Research Paper

NCAA Exploitation: A thing of the Past?

            The National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA has a long history. Division I student-athletes have never been paid as employees and it remains that way to this day. The controversy over this matter is growing as of late. I believe student-athletes should be paid, however, not because student-athletes should be considered employees. Student-athletes should be paid because of the millions of dollars student-athletes bring to their universities every year. In addition, student-athletes should be paid because of the large amount of apparel sales, such as jerseys, with their name and number on it. Student-athletes do not receive any of the money that made off their personas. Even though the NCAA has established rules prohibiting student-athletes from receiving payment, there has been a lot of controversy as of late, and many people, including players, believe it is unfair. Student-athletes should be paid not because they resemble employees, but because their personas are used publicly and for apparel sales and in video games in which they have no say, and because student-athletes bring in massive amounts of money to their respective schools yet see none of it.

I do think student-athletes should be paid, but not because student-athletes should be considered employees. Robert and Amy McCormick, law professors at Michigan State University, believe that student-athletes should be viewed as employees. According to Robert McCormick, “There are more demands put on these young men than any employee of the university” (Cooper 12), which may be true. Student-athletes have many responsibilities and a lot of pressure on them. Student-athletes have to figure out their class schedule and get any extra help needed to succeed in those classes. While doing so, student-athletes also have to attend practice and events for their respective sport. Beside those things, they must live in general including eating and sleeping. Having such a busy schedule leaves no time for a part-time job even if a student-athlete was interested. It is not only because of how much the student-athletes have to handle, though. One reason Amy McCormick thinks student-athletes are employees is because “[they] don’t have free choice of what major they take if the classes conflict with the practice schedule” (Cooper 13). She also adds that this contradicts “the idea that they’re primarily students and secondarily athletes” (Cooper 13). She has a good point. Students are supposed to go to college to receive an education in a field that interests them. However, the students that are athletes sometimes do not have this choice, which seems very unfair. Although the McCormick’s believe being a student-athlete is a growing struggle, the opposite appears to be true. According to research done by Preston R. Clark, who was an orthopedic surgeon, graduation rates of student-athletes are rising. He found that the NCAA has shown numbers that continue “to back up its academic mission and the steady improvement of its institutions in the arena of graduation rates” (25). According to that statement, being a student-athlete must not be as hard as the McCormick’s make it out to be.  On another note, colleges were instructed to make it clear that student-athletes are not employees. Former executive director of the NCAA, Walter Byers, has first-hand experience with this controversy as displayed in his book. He helped shape the way college sports are as we know them today. He included that colleges were advised to make certain “that no employment relationship was created between the institution and the student-athlete involving a duty to participate in athletics” (75). By saying this, colleges were showing that athletes were not required to participate in athletics, thus disproving the notion of student-athletes being employees.  Furthermore, several other labor lawyers and some former Division I college athletes agree that student-athletes are not employees. One former college athlete, Tommy Amaker, insists, “I never felt like I was an employee of Duke University” (Cooper 13) Amaker also explains how “[he] had a chance to have [his] education paid for at an incredible school” (Cooper 13). In his experience, Amaker never had any trouble with taking classes for his major. If there were scheduling problems, classes could be taken over the summer or at a different time, but it would never affect Amaker’s major. Amaker points out that having your college education paid for is as if you are being paid.  Not only are many student-athletes getting their tuition paid for, but student-athletes are also receiving a numerous amount of other benefits that the average student does not receive. These benefits include medical care, academic support services, nutritionists and dieticians, state-of-the-art training facilities, and possibly the most important one, exposure to the professional leagues. Taking into account the benefits, being a student-athlete should not be considered a job. It may be overwhelming for student-athletes, but earning a free education, playing a sport, and receiving multiple compensations does not seem like a job that needs additional payment.

On the other hand, student-athletes should be receive some sort of additional payment due to the unfair exploitation that they endure. It is challenging for student-athletes to stand by idly and watch as their personas are used to make millions of dollars without their personal consent while they get no share of the money being made. While professional athletes are protected from this with something called a right-of-publicity law, student-athletes in college are not. Talor Bearman, doctor of law, shows that “the law fails to protect college athletes the same way it protects other celebrities.” The NCAA does not allow student-athletes to profit from publicity such as endorsements, and Bearman believes this rule is infringing upon student-athletes’ right of publicity. It is reasonable for student-athletes to be frustrated about how they do not truly have a right of publicity. Many student-athletes’ personas are used on apparel such as jerseys. It is unfair, however, for any certain player not to receive a portion of the money made from a jersey with that player’s name on it. Besides apparel, video games are a huge way money is made from college athletics. Video games were not an issue until technology and graphics improved. According to Bearman, “the individuals displayed in the video games began to more accurately depict their real-world counterparts, and video games and the right of publicity became intertwined.” Student-athletes are depicted very well in modern videogames. The video games include a student-athletes height, weight, jersey number, name, and even an animation closely resembling him. Somehow, student-athletes personas’ are used in video games and on apparel, yet they are prohibited from participating in endorsements, which seems a bit irrational. Bringing up Walter Byers again, as the former executive director of the NCAA, he was in a powerful position. He was in favor of student-athletes being allowed to endorse products. In March of 1985, he devised a plan that “suggested allowing student-athletes to endorse products, with the income first going into a trust fund, then to the players when they graduate or completed eligibility” (14). This seemed like a reasonable plan. Surprisingly, his suggestion stirred a negative reaction throughout the NCAA. Well, at least from the individuals in powerful positions who were being paid large salaries. Byers reasoning for his suggestion was simple, “since the colleges were exploiting their talent, the athletes deserved the same access to the free market as the coaches enjoyed” (14). What other reason is necessary for student-athletes to be able to endorse products? It is absurd that coaches and other athletic staff can endorse products as they please, but the players cannot. College sports revolve around the athletes. If there are no athletes, there is no NCAA. Student-athletes should have access to the free-market and be able to endorse products and profit from the endorsement just as coaches do.

Anyway, it appears that everyone involved in college athletics profits from the sport except for the actual athletes. An example of this is a former student-athlete known as Tim Tebow. Tebow played football for the Florida Gators and was a star as they won national championships. Tebow brought in a large amount of money to Florida, however, as writer Adele Birkenes states, “That money went to the coaches, staff, and the athletic department, but Tebow - like all college athletes - was not paid” (6). The amount of money colleges make from athletics is enormous. Colleges look around the country to recruit the best players in the nation to come play for them. If colleges do a good job recruiting, they can be very successful and possibly win championships. What do championships mean? Well, that is obvious; championships mean more money. More money for the coaches and the staff, but the same amount of money for the student-athletes- none. There is obviously something wrong as Derek Van Rheenen, professor at Berkeley, points out. Van Rheenen indicates that there is clearly an “unfair financial exchange between college athletes and universities” (3). Seeing this is easy. Colleges make millions of dollars off sports every year. For some reason, several coaches in the NCAA are paid millions of dollars a year, which is more than some professional coaches, while the student-athletes receive no salary. The refusal to further compensate student-athletes  has led to some problems throughout the NCAA. For instance, many student-athletes are living in poverty or close to the poverty line. In order to solve this problem, some student-athletes who struggle to put food on the table day after day turn to the so-called “black market.” By doing so, student-athletes receive money, food, shoes or whatever they may need from agents. As you can imagine, this violates NCAA rules. This black market exists because players do not receive the amount of money that they deserve, and in some cases, the money they need. Professor of Sport Management at Drexel University, Ellen J. Staurowsky, explains the black market in depth. She illuminates, “Through the NCAA, college presidents mandate impoverished conditions for young, valuable players and throw money around to all other college sports stakeholders when those players perform well, a formula that drives the powerful black market that thrives at so many universities nationwide” (276). There is so much money in the NCAA that goes to the coaches and staff, yet there are student-athletes living in or near poverty. This immense problem can be solved by including student-athletes in on the considerable amount of money flowing through the colleges and the NCAA. The student-athletes are the ones generating the revenue anyway, right?

I hope that this ongoing controversy ends because student-athletes deserve payment or at least better compensation. There is no doubt that the NCAA is overdue for several structural changes. The changes should not occur because student-athletes bring to mind the idea of employment. Nonetheless, the changes should involve allowing student-athletes access to the free market and to endorsements, and somehow compensating student-athletes better by paying into a trust fund of some sort. Undoubtedly, the main problem is the exploitation of student-athletes. Student-athletes are not compensated nearly enough for their production as a number of student-athletes are living in or near poverty. By compensating student-athletes a bit more, colleges and the NCAA would not lose a great deal of profit. So, what is the problem? Are the people running the NCAA and the colleges around the country just greedy or what? Think about it, how would you feel if your name was on display making heaps of money, but you are the only one not receiving a share?

Works Cited

Bearman, Talor. “Intercepting Licensing Rights: Why College Athletes Need a Federal Right of Publicity.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 2012. n.pag. Lexis Nexis Academic. Web. 8 April 2014.

Birkenes,  Adele; Bagaria, Akash. “Pay to Play.” Current Events. 111.13. 6 February 2012: 7.        Proquest. Web. 8 April 2014.

Byers, Walter. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes.” Ann Arbor:                University of Michigan Press, 1995. 13-14. Hathi Trust Digital Library. Web. 22 April 2014

Byers, Walter. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes.” Ann Arbor:                University of Michigan Press, 1995. 75-76. Hathi Trust Digital Library. Web. 22 April 2014

Clark, Preston R. “Athlete-Student?” Diverse Issues in Higher Education. 11 April 2013: 25-26. Proquest. Web. 22 April 2014.

Cooper, Kenneth J. “Should College Athletes be paid to Play?” Diverse: Issues in Higher    Education. 28.10. 23 June 2011: 12-13. Ebsco Host. Web. 8 April 2014.

Staurowsky, Ellen J. “Study: College Athletes Worth 6 Figures, Live Below Federal Poverty Line.” Sporting Activities-Football. 28 September 2011: 276. Lexis Nexis Academic. Web. 29 April 2014.

Van Rheenen, Derek. “Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational reward.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 13 July 2012: n.pag. Sage Journals. Web. 22April 2014.