It’s not about paying college players
It’s about giving them a voice
Former CBS President Neal Pilson recently cited a report that said CBS TV ratings would drop 15-20% if NCAA athletes were paid. The concept of paying college players is an oversimplification of the challenges that exist within big-time college sports. Instead of debating about paying players, we need to step back and understand the larger issues with the entire collegiate athletic system.
Inefficient Labor Model
Going back to Pilson’s claim, the first misunderstanding is that college athletes aren’t being paid. They are already being compensated today in the form of a scholarship. The overall value of an athletic scholarship is anywhere between $150,00-$250,000 depending on the University.
The better question is, “Is a college scholarship fair compensation?” The answer is yes and no — depending on whether you are Florida State’s star quarterback or Rutgers backup kicker.
First, let’s understand the labor model of college football and basketball. Athletes are already getting paid different amounts based on the cost of tuition at the school they attend. The total compensation amount of a football scholarship at Stanford is greater than one at UCLA because of how much more expensive Stanford’s tuition is compared to UCLA. Therefore, the value of compensation for a football or basketball player is simply determined by the cost of an education (and other athelete perks) at their university. (Side note: This also means you get the best “bang for your buck” by playing sports at an expensive private school)
However, the benefit a football or basketball player delivers to the university is a variable amount, based on-field performance and overall marketability. Obviously, that creates major variability in the marketplace with some players driving tremendous value for their university (hello Jameis Winston) and other players delivering very little (hello Rutger’s backup kicker). Imagine if this model existed in another industry: Let’s say you want to work for a tech company, and every company had a pre-determined wage that they would pay every employee, regardless of experience or value they deliver to the company. That would be absurd, right?
It’s an inefficient economic model that will only exacerbate as college football and basketball revenues increase. Most recently, a lawsuit has been filed against the NCAA regarding anti-trust law which would directly challenge the notion of compensation through scholarship. It’s one of the many class action lawsuits launched by former and current student athletes against the NCAA.
A Real Education?
The model illustrated earlier makes a little bit more sense when you understand the social welfare associated with the system. The compensation doesn’t come in cash, but a college degree which can lead to bigger and better opportunities for the 97% of athletes that don’t go pro. Keep in mind, some of these athletes might not have had the opportunity to attain a college education without their scholarship. While this sounds great in practice, the ability to attain a proper education is impeded by the commitment to athletics.
College football and basketball players spend around 50 hours a week on activities related to athletics. Sometimes they are forced to missed class because of games. In fact, a team that wins the NCAA tournament has to miss around 17 classroom days, almost 25% of the semester. Graduation rates for football and basketball players hover near 65%, lower than the student body and athletes from other sports. We also see many cases of academic fraud and “clustering,” where athletes all major in the same thing, often times because it provides the easiest path to getting a degree. All of this makes one question whether society actually has a genuine motive in providing an education for these athletes.
A seat at the table
In this multi-billion dollar industry, who is actually acting on behalf of the student athlete’s best interest? It’s definitely not the coach, who is paid to win games. It’s definitely not the university, who is benefiting financially from athletic success. Maybe it’s the NCAA, but like any other professional organization it seems to be optimizing against its own business interests.
These are real people who are putting their bodies and future careers at risk for the entertainment of the general public. If we are concerned about the concussion issue for NFL players, why are not equally concerned about the impact on college players? If academics are a priority, why are college football players playing games on Thursday nights on national television?
When college football players banded together to demand answers to these questions, they were met with disapproval from the NCAA. Not to mention, over 75% of the American public opposes the union the Northwestern football players are forming. I would be hard pressed to find people that have actually read the union goals, which doesn’t include paying players. Part of the problem is simply the word “union.” Public opinion of labor unions is at its lowest in the last fifty years. If people actually read the goals, they would see that many of the asks involve improving medical coverage, achieving better in the classroom, and loosening transfer restrictions (which only exist in revenue-generating sports).
College sports’ biggest strength is also its biggest enemy. People are so passionate about it that they are scared to see it change. The notion of modifying the existing model which has been in place for years frightens all of us, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Players need to have a seat at the table and if it comes through a union — so be it.
Ravi is currently living in Santiago, Chile. He writes about sports topics on Medium, check out his other work here. For comments, tweet or e-mail him at: ravidev86@gmail.com
