Dropping the Ball on How College Athletes Should be Paid

Dropping the Ball on How College Athletes Should be Paid

High-profile high school athletes are offered a scholarship which pays for some or even all of the expenses necessary to complete a degree at a specific institution. In exchange, these student-athletes devote many hours of their time for workouts, practices, film, games, and the other miscellaneous things that come along with being an athlete. On top of all this, these athletes still have to be students. If their free time wasn't limited enough already, these athletes must also complete all of their school work and maintain a cumulative grade point average high enough to keep them eligible at the NCAA level.

As the economic benefits continue to grow for the NCAA and universities, the talk about whether or not college athletes should be paid has as well; that discussion is over. College athletes should be paid, and the newest issue is the way that these athletes will be compensated.

According to this bar graph, the revenue the NCAA earns annually through television has almost doubled since 2000 and almost 8 times since 1990. These numbers indicate that times are changing in the world we live in today and that these “amateur” college athletes are the major reason for all this money and deserve compensation.

Ultimately, the debate is to determine what compensation plan the major college athletes deserve, along with the goal being of course the plan with the most benefits overall not just completely financially speaking.

Unionization of Northwestern football team

Football is considered a “collision” sport as there is always the risk of an injury whether it is long term or short term. A short term injury may result in missing a few games in a season or having to red shirt but these issues carry no long term affect. The long term affect however can be so drastic yet the NCAA has nothing to help the players that these horrible things happen to and this is a major problem.

“[The NCAA] has ignored players’ plea for concussion reform, measures to increase graduation rates, and sports-related health coverage,” said a statement on the College Athletes Players Association’s website. “College athletes need a players association because NCAA sports has clearly demonstrated that it will never voluntarily provide players with basic protections regardless of how many billions of dollars the players generate.”

With this being said, a petition filed by the College Athletes Players Association is seeking these protections:

Guaranteed coverage for sports-related medical expenses for current and former athletes
Minimizing the risk of sports-related traumatic brain injuries
Improving graduation rates
Obtaining due process rights for college athletes

These four propositions almost mirror what benefits would be for an everyday person who is under an employee contract. However, the first two points are specific to football related activities and the medical risks that occur when playing any collision sport but especially football. This is related in terms of athlete compensation because of the possibility of injury in collegiate football games that could drastically alter the life of those affected and cause major financially burdens. With these protections listed above, athletes will not have to work about the medical expenses if a long term affect did occur do to the participation in the game of football at the NCAA level.

Overall, the ruling that occurred at Northwestern is a two way compensation proposal. The major outcome of this ruling is that because these football players are on scholarship so by definition these athletes would be considered employees to the university. Being an employee brings not only benefits to the student athletes but also compensation for their work in bringing in income for the specific institution. Peter Sung Ohr, who ruled on this case, said, “tender” players are required to sign and the details of the scholarship are equivalent to an employment contract. As of right now the University of Northwestern is appealing the ruling but this is a major step in the right direction towards compensating athletes in the way that they deserve.

Antitrust Laws sparks Trust Funds

As early as the 1990's, the issue of antitrust laws has been a major issue in collegiate athletics at major Division 1 basketball and football programs. As the Fab Five arrived on Michigan’s campus, Chris Webber was the star of that freshman class. With this stardom, comes the role of being the face of the University of Michigan basketball team. While his jersey was being sold to fans only the University of Michigan was earning royalties off of the number that Chris Webber was representing. However, the main reason that the fans were buying the jerseys was because of Webber and he received zero compensation.

Fast forward to 2004, and the Carmelo Anthony era at Syracuse where he also expressed his concern over the issue. “I always thought college players should get paid for something like that,” Anthony said. “I would have been rich.”

The O’Bannon case highlights the issue with a product besides just the jerseys but specifically video games. Ed O’Bannon, former UCLA basketball player, was long over his playing days yet he saw himself in a video game in 2009 even though he graduated in 1995. With no money in return for the use of him in a video game, he filed a lawsuit in 2009.

5 years later a federal judge ruled on Friday that universities using a player’s number on a jersey or other licensed products which represent the player are a violation of antitrust laws if said athlete is not compensated. Judge Claudia Wilken issued “an injunction against current rules that prohibit athletes from earning money from the use of their names and images in video games and television broadcasts.” Not effective until 2016, this ruling says all basketball and all football players in the top 10 conferences will be given trust funds that they can access after graduation along with payments that are equivalent to full tuition. The latter half of this ruling allows universities to almost bid against one another for athletes so there is a large possibility that the NCAA would try and cap payments which was allowed by Judge Wilken.

COA, Cost of Attendance

COA stands for Cost of Attendance. The definition of the plan COA is: the calculated difference between the traditional scholarship and other living expenses.

Unlike the two previously listed compensation plans, this one starts August 1, 2015. However, the system currently is allowing for universities and institutions to decide their own Cost of Attendance based on how they see fit according to federal guidelines. On average, each student-athlete will receive $2,000-$5,000 additional dollars each school year.

Universities with larger amounts of income have financial aid packages that could be up to $20,000 per school year before the student-athlete even receives their scholarship. For examples, Kansas State has decided that $182,000 over four years is the value for both their scholarships and Cost of Attendance combined.

The only major concern that has derived from this plan is that since there is not a set price or limit on just how much a university can pay to a student-athlete which could cause issues in regards to recruiting. With this being said, recruiting is a lot more than giving a student-athlete $500-$5,000 more a year so the money differences actually are hyped up a little more than they should be in regards to the decision they make as to where to play.

Tom Farniok, former Iowa State Cyclone football player, agrees that there should be compensation to student-athletes in the form of Cost of Attendance. “If you’re making the school money they should make sure you have everything [you need],” Farniok said. “Free education? Yeah, but at what expense?” This first-hand account of the strenuous life of a college student-athlete gives the reader a greater understanding of how much time and effort goes into being not only a student but also an athlete.

Why They Shouldn’t Be Paid

Until now athletic scholarships were the only way that student-athletes received benefits because of their abilities to perform at a high level. With new systems ready to be put into place, more and more people are speaking up and going against this recent development in college athletics.

A major issue that people have is that student-athletes are already on an athletic scholarship so why do they need to receive any more benefits than they are already receiving compared to an everyday normal student at the same institution. John Gerdy feels that not only should college student-athletes not get paid but that their scholarships should be eliminated and maybe even NCAA athletics as a whole. He feels that Division 1 athletics “undermine the academic integrity and educational missions”.

This statement shows just how little research went into the formation of this man’s ideas. College athletes on average have an average GPA of .25 lower than regular students but graduate at a rate of 80% in comparison to 63%. With all their time involved in sports, their grades being that close to a regular student is very impressive and defiantly promotes good academic values within the athletic community.

With many athletes leaving school early to enter the NBA or NFL draft, that leaves their degrees incomplete at their respective schools. In some cases these athletes want to return to school and complete their degree and they can free of charge because they still have the scholarship money to pay for their education. For this reason, this author feels that they should not be paid because you have the ability to return to the school academically for free but not contributing to any revenue from the sport you had previously played.

This issue of returning former athletes to complete their degree does not occur nearly enough for it to be a main reason other athletes who decide to attend school for the full time shouldn’t be compensated for their hard work and loyal dedication to their university and sport.

College is a very competitive and stressful process years before the student even arrives on campus as a freshman. James Shulman and William Bowen feel that during the recruiting process schools are admitting athletes with less academic excellence in comparison to other students because of the athletic ability of the student. They feel that with already limited opportunities for kids to go to college that it is unfair for someone with less achieved academic success to get accepted into these schools and receive money for attending.

This is not true because athletes are still held at a standard academically that must represent the school at the highest level possible. When athletes arriving on campus they have mandatory study hours and have to sign into classes to show their academic accomplishments. Student-athletes work harder than most not only on the field but also in the classroom and should be accepted into these schools with compensation for their financial contributions through athletics.

These three different rebuttals offer limited factual evidence and no real reason as to why these student-athletes should not receive compensation.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

Overall, the three separate possible compensation plans all have their own unique way of maximizing the money and benefits that the student-athlete earns and deserves. The passion and hard work that student-athletes put into both their on field and classroom success shows that this isn’t just a sport to play but rather a job, and a job earns money because of the contribution to society. Being a student-athlete is a job and the written contracts the athletes’ sign make them “employees” to the school. Without these athletes, these schools would not have nearly the same amount of money and the time is now here for these institutions to show their gratitude and appreciation and give these student-athletes the money that they deserve.

Works Cited

“Athletic Scholarships Should Be Eliminated.” Air Ball: American Education’s Failed Experiment with Elite Athletics. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 2006. Rpt. in Should College Athletes Be Paid? Ed. Geoff Griffin. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Because a College Education Is Valuable.” The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Rpt. in Should College Athletes Be Paid? Ed. Geoff Griffin. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“College Athletes Should Not Be Paid due to Post-Eligibility School Benefits.” Should College Athletes Be Paid? Ed. Geoff Griffin. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. At Issue. Rpt. from “Classroom Comeback.” Chronicle of Higher Education 7 July 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2015

“Debate to Pay College Athletes Intensifies with Ruling: WRAL.com.” WRAL.com. 27 Mar. 2014.Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

“N.C.A.A. Must Allow Colleges to Pay Athletes, Judge Rules.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 8 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Players about to Get Paid as Money Changes Game in College Athletics.” CBSSports.com. CBS, 27 Feb 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“The Public Professor.” » Of Course Colleges Don’t Want to Pay Athletes a Fair Wage — They Don’t Want to Pay ANYONE a Fair Wage. 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 22 May 2015.

Robinson, Nick. “Academics of College Athletes Vs. Non-Athletes.” Everyday Life. Web. 22 May 2015.

Rovell, Darren. “The Shirt off the Players’ Backs.” ESPN. 2 Apr. 2004. Web. 22 May 2015.