players. Pretending that all of Alabama’s football players are out of state students would make those 85 scholarships worth roughly $3,230,000. In other words, Nick Saban makes at least $2.2 million more than 85 of his employees, some of the best football players in the world, combined. By using the same discrepancy between Saban’s salary and that of his average line level employee’s, base times .0069, and applying it to other professions, you would find the average police chief making his or her $95,000 while the average beat cop makes $655.50 a year. The average White House staffer would earn a paltry $2,760 a year while the President deposits $400,000. And a front desk agent at a hotel would take home $8.63 a week before taxes while his manager earned $1,250. The mere fact that college athletes receive an education in return for their efforts rules out the slavery analogy, although those citing housing and meals as a part of the indentured athletes’ wages are forgetting that even slaves and prisoners receive those. The aforementioned statistics do, however, suggest that post slavery sharecropping or present day chain gang wages are comparable to the compensation discrepancy between employees and their direct supervisors in college football.
Not everyone agrees that college athletes are unfairly compensated. Jeffrey Dorfman of Forbes magazine argues, “What is commonly overlooked is that student athletes also receive free professional coaching, strength and fitness training, and support from athletic trainers and physical therapists. Football and basketball players pay $2,000-$3,000 per week for similar training in the weeks leading up to their pre-draft workouts. Using these valuations, and adding in the value of a scholarship, a student athlete at a major conference school on full scholarship is likely receiving a package of education, room, board, and coaching/training worth between $50,000 and $125,000 per year depending on their sport and whether they attend a public or private university” (Dorfman 1). Dorfman conveniently leaves out the fact that only 1.2% of college basketball players and 1.7% of college football players go pro (Manfred 1). For the other roughly 98.5% of college athletes, all of those “free” perks Dorfman mentions are necessary investments for universities to compete for bowl games and consequently, earn more money. For example, one does not count the police academy training that an officer receives as a part of his compensation. It is simply a necessary tool for the the police department to remain competent.
According to researchers Marlene L. Mawson and William T. Bowler III, since a 1984 supreme court ruling that athletic conferences and schools were free to negotiate their own television contracts, some teams got more revenues from television contracts, while other got less revenue, either from less exposure or from lower contract rates. “This suggests that television revenues would increase for winners and decrease for losing teams after the deregulation of television contracting” (Mawson 82). This goes to say that not only are the athletes major cogs in an extremely lucrative system, but also that how they perform determines whether the school they work for makes or misses out on millions of dollars. Dorfman also argues, “Only two or three sports typically make money: football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. The remaining sports bring in little to no revenue while still costing the colleges money. Because of this, most athletic departments lose money. In fact, according to USA Today, only 23 out of 228 Division I athletic programs managed to run a surplus in 2012” (Dorfman 1). Other people who have benefitted from the the current structure of the NCAA agree that paying athletes would be a slippery slope that could be very problematic for universities, but acknowledge the need for change in the system. Former Duke University player and current University of Michigan head basketball coach Tommy Amaker said, “I’m not in favor of athletes being paid. I would be in favor of a stipend (Cooper 13).” Others, like Jerry M. Hunter, former general counsel of the National Relations Board under George H.W. Bush choose to ignore the flaws in the system. “It is a provocative argument.” Hunter said. “I think that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor common law supports their position that student athletes are employees (Cooper 13).”
The main argument from people like Hunter is that athletes voluntarily sign up to play basketball and football for their schools and that the judiciary is reluctant to intervene in the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, the truth is many of the top level high school basketball and football players have no desire to play one game for a university. Many of them grew up on the proverbial House on Mango Street, and want nothing more than to earn an NBA or NFL salary so they can can provide their families with a real house with real stairs, a basement and at least three washrooms (Cisneros 127). The problem is, the NCAA has partnered with the NBA and NFL, making it mandatory for anyone following their dream to the professional level to first allow the NCAA to exploit their talent, name and likeness. While they are under the NCAA’s rule, a player cannot have a job, swap a game worn jersey for tattoos, or be compensated for signing his own name on his own picture. But if a player gets hurt while under the NCAA’s rule, it is just the luck of the draw and he is on his own. If paying a man for risking life and limb in the name of his university is wrong, surely allowing him to capitalize on a face that God gave him and a name that his parents gave him is the least that can be done. The NCAA is a classic example of an all powerful oppressor tightening grip around the necks of people seeking opportunity. It is a multibillion dollar organization that holds a monopoly on college athletics. Throughout history, oppressors have been rightly overthrown and monopolies have been ordered to break up. The NCAA should be no exception to either rule. Although there are many people arguing for athletes to be paid, that is not the solution and it it would cause more harm than good. The way to remove the scent of indentured servitude from college sports is to abolish the NCAA and allow athletes that want to go pro to do so, while also allowing those who decide to go to college to be able to trade off their own name and likeness. Because owning someone’s name, face and physical exploits harkens upon the darkest times in American history.
Works Cited
Branch, Taylor. "The Shame Of College Sports. (Cover Story)." Atlantic Monthly (10727825)
308.3 (2011): 80-110. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Berkowitz, Steve. "SEC Revenue Set to Jump 50% with Playoff, New TV Deals." USA Today.
Gannett, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Cisneros, Sandra. "The House on Mango Street." 1984. Literature: The Human Experience.
Shorter Ninth ed. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 127-28. Print.
Cooper, Kenneth J.
"Should College Athletes Be Paid To Play?." Diverse: Issues In Higher
Education 28.10 (2011): 12-13.Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Oct. 2013
Deschriver, Timothy D., and David K. Stotlar. "An Economic Analysis Of Cartel Behavior Within
The NCAA." Journal Of Sport Management 10.4 (1996): 388-400. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
Dorfman, Jeffrey. "Pay College Athletes? They 're Already Paid Up To $125,000 A
Year."Forbes.com. N.p., 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Fizel, John, and Rodney D. Fort. Economics of College Sports. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.
Print.
Levin, Josh. "The Most Evil Thing about College Sports." Slate. N.p., n.d. Web.
Manfred, Tony. "Here Are the Odds That Your Kid Becomes a Professional Athlete."Businessinsider.com. N.p., 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Mawson, L. Marlene, and William T. Bowler III. "Effects Of The 1984 Supreme Court Ruling On
The Television Revenues Of NCAA Division I Football Programs." Journal Of Sport
Management 3.2 (1989): 79-89. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Muhl, Charles J. "What Is an Employee? The Answer Depends on Federal Law." Monthly Labor
Review (2002): 3-11.
Print.
The term, “student athlete” is a polarizing one. In today’s America, college sports -- particularly football and basketball, are as much a part of the sports enthusiast’s landscape as is any professional sport. In any case, with enthusiasm comes money. In this case, billions of dollars are generated by television viewership, merchandise sales and university boosters. College athletes are the driving force behind an industry where television executives, university presidents, athletic directors and coaches are compensated in a manner which makes them among the most wealthy people in the world. The athletes receive in return an education from a well respected university, along with name and sometimes facial recognition in their fields of interest. However, …show more content…
the student on a physics scholarship receives the same opportunity for education and name recognition in his field that the athlete does. The difference is, the physics student isn’t selling millions of dollars worth of jerseys. The physics student is also allowed to pursue compensation for applying his craft as he sees fit while enrolled at the university while the athlete is not allowed to work or even accept perks brought about by his celebrity. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) serves as the oppressive monopoly which seeks to capitalize on the dreams of young athletes by requiring their servitude, likeness and name in exchange for the slimmest of opportunities to attract employment in their field of interest. Like any other oppressor or monopoly that came before it, the NCAA should be abolished and replaced with a model that is mindful of equality, as well as human and civil rights.
The NCAA has blocked every road that an athlete may have to capitalize on his hard work during his time at his respective university. Only recently has the legality of such roadblocks been challenged. Due to its litany of regulations designed to stifle player movement or compensation, many, such as Pulitzer prize winning author and historian Taylor Branch, have argued that the current structure of the NCAA rivals that of a slave plantation or drug cartel. Branch scoffs at the correlation between the terms “student athlete” and “amateur,” stating in an article in The Atlantic, “No legal definition of amateur exists, and any attempt to create one in enforceable law would expose its repulsive and unconstitutional nature -- a bill of attainder, stripping from college athletes the rights of American citizenship.” (Branch 2). At the heart of that argument is the question, what constitutes an employee?” Black’s Law dictionary defines “employee” as “a person in the service of another under any contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control or direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed” (Muhl 2). An athletic scholarship is clear example of a written contract which both overtly and implicitly stipulates that the school is willing to exchange an education for the athlete’s services on the school’s sports team. But until 2012, when the NCAA failed to ratify a ban on multi year scholarships that had been in place since 1973, it was illegal for a school to guarantee an athlete a complete education. The NCAA limited schools to one year pacts with athletes Of the 330 schools that cast a ballot in the 2012 vote, 205 voted against four-year scholarships, including lucrative football empires Texas, LSU, and Alabama. Though 62.1 percent of schools voted for the one-year status quo, a supermajority of 62.5 percent was needed to maintain the ban on four-year scholarships (Levin 1). While it is now permissible to grant four year athletic scholarships, it is not required or even recommended by the NCAA. Schools are free to continue offering recruits one year scholarships so as to maintain leverage over them in case they fail to perform up to expectations. Due to schools dangling the value of an athlete’s education in front of them as incentive to do well, it is a fair judgement to say those schools have the “power to control the (athletes) in the material details of how work is to be performed.” It is fair to say that an average 17-22 year old presented with an opportunity to earn upwards of $40,000 worth of assets will go above and beyond to gain the approval of their bosses, in this case their coaches. Consequently, it is also fair to say that student athletes meet the requirements of Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “employee.”
As employees of their colleges and universities, student athletes are the workforce that drives a multi billion dollar industry. In 2012, the Atlantic Coast Conference agreed with ESPN on a 15 year, $3.6 billion contract to televise its athletic events (Levin 3). Not to be outdone, also in 2012, the Southeastern Conference inked a ten year extension to their existing 15 year, $2.5 billion pact with ESPN to televise just its football games. Eight college football coaches, led by Alabama’s Nick Saban at $5.5 million, earn in excess of $4 million per year, 17 earn more than $3 million, and 50 are above the $2 million per-year mark (Berkowitz 2). According to the University of Alabama’s website, the estimated cost for two semesters at the university would cost an in state student roughly $24,000 and an out of state student roughly $38,000. The NCAA allows a school in their fold to award 85 scholarships to football players. Pretending that all of Alabama’s football players are out of state students would make those 85 scholarships worth roughly $3,230,000. In other words, Nick Saban makes at least $2.2 million more than 85 of his employees, some of the best football players in the world, combined. By using the same discrepancy between Saban’s salary and that of his average line level employee’s, base times .0069, and applying it to other professions, you would find the average police chief making his or her $95,000 while the average beat cop makes $655.50 a year. The average White House staffer would earn a paltry $2,760 a year while the President deposits $400,000. And a front desk agent at a hotel would take home $8.63 a week before taxes while his manager earned $1,250. The mere fact that college athletes receive an education in return for their efforts rules out the slavery analogy, although those citing housing and meals as a part of the indentured athletes’ wages are forgetting that even slaves and prisoners receive those. The aforementioned statistics do, however, suggest that post slavery sharecropping or present day chain gang wages are comparable to the compensation discrepancy between employees and their direct supervisors in college football.
Not everyone agrees that college athletes are unfairly compensated. Jeffrey Dorfman of Forbes magazine argues, “What is commonly overlooked is that student athletes also receive free professional coaching, strength and fitness training, and support from athletic trainers and physical therapists. Football and basketball players pay $2,000-$3,000 per week for similar training in the weeks leading up to their pre-draft workouts. Using these valuations, and adding in the value of a scholarship, a student athlete at a major conference school on full scholarship is likely receiving a package of education, room, board, and coaching/training worth between $50,000 and $125,000 per year depending on their sport and whether they attend a public or private university” (Dorfman 1). Dorfman conveniently leaves out the fact that only 1.2% of college basketball players and 1.7% of college football players go pro (Manfred 1). For the other roughly 98.5% of college athletes, all of those “free” perks Dorfman mentions are necessary investments for universities to compete for bowl games and consequently, earn more money. For example, one does not count the police academy training that an officer receives as a part of his compensation. It is simply a necessary tool for the the police department to remain competent.
According to researchers Marlene L. Mawson and William T. Bowler III, since a 1984 supreme court ruling that athletic conferences and schools were free to negotiate their own television contracts, some teams got more revenues from television contracts, while other got less revenue, either from less exposure or from lower contract rates. “This suggests that television revenues would increase for winners and decrease for losing teams after the deregulation of television contracting” (Mawson 82). This goes to say that not only are the athletes major cogs in an extremely lucrative system, but also that how they perform determines whether the school they work for makes or misses out on millions of dollars. Dorfman also argues, “Only two or three sports typically make money: football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. The remaining sports bring in little to no revenue while still costing the colleges money. Because of this, most athletic departments lose money. In fact, according to USA Today, only 23 out of 228 Division I athletic programs managed to run a surplus in 2012” (Dorfman 1). Other people who have benefitted from the the current structure of the NCAA agree that paying athletes would be a slippery slope that could be very problematic for universities, but acknowledge the need for change in the system. Former Duke University player and current University of Michigan head basketball coach Tommy Amaker said, “I’m not in favor of athletes being paid. I would be in favor of a stipend (Cooper 13).” Others, like Jerry M. Hunter, former general counsel of the National Relations Board under George H.W. Bush choose to ignore the flaws in the system. “It is a provocative argument.” Hunter said. “I think that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor common law supports their position that student athletes are employees (Cooper 13).”
The main argument from people like Hunter is that athletes voluntarily sign up to play basketball and football for their schools and that the judiciary is reluctant to intervene in the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, the truth is many of the top level high school basketball and football players have no desire to play one game for a university. Many of them grew up on the proverbial House on Mango Street, and want nothing more than to earn an NBA or NFL salary so they can can provide their families with a real house with real stairs, a basement and at least three washrooms (Cisneros 127). The problem is, the NCAA has partnered with the NBA and NFL, making it mandatory for anyone following their dream to the professional level to first allow the NCAA to exploit their talent, name and likeness. While they are under the NCAA’s rule, a player cannot have a job, swap a game worn jersey for tattoos, or be compensated for signing his own name on his own picture. But if a player gets hurt while under the NCAA’s rule, it is just the luck of the draw and he is on his own. If paying a man for risking life and limb in the name of his university is wrong, surely allowing him to capitalize on a face that God gave him and a name that his parents gave him is the least that can be done. The NCAA is a classic example of an all powerful oppressor tightening grip around the necks of people seeking opportunity. It is a multibillion dollar organization that holds a monopoly on college athletics. Throughout history, oppressors have been rightly overthrown and monopolies have been ordered to break up. The NCAA should be no exception to either rule. Although there are many people arguing for athletes to be paid, that is not the solution and it it would cause more harm than good. The way to remove the scent of indentured servitude from college sports is to abolish the NCAA and allow athletes that want to go pro to do so, while also allowing those who decide to go to college to be able to trade off their own name and likeness. Because owning someone’s name, face and physical exploits harkens upon the darkest times in American history.
Works Cited
Branch, Taylor. "The Shame Of College Sports. (Cover Story)." Atlantic Monthly (10727825)
308.3 (2011): 80-110. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Berkowitz, Steve. "SEC Revenue Set to Jump 50% with Playoff, New TV Deals." USA Today.
Gannett, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Cisneros, Sandra. "The House on Mango Street." 1984. Literature: The Human Experience.
Shorter Ninth ed. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 127-28. Print.
Cooper, Kenneth J.
"Should College Athletes Be Paid To Play?." Diverse: Issues In Higher
Education 28.10 (2011): 12-13.Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Oct. 2013
Deschriver, Timothy D., and David K. Stotlar. "An Economic Analysis Of Cartel Behavior Within
The NCAA." Journal Of Sport Management 10.4 (1996): 388-400. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
Dorfman, Jeffrey. "Pay College Athletes? They 're Already Paid Up To $125,000 A
Year."Forbes.com. N.p., 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Fizel, John, and Rodney D. Fort. Economics of College Sports. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.
Print.
Levin, Josh. "The Most Evil Thing about College Sports." Slate. N.p., n.d. Web.
Manfred, Tony. "Here Are the Odds That Your Kid Becomes a Professional Athlete."Businessinsider.com. N.p., 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Mawson, L. Marlene, and William T. Bowler III. "Effects Of The 1984 Supreme Court Ruling On
The Television Revenues Of NCAA Division I Football Programs." Journal Of Sport
Management 3.2 (1989): 79-89. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Muhl, Charles J. "What Is an Employee? The Answer Depends on Federal Law." Monthly Labor
Review (2002): 3-11.
Print.