There is a long-standing debate on whether student-athletes should be paid for services rendered to their respective colleges or universities. On one end, it is true that the very spirit of amateurism dictates that such benefits should only come in the form of school stipends, perhaps as an added benefit to scholarship grants. On the other hand, it is also true that the magnitude of revenues garnered by universities, amounting to hundreds of millions and in some cases even billions of dollars, would imply that it is only fair for students to have at least a minimal amount of salary. Hence, this dilemma brought about by assigning contacted revenues to student-athletes is ultimately an ethics versus law issue. It is a problem where legalities or rules prevent student-athletes from benefiting from what is truly their share. In this respect, this paper will emphasize that athletes should be paid by universities due to the enormity of revenues gained from sporting events, and the fact that universities spend enormous amounts for coaches and sports facilities to lure prospective recruits to their respective institutions.
It is interesting to note how as early as 1929, the Carnegie Foundation has already identifies the problem of college athletics in the United States. Here, as reported by Time magazine, the said foundation stresses that colleges and universities “wants students, it wants popularity, and above all it wants money and always more money” (Gregory 2). As a testament this, the same article also reports on a football game held in 1894 between Harvard and Yale, which grossed an astounding $119,000, or roughly about $3 million at the present rate (Gregory 2). This only proves that even in earlier centuries, college sports has not always been about the spirit of competition and fun, but of making gigantic revenues. It is about making the most revenues by recruiting the most promising talents in the nation and having them play for the university.
Indeed, if amateurism is the primary reason for NCAA’s refusal to have student-athletes earn salaries, then it is questionable why coaches are able to garner tremendous salaries. In fact, recent figures have pegged it at $53.4 million for the combined “salaries of the highest paid college football coaches” (Let’s Start Paying 1), and with Michigan’s coach, Jim Harbaugh, signing a very lucrative $7 million contact for the year 2016 (A Way to Start 1). In this regard, it also must be noted that NCAA has been permitted to justify and defend its action of not paying student-athletes in antitrust cases through amateurism. Further, the “NCAA is allowed to define amateurism as restricting any payments to the cost of attending” (Tracy and Strauss 1), meaning that all the benefits that a student-athlete are allowed to have are only those that are academic-related, such as scholarship grants and others of the same type.
At present, NCAA, through its board of directors, only allows “Division I schools to have their athletes acquire a $2000 academic stipend as supplemental resource to their school tuition. However, this amount, at least according to some studies, still “falls on average about $3500 short of the full cost of attending college annually” (Let’s Start Paying 1), not to mention the added expenses that students need to overcome in their college years, such as board, books, and other school fees. As such, this obvious disparity between university revenues and student-athlete expenses necessitate, at the very least, a need to reassess existing guidelines. It is truly absurd that the hundreds of millions garnered by universities from sports would still be insufficient to finance the needs of student-athletes.
Moreover, the universities’ argument that amateurism is ultimately beneficial to the athlete despite of providing only cost of attendance (Tracy and Strauss 1) seems to deliberately disregard the fact that good sports ranking always equals added new enrollees, hence once again presenting chances for added school revenues. This is evidenced, among others, when Butler University made it to the Final Four in 2010 and again in 2011, whereby “undergraduate applications rose 43%” (Gregory 4). Surely, this exponential increase in enrollees is the direct result of the sound sports program by Butler University, and not on other academe-based marketing curriculum. Hence, if only for this 43% increase in enrollees (Gregory 4), it would only be fair if student-athletes can somehow be financially compensated for their effort in cold cash, after all, the increase in new enrollees likewise translate to financial revenues gained by the said university.
The logic behind amateurism is truly commendable if only colleges and universities are not making such huge profits from the effort and exertion of student-athletes. This has been defended by Justice John Paul Stevens in the case NCAA v. Board of Regents, when he declared, “that banning payments to athletes was essential to the revered tradition of amateurism” (Trace and Strauss 1). Moreover, NCAA insists that amateurism is what protects the rights of students to learning, so much so that “their athletes are amateurs and students first” (Trace and Strauss 1). Hence, what the NCAA is stating is that it is permissible to restrict student-athletes from financially benefitting from their sports even if the NCAA earns about $800 annually, all for the cause of amateurism. In addition, the esteemed anti-trust economist, Andy Schwarz, claims that coaches “can get 200 percent (in football) or 700 percent (in basketball) of what their athlete’s scholarships are priced at, in total across the whole team” (Zirin 1). This statement is supported by recent federal data, which reveal that the University of Texas football team earned about $77.9 million in 2011-2012, from a University total of $103.8 million; while Michigan earned roughly $61.6 from football alone, out of the University total of $85.2 million (Gregory 2). As such, these figures from only two academic institutions are enough to justify that the supposed amateurism is a double-standard practice; one which allows universities and coaches to cash-in stupendous amounts of money, while the athletes themselves are to be content with a meager $2000 annual scholarship stipends.
Personal Remarks and Observations
It is sagacious to listen to Oscar Robertson, one of NBA greats when he states that, “I think in this day and age, as opposed to yesteryear, the concept of what they consider amateur basketball is gone forever” (Gregory 4). This is primarily because of the great difference that college sports have been able to garner in recent decades as compared with the previous century. As such, the inclusion of hundreds of millions of dollars in college sports, with CBS TV contracts amounting to double-digit dollar figures (Let’s Start Paying 1), makes college sports a marketing endeavor, hence professional in nature. In the same manner, this marketing aspect of college sports makes it a necessity to allocate certain revenue amounts to student-athlete themselves, just as how universities pay coaches and staffs.
Hence, to argue that amateurism is still being practiced in college sports, especially in football and basketball, would be accurate if the NCAA and the coaches are not garnering such huge stipends. However, with some of coaches’ salaries reaching $7 million and CBS TV rights to March Madness amounting to more than $10.8 billion-14-year contract (Let’s Start Paying 1), then surely there is room enough, both financially and ethically, for student-athletes at least to be able to live decently. After all, every American student has seen school athletes wearing the same set of clothes simply because he does not have enough for a new one, while the university itself is able to build new sport facilities because of the talent of the athlete in the first place. This, according to the NCAA, is aimed at “protecting players from excessive commercialism” (Let’s Start Paying 1). As such, this conflicting irony is ultimately a clash between ethics and regulation. Specifically, is it alright to pay the student-athlete a little over the board of the meager $2000 stipend, just so he could have his rightful share of his contributions to the school’s sports success, or is NCAA’s amateurism clause really as blind and insensitive as it appears? Perhaps this is what Richard Southall, the director og College Sport Institute at the USC means when he stresses that “Living a lie is hard to do” (Gregory 6).
The mere fact that universities earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and that the NCAA itself earns over $800 annually over and above the TV rights of more than $10 billion, is reason enough for student-athletes to have their fair share of grace. These figures are enough evidences that amateur college sports have long ceased to be what it was decades ago, and that it can now stand side-by-side with global sport conglomerates such as the NBA and Super Bowl. In this respect, what this paper is championing is not for student-athletes to earn figures similar with their professional counterparts, but perhaps sufficient enough as to free their minds from everyday worries of food, shelter, clothing, and perhaps even as little comfort. The simple truth is, universities and coaches that stand to gain, by the millions, can only do so because of the talents of student-athletes. These able-bodied men and women sacrifice their health for a chance to earn a college degree, and in the process being exploited by the existing amateurism law. These athletes should be paid in accordance to their contribution.
Works cited
Gregory, Sean. “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes.” Time Magazine. 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Nocera, Joe. “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes.” The New York Times. 8 Jan. 2016. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Nocera, Joe. “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes.” The New York Times. 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Tracy, Mark, and Ben Strauss. “Court Strikes Down Payments to College Athletes.” The New York Times. 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 3 April 2016.
Zirin, Dave. “An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Should Be Paid.” The Nation 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
