NCAA Amateurism Research Paper

Darrell Childs
Ms. Vasquez
English 101
Oct. 20, 2013 NCAA Amateurism Is an Illusion

UNLV sophomore Savon Goodman, a forward on the men’s basketball team, stole a pair of shoes, $500 and 26 video games in May from a friend’s apartment just north of campus, according to a metro police report released today. The UNLV athletic department made an estimate of $38,377,947 this year alone according ESPN college sports. So with the athletics programs making so much money why should their student athletes feel they have to steal? That’s because the student athletes that helps generate these millions and billions of dollars don’t see not dollar of it. The NCAA has created this multi-billion monopoly business on the
backs of student athletes and avoid rightfully paying them by hiding behind this illusion of amateurism. Using the names and likeness of the players for their own profit at the same time restricting the players of profiting off their own name. If the NCAA does not want to pay college athletes, than it should not hold these players back from entering the professional game. However, colluding with the NBA and the NFL, athletes are restricted when it comes to joining the pro ranks and risk their careers and even their health and life for a scholarship they can lose if they get injured. Concerning the revenue sports of men’s basketball and football, the players should be entitled to some monetary compensation for their work, as well as the right to enter the professional leagues at an age that suits their abilities. Former NCAA Executive Director Walter Byars declared, "Amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice".
The ideals of amateurism and the capitalist benefits that the NCAA reels in annually do not mix and are in fact hypocritical. Television deals and sponsorships are only growing. The three weeks of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, known as “March Madness,” generate over $770 million in TV rights deals alone as reported by USA Today. College football moves to a playoff system for the 2014 season. ESPN is in the process of securing the playoff TV rights, and many expect the network will eventually have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 million for them. So while the NCAA is signing multiyear, multimillion dollar deals it’s only giving out 1 year renewable scholarships to their athletes playing in these highly profitable games.” The rules have been set up in such way to avoid a public understanding that athletes are already paid. It’s just a matter of whether they are paid their value” said Staurowsky, who in 1998 co-authored the book” College athletes for hire: The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” with Allen L.
Sack. A distinction must be made whether or not the NCAA is in business to take advantage of capitalism and make money. If no profits were taken, then the association would have an argument against paying players. In a piece from the Sport Journal piece, the author points to an argument that the NCAA acts like a cartel in its actions. According to a study, in 2005 a draft ready football player is worth $495,000 and a draft ready basketball player is worth over $1.4 million to the NCAA respectively (Johnson 2013). This means that the scholarship value the player is receiving in return for play is nowhere near the player’s actual worth to the school. Colleges should fully support their players ' education by increasing full scholarships equal to the cost of attendance. It would cost an affordable $95 million per year to increase scholarships for revenue athletes and pay matching funds to female athletes for Title IX compliance. They should also direct a percentage of new TV revenues into a trust fund where former FBS football players and Division I men 's basketball players who abide by NCAA rules would receive an equal portion upon graduation, or to complete an undergraduate degree. Furthermore, all athletes should be allowed to earn money from commercial endorsements (like their schools), which could be put in the trust fund. These reforms would increase graduation rates and decrease violations, which should be prioritized.
The NCAA claims that increasing compensation for revenue athletes would force colleges to eliminate nonrevenue sports. However, robust participation in NCAA Division II non-revenue sports must be inconvenient for those that make this argument. Over 300 Division II colleges manage just fine without reliance on millions of dollars from football and men 's basketball programs. Similar to Division III, NAIA, and high school sports, Division II programs field teams because they value sports participation, not because they wish to pay multimillion-dollar salaries and build luxury boxes with massive revenue.
At the end of the day, college athletes are just like all other hard working Americans who should receive a fair day 's pay for a fair day 's work. Arguments against paying the athletes always include the fact that these men and women are not just athletes, but they are students first. This viewpoint would carry more weight if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Johnson and Acquaviva make the point that between weight training sessions, film room, practice, individual workouts, travel, and finally competition, these “student-athletes” cannot feel much like students. They point to an Adler and Adler study that concluded, “Big-time basketball and being seriously engaged in academics were not compatible.” Coaches will at times schedule less challenging classes, or ones that will fit easier into a practice schedule. These points make it seem like “athlete” really does come before “student.”
Many will say that the student-athletes are already compensated with a college education.
This logic is extremely flawed for many of the reasons discussed earlier. The athletes cannot get the same value out of the education because of the already intense time commitment to the sport that has given them the opportunity to be in school. The idea that a college education is payment would have to assume that a college degree always pays off in the long run. In reality, the glut of bachelor degrees entering the workforce is lessening their value. Without actually experiencing the class room and receiving the right networking and advising opportunities, it cannot be assumed that the degree is worth the athlete’s time. Especially considering that the time spent in college could be a player losing money available by playing in the professional leagues. The idea that an education is worth to a player what a professional salary would be seems to be a naïve view. While a cash payment may not solve the problems of a college athlete, and it may perpetuate some economic issues, payment is what these players are entitled to because they are the symbols that fill the stadiums across national campuses. Even with a full scholarship an athlete may have to pay between $8,000 to $12,000 more than the allotted amount due to travel and other needs. Assuming that the education itself, along with the opportunities and athletic department support, is payment enough, is assuming that those
expectations are realistic and not just ideal. This paper is not meant to create a payment plan for players, nor is it meant to say certain players are entitled to millions in compensation. The point is that players should get something in return for their time, because most rational fans know that basketball and football players are not normal students. If it were completely impossible for athletic departments to find it in the budget to pay athletes extra stipends, there would be very little conversation on the topic. This paper does not have a direct solution to that cash flow question. Neither is this paper suggesting large lump sums be paid to these big sport athletes. However, between NCAA television and licensing revenues, and large salaries paid to coaches and staff, a little extra can go toward the stars on the court. In the end, the NCAA does not have much to fall back on when making an argument against some form of compensation. It’s status as an amateur haven is almost erased, and the value of an athlete’s education at schools across the country is in question. Reform may not be simple, but it will be the right thing to do in support of the players.

Works Cited
Burton, Richard. “College Athletes Are Already Paid With Their Education.” US News. U.S.News & World Report, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Eitzen, Stanley D. “Slaves of Big-Time College Sports.” USA Today Magazine Sept. 2000: 26. Web.
Johnson, Dennis A., and John Acquaviva. “Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes.” The Sport Journal. United States Sports Academy, 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Nocera, Joe. “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes.” The New York Times Magazine. N.p., 30 Dec. 2011. Web.
Press, Associated. “David Stern Wants Change to Age rule.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 04 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Rishe, Patrick. “Risk Management Explains NBA, NFL Eligibility Restrictions Impacting Athletes Like Nerlens Noel, Jadeveon Clowney.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Walters, Chad. “NBA and NFL Draft Eligibility Restrictions – Why?” Lean Blitz Do It Better. N.p., 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.