Exploitation in the NCAA
Abstract
Previously, before the passing of Senate Bill №206 in California, it had been illegal to make any profit from being an athlete at the collegiate level. The purpose of this article is to discuss the effects of the newly implemented bill and explain how for years athletes have been exploited for their work. After explaining Senate Bill №206, the article will focus on how athletes, specifically women and African Americans, will finally achieve equity for the work they put in on the court or field. Exploitation is a big issue in college sports as coaches are making millions of dollars, but athletes do not see any of that money although they are the ones doing all the work. By being able to pay college athletes, students will finally be able to make money for the revenue that they make for schools and be represented effectively for their athletic efforts.
Exploitation in the NCAA
For hundreds of years college athletes have been participating in sports without earning any compensation for the efforts. As the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and colleges around the country earn revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, and sponsorships, athletes do not see any of this money. Athletes are being exploited by the NCAA and colleges as they are not getting compensated for the millions of dollars that they bring in for their programs. Athletes, especially African-Americans and women, are subject to inequality when it comes to getting properly paid for their work.
Recently, California lawmakers took a step in the right direction for sufficient athlete representation and equity when they passed Senate Bill Number 206. The bill, in essence, states that athletes may now earn money from colleges using their “name, image and likeness.” This means that college students can receive revenue from their jersey being sold, being used in a video game, or any other way that a college could earn money by using their image. California started the athlete pay wave by implementing this bill starting in 2023 and soon later, the NCAA followed along by saying they would consider allowing athletes to get paid in the future as well(Senate Bill №206, 2019). Although athletes can now get paid, this does not mean that they are allowed to get paid a salary for playing sports. Athletes are not allowed to be paid a set income for playing sports, at least not yet.
One group of collegiate athletes who are overly exploited by the NCAA is the African-American community. Black athletes make up a large proportion of the college athlete population and help contribute to lots of the revenue that the NCAA rakes in. In the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, author Derek Van Rheenen writes that “ninety percent of the NCAA revenue is produced by 1 percent of the athletes, and that revenue comes from 90 percent of athletes who are African American.” (Rheenen, 2013). These athletes are greatly underrepresented when it comes to compensation although they are the reason why the NCAA and colleges make so much money. They work very hard in practices and give it their all in games, but the game revenue is being filtered to the NCAA, colleges, and college coaches. College athletes receive no money for playing sports, but their coaches make millions of dollars per year by sitting on the bench. It seems odd, but their coach, who did not play in the game, is the one who reaps the rewards of the hardworking players. College coaches are making millions, but the athletes that are actually doing the work do not see a penny of it.
The absence of athlete pay creates lots of problems that could be avoided if athletes were allowed to be compensated for their work. The main reason why athletes, and mostly black athletes, leave college early is because they want to be able to support their family who might be struggling financially. If athletes were allowed to be paid, then athletes would have more of an incentive to stay in school and get an education. Athletes do not value their college education because they know they will only be staying for a year and immediately turning pro. However, this is not true for some sports such as baseball and football force you to stay at least three years in college before you can enter the professional draft. The MLB and NFL have implemented this rule that athletes have to stay in college for three years before turning pro as they believe that student-athletes should put emphasis on the “student” part of the phrase “student-athlete.” But even those athletes do not truly focus on their school work because they know they are only going to college because it is a gateway to the pros. Athletes are often offered illegal bribes or endorsements to go to a particular college with either cash deals, cars, or a new house for the athlete’s parents. This often sways an athlete’s decision on where they want to commit, but under current NCAA rules, it is highly illegal. If athletes were either allowed to earn a salary or just earn money from their namesake, as new legislation has introduced, the need for bribes would be greatly limited. The NCAA could limit or eliminate illegal issues that they have to deal with and spend lots of time and money on to investigate.
Another group of athletes who are consistently exploited by the NCAA are women. Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the NCAA is not allowed to discriminate based on sex and that men and women must receive athletic scholarships based on their level of participation. Although Title IX says there must be no discrimination based on sex, this does not mean that the ticket prices have to be the same. According to scholar Michelle Hebl, “Moreover, no legislation provides direction to institutions regarding the price charged for public admittance to men’s and women’s athletic events (Hebl, 2004). Institutions do not have to charge the same price for men’s and women’s games, so the revenue produced by men’s programs is much greater than women’s. Along with this, there is a vast difference in attendance levels at women’s versus men’s sporting events leading to a revenue discrepency. This greatly undervalues women’s programs and lack of media attention does not help their cause either. Women have the most to benefit from athlete pay, and without it they are greatly affected.
The difference in money that is put into women’s organizations compared to men’s organizations is also staggering. Donations, money flow, and sponsors are much greater for men’s sports and the women’s teams often struggle because of this. For the women that do choose to go pro, the pay difference is astounding as well. The maximum salary for a WNBA player is $117,500 whereas the minimum salary for an NBA player is $580,000 (Roberts, 2019). When women are in college, it is the prime time where the spotlight is on them, and seek national attention. Take Katelyn Ohashi for example: she is a former UCLA gymnast who became the first athlete to earn a perfect 10 in a collegiate meet. The video of her routine blew up on social media and she immediately became famous for what she accomplished. Unfortunately, she could not accept any sponsorship deals or hold any camps as this would be a strict violation of NCAA protocol. The NCAA does not allow athletes to make money or collaborate with sponsors, so if Katelyn were to try to do either of these things to earn money, her scholarship would be taken away and she would likely receive punishment for her actions. College athletes should be able to get paid or at least earn money from their likeness as athletes have many opportunities that are not available to them because of NCAA legislation. And for women, it might be the only time where they can make substantial amounts of money for these athletic endeavors.
When the topic of athlete pay comes up, many are either opposed to the idea or have lots of questions about the issue. People often say that college athletes are amateurs and that their job in college is to play sports, but mostly get an education. Some people might argue that college athletes already get “paid” via scholarship money that athletes receive to go to school for free. Although these might be true, the scholarship money that most athletes get has little to no value to them. Many college athletes do not care about the value of an education and most athletes leave college early which greatly decreases the scholarship value. If an athlete got a $100,000 scholarship, they are not seeing any of that money and the student probably would not choose to go to a college if they had to pay that much money for tuition in the first place. Most college athletes among their time in college will earn their university much more than $100,000, but they are not seeing any of the extra revenue. They are being exploited and not fully represented for the work they put in.
Another question often brought up is about how the NCAA or colleges can find the money to fund paying athletes. With the NCAA stretching its budget thin already, how can they afford to pay athletes? The answer to this question lies with coaches pay. Top coaches in the NCAA make millions of dollars for not actually playing. Sure, they are the strategic mastermind behind the game, but they are not the ones competing. The most successful coaches in college sports include Nick Saban, Mike Krzyzewski, and John Calipari, who earn $7 million, $9.7 million, and more than $7 million, respectively. These numbers do not even account for incentive deals such as shoe contracts or sponsorships (Sanderson, 2015). With such large paychecks, if coach’s pay was to be cut significantly, this would allow the NCAA to apportion these funds to college athletes and allow them to earn money for their work. With almost $24 million earned between Saban, Krzyzewski, and Calipari, this could go a long way to paying athletes, and that capital is only among three coaches. Imagine how much money the NCAA could have if they followed this plan on a larger scale. It is obvious that bigger sports such as basketball and football bring in a lot more income than smaller sports, so cutting coach pay and paying athletes would have to be proportional, but these are still questions the NCAA has to figure out. If athlete payment becomes a reality, schools will have to find out a fair way to apportion the funds to each athletic program, trying to be fair if at all possible. These questions are difficult and will not be easy for the NCAA, but it is necessary to figure out in order to start compensating athletes properly for how much revenue they generate.
Overall, athlete pay is a tricky and sensitive topic, but one that the NCAA definitely needs to work on. Whether athletes are paid a salary or compensated for their name, image, or likeness, college athletes should be financially represented for their efforts on the court, track, or field. The athletes are the ones who work to generate revenue for the NCAA and colleges, so they should be the ones who see some of the profits. The NCAA still has to work out logistics on how to get the money to pay athletes and how to properly pay athletes fairly, but the new Californian legislature is a good start.
Works Cited
Hebl, M. R. (n.d.). Paying the Way: The Ticket to Gender Equality in Sports. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/article/10.1023/B:SERS.0000037766.92972.80.
Lorenz, J. (n.d.). Why College Athletes Should be Paid. Retrieved from https://thecentraltrend.com/10205/opinion/columns/why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/.
Rheenen, D. V. (n.d.). Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational reward — Derek Van Rheenen, 2013. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1012690212450218?casa_token=jEcjq8tGkdsAAAAA:7DVGQ4sL9HUvgTTFD8yXa4XI1RnkDlGLL-fY2rIy-X20Ux0VrCDNrlSGQBQAANfxiHBXCSVrqWX-3w.
Roberts, D. K. (2019, October 29). Opinion: Paying college athletes is a huge win for women. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/perspectives/female-athletes-fair-pay-to-play/index.html.
Sanderson, A., & Siegfried, J. (2015). The Case for Paying College Athletes. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115–137. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/43194698
Senate Bill №206. (2019, October 1). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bil lTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206.
