Photo: San Antonio Business Journal
As another fantastic, vibrant and upset-filled NCAA March Madness tournament comes to an end, it is a good time to reflect on one of the hottest debates in sports in the United States: whether college athletes should be payed or not. I am "recycling" a paper I had to write for school last year, stating my opinion on the issue and defending why NCAA athletes should receive better compensation. Here it goes:
Shabazz Napier is
currently a basketball player for the Portland Trail Blazers of the NBA. He led the
University of Connecticut men´s basketball team to the NCAA title in 2014. In
the spring of that year, shortly before the Miami Heat drafted him, he told the
media: “there are... nights that I go to bed and I am starving" (Majerol,
2014), referring to his time as a college athlete in Connecticut. Whether that testimony was accurate or exaggerated, Napier´s words brought awareness to the unfair situation of many college athletes
who struggle to make a living despite millions of people all around the world
recognizing them as stars.
Photo: NBA.com
Even though
professional sports continue to be dominant, college sports in the United States
have considerable following from fans from all around the world. It is a
tremendously lucrative industry for athletic programs, media networks and
television stations, such as ESPN or CBS, which broadcast games and report about
the competitions, and all the people who work in high-profile collegiate
athletic programs, especially for major teams which, contrary to professional
teams, save considerable amounts of money by not paying players, as CNN Money reports: “men's college
basketball teams earn money selling tickets and merchandise, but the bulk of
their profits come from TV deals. Their profitability is helped by the fact
that players don't get paid beyond the scholarships they receive. That's why the profit margins for college basketball
are significantly higher than they are for pro teams. In fact, more than a
dozen college teams have profit margins above 50%” (Isidore, 2015). Despite
these remarkable profit margins, none of that profit is returned to the
athletes.
Paradoxically, the
main characters of the game, the ones who perform on the biggest stages, are
forbidden to receive any kind of compensation for their performance, yet they
are expected to perform at the highest level, with millions of people watching
and with the reputation of their universities on the line, while balancing
their commitment to the team and their academic responsibilities. Many of them,
like Napier, are in dire financial conditions and do not have enough resources
to live, while they still deal with the pressure that comes with being a
nationally known figure. While each university should be able to regulate their
own payment policies, players should be able to benefit from their value by
signing deals with third parties like sponsors, or negotiate on their image with
television networks.
Photo: Sports Cheat Sheet
Historically, collegiate
athletic programs are built on their
success and recognition, which come from the amount of achievements they
accomplish and their greatness, as well as the players that take part in these
programs. Regardless of the resources that each university dedicates to their
athletic programs, success is the ultimate measure for a school´s recognition
and popularity. Winning makes players want to play for certain teams.
Therefore, the most successful programs are able to recruit the best prospects
in the world. Players on the team play a large role in the team´s success, attracting
other prospective players who are interested in playing for that university. By
succeeding on the court, college athletes pose tremendous value for their
universities as they allow their programs to stay competitive by attracting new
prospects. Players are not only responsible for doing their best for their
teams, but also,
“due to their ability to raise the university´s profile and add to
the profitability of a school´s athletic programs, exceptional athletes are of
great value to universities” (Beamon, 2008). As Beamon explains, players are
the main assets that athletic teams have to become both more popular and
profitable.
On the other hand,
coaches and technical staff are generally the ones responsible for the
recruiting and scouting of new players. However, players have a responsibility
to put their teams in a position of maximum visibility and recognition for
fans, prospective players, the media and other important audiences. This relationship between player and
team is one of the primary reasons why high-level athletes are paid fortunes to
do their job. It is not just because of the great demands of their environment,
but also because they are ambassadors of a bigger brand: their team. Players
have to be regarded as the main components of any team in any sport. Outstanding
players not only provide visibility and recognition to their universities by
excelling at their sports, but they are also relevant financial assets for
them. In an analysis performed by Business Insider in which they used “the
NBA´s most recent collective bargaining agreement in which the players receive
a minimum of 49% of all revenue, each school's
men's basketball revenue was split between the school and the
athletes with the players' share divided evenly among the 13 scholarship
players” (Gaines,
Yukari; 2017), in order to calculate the financial value of college basketball
players. The average value for a Division I player turned out to be $ 170,000. For
some top programs like the University of Louisville, each of its basketball players
is worth $ 1.72 million on average, with a total revenue of $45.6 million generated
by the basketball team (Gaines, Yukari; 2017). This study helped prove the
remarkable financial value of college basketball players for their teams.
Not only are
players financially valuable for their institutions, but they are also largely
responsible for the success of their team. Like professionals, college athletes
are demanded to perform to the best of their abilities to help their team win.
While coaches and other staff are also relevant pieces, none of them are as
important as the players. Coaches are considered full-time employees, and they
have all the benefits that come with employment. Athletes, however, work
similar amounts of time and don´t get nearly as much compensation as their
coaches do.
For example, Jim
Boeheim, the coach for Syracuse University men´s basketball team, is paid $ 2.1
million per year (Fairburn, 2016). Boeheim, who is in the Basketball Hall of
Fame, is recognized as one of the best basketball coaches in history. However,
he wouldn´t have been able to develop that reputation without the help of his
players. Similarly, Mike Krzyzewski, the top-paid college basketball coach in
the country, earns an annual salary of $7 million, according to Fairburn. This salary reflects what
Krzyzewski has accomplished in his position and his importance for Duke
University men´s basketball. However, their players were the ones who won the
games. While both of these coaches have been responsible of recruiting and
developing high profile players and assembling highly successful teams, it was
the players who worked for them who got the job done on the court to achieve team
goals. Coaches are essential for teams, but it is the players who ultimately
execute the coach´s game plan.
Photo: SB Nation
In today´s highly
competitive sports atmosphere, athletes have to make a full-time commitment to
practice, play and participate in team activities while still doing the best
they can with their classes. While universities provide personal assistance and
tutors specifically for their student athletes to succeed academically, this
help is useless considering they cannot give athletes what they demand the
most: better financial and overall conditions. Not only is their time extremely
limited due to the high volume of activities they have to participate in, but
their energy expenditure, their sacrifice and dedication to stay in shape and
perform at the level they are required to is much greater than any other student´s
time and sacrifice dedicated to their responsibilities. Additionally, they have
to deal with the pressure of thousands of spectators watching them every night
and being the subject of the criticism of many people. Professional athletes
are paid to do this because the demands for an elite athlete are the greatest that
can be found in about any professional industry. The same happens with college
athletes, but they are not considered employees whatsoever, and they should,
according to Robert McCormick, a law professor at Michigan State University and
a former attorney for the National Labor Relations Board under President Carter
(Cooper, 2011): “There are more demands put on these young men than any
employee of the university… These young men are laboring under very strict and
arduous conditions, so they really are laborers in terms of the physical
demands on them while they’re also trying to go to school and being required to
go to school,” (Cooper, 2011). By pointing out the sort of conditions student
athletes have to endure, the author also highlights the differences between a
student athlete and a regular student. McCormick also analyzes how the players´
performance and consequent happiness is directly linked to the coach´s decisions.
For example, if a player is not performing well and doesn´t fit into the
coach´s plans, he is essentially “fired” for not doing his job according to what the
coach expects from him. Players who don´t have the opportunity to play significant amounts of
minutes for their teams are forced to transfer to other schools in order to
continue practicing their sport. This is similar to working for a company that
does not value its employees and forces them to move out so they can receive
the appreciation they deserve.
The fact that
coaches have such a significant impact on the life of their players is also
something to be considered, as their status and reputations depend on someone
else´s opinions, trust and confidence in them. Players are under constant
criticism and scrutiny from fans, media outlets and, more importantly their
coaches, who have the authority to ultimately impact their future in a relevant way.
Parallel to all of
these issues, this conflict of players not being able to perceive benefits from
their activity stems from the unilaterally-imposed measures of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, the NCAA, which regulates a significant
portion of the college athletics industry by controlling many of the top-level
athletic programs. The NCAA strives to be an institution that sets the rules
for combining sports and academics in a sustainable and purposeful way,
prioritizing academics over sports, which are regarded as a complementary
activity. According to the NCAA, college athletes are “amateurs”. In other
words, they do not practice their sport professionally. Instead, they are “student-athletes”.
According to the NCAA policy, “amateur competition is a bedrock principle of
college athletics and the NCAA. Maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving
an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first
priority. In the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing
on the field or court are students first, athletes second” (NCAA, 2017). For
this reason, the NCAA strictly prohibits players to receive financial
compensation for their athletic activity, as well as any relationship with
professional sports or agents (NCAA, 2017).
The NCAA has very specific policies
on which type of compensation athletes can receive, which is essentially narrowed
down to scholarships from their schools: “Article 12.1.1.1 prohibits any direct
or indirect salary, gratuity or comparable compensation (…) Even if such an
award is permitted under the rules governing an amateur, non-collegiate event
in which the individual is participating” (Mueller, 2004). The NCAA clearly states in its eligibility
requisites that a player is not eligible to be an NCAA athlete if he or she has
ever “taken pay, or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport” (Summary
of NCAA eligibility regulations, 2017). Ironically, college sports generate
hundreds of millions of dollars every year, yet players are the ones who
receive the least from the value they create. This hypocrisy can only happen in
a “billion dollar non-profit organization” (Collins, Torre, Brennan, 2016).
Schools, however,
are allowed to offer prospects a certain number of scholarships to pay for the
cost of attending their institution in order to attract them. While this means
a great opportunity for athletes to receive education from prestigious
institutions while being able to play sports in internationally known teams,
it is still not enough compensation for what the athletic activity entails,
especially for those athletes who compete in a high profile sport, like
football or basketball, in which a majority of teams generate a significant amount of
revenue. Being able to attend college without having to pay the high costs that
come with it is a privilege, but it is still not enough, especially for those
athletes who come from low-income communities and struggle financially, like
Shabazz Napier, the star of the University of Connecticut men´s basketball
team, who, despite his high profile, suffered from financial scarcity.
Despite its focus
on academics, the NCAA seems to be unaware of one of the most glaring issues in
college sports. Most college athletes will not have the opportunity to play
sports professionally once they graduate from college. These athletes, therefore,
will be focused on finishing their degrees in order to have more professional
opportunities while competing for their varsity team. However, there will
always be a significant number of athletes who have the necessary talent and
skills to be able to play sports professionally. These athletes, especially the
ones that are highly sought-after by recruiters, see their college years just as
a necessary step towards the NBA or the NFL, between others, and not as an opportunity to receive
higher education.
In recent years, there
has been a significant increase in “one-and-done” players. These are usually
highly recruited players who go to college for just one year, in order to
fulfill the NBA´s age eligibility requirements of 19 years or older. The
problem with “one-and-done” players is that they do not represent what a
student athlete should be. They cannot fully benefit from the college
experience by attending it for just one year. Often times they do want to
attend college and be college athletes, but the possibility of making
considerable amounts of money drives them to join a professional sports league.
Due to the lack of
economical opportunities for college athletes in the United States, some
players even choose to play in other countries and earn money before going to
the NBA instead of going to college. Emmanuel Mudiay, currently a point guard
for the New York Knicks, chose to play in the Chinese league before going to the
NBA because he could start earning money. More recently, Darius Bazley, a no.9 ESPN Top 100 high school recruit, decommitted from playing for Syracuse University next year to enter the G-League, the NBA´s development league. While Bazley´s move is unprecedented, it wouldn´t be surprising to see more players snub the NCAA and take an alternative path to professionalism.
In a video for ESPN, Jay Bilas, a
college basketball expert who played for Duke University, says “NCAA president
Mark Emmert often says the one-and-done rule forces players to go to college,
yet when the issue of compensating college athletes is approached, Emmert is
quick to say nobody is forcing athletes to go to college and accept the NCAA´s
unilaterally imposed terms” (Collins, Torre, Brennan, 2016).
Consequently,
allowing athletes to use their value to their advantage and receive
compensation would motivate them to build a successful college career, both on
the court and in the classroom, and not rush to the NBA in order to start
earning a high salary. Compensations for college athletes would also provide
the NBA with players that are more prepared, both to play basketball and to
manage the extraordinary amounts of money they will eventually handle when they
become part of a professional roster.
It is often argued
that one of the reasons why college athletes are not allowed to receive
compensations is because paying them would go against the educational values of
sports, leading these athletes to misspend their money and mishandle their
success and therefore their careers. If an athlete is truly capable of having
brands or third parties interested in sponsoring him, it is no secret that he
has the potential to play sports professionally. Therefore, he will have to
manage considerable amounts of money sooner or later when he takes the step to
the professional leagues. Money is actually the reason why these athletes
decide to leave college, giving away their education in order to enjoy better
financial conditions.
In any case, if
making money while being a student is the issue, it is worth noting that virtually
any student can earn money while they study by working either with an on-campus or off-campus job. College athletes, however, do not have this
possibility for two reasons: they are forbidden to do so, and their time
outside of practice or the classroom is extremely limited due to their
obligations. In an episode of his podcast “The Vertical Podcast with J.J.
Redick”, JJ Redick, former basketball player at Duke University and now a
professional basketball player for the Philadelphia 76ers of the NBA, hosted
Jay Bilas, another former Duke basketball player who is now a basketball
broadcaster for ESPN, to discuss the way in which the NCAA restricts players
from earning a salary. Bilas explained that, ironically, there are several ways
for any regular student to make money, while college athletes see how the NCAA
forbids their access to these financial opportunities.
“If money got into the way of education, or was
somehow, as they say, ´antithetical´ to what education is about, then they
would limit what any student could earn, or any scholarship student. So if you
are in a music scholarship, you can cut a record, you can appear in the Tonight
show, you can make money however you want. If you are an actor, an actress, you
can do whatever you want, it doesn´t affect your status as a student, so no
other student is limited in any way…Why would we have a unilateral wage ceiling
on only one class of person, that being an athlete?” (Redick, Bilas, 2016).
This conversation
between Redick and Bilas puts the current situation of college athletes into
perspective, especially compared to the general economic background and culture of the
United States. In a highly liberal, capitalist economy based on liberalism, freedom, and competitiveness, an
organization like the NCAA is preventing college athletes who generate millions
of dollars from receiving any percentage of that value in return. The solution
is to allow the universities to have their own policies regarding athletes´
salaries, and let the players make profit from third parties like sponsors or
jersey sales. These players have to deal with criticism from outside sources
and with the pressure of striving to be a high-level professional athlete. But
on top of this, the NCAA utilizes them as advertisements, making profit with
their names and personal brands by selling jerseys or using them as an
attraction for sponsors while banning them from earning money in any type of
way. While the scholarships they enjoy are something to be thankful for, they
are not enough to prevent athletes from struggling financially.
References
Beamon, Krystal K. (2008). “"Used
goods": Former African American college student-athletes' perception of
exploitation by division I universities”. The Journal of Negro Education, 77(4), 352-364. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25608704
Carlson, C. (2017). “Value
of Syracuse basketball player exceeds $1 million a year, according to business
insider”. Syracuse.com. Retrieved
from http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2017/03/value_of_syracuse_basketball_player_exceeds_1_million_a_year_according_to_busine.html
Collins, C., Torre, P. S.
& Brennan, E. (2016). “The one-and-done conundrum”. ESPN.
Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/16237629/ten-years-nba-one-done-rule-no-less-controversial
Cooper, K. J. (2011). “Michigan
state law professors say div. I college athletes qualify as ‘Employees’”. Diverse. Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/article/16071/
Fairburn, M. “Where does
Jim Boeheim rank among highest-paid coaches in NCAA tournament? (2016)”. Syracuse.com. Retrieved from http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2016/03/where_does_jim_boeheim_rank_among_highest_paid_coaches_in_ncaa_tourmanet.html
Gaines, C., & Yukari,
D. (2017). “The average division I men's basketball player is worth $170,098
per year to his school”. Business
Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/college-basketball-player-value-2017-3
Isidore, C. (2015). “Most
profitable NCAA teams”. CNN Money. Retrieved
from http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/16/news/companies/ncaa-most-profitable/
Majerol, V. (2014). “Should
college athletes BE PAID?” New York Times Upfront, 147, 14-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1566173803?accountid=14214
Mueller, K. (2004). “No
control over their rights of publicity: College athletes left sitting the bench”. DePaul Journal of Sports Law &
Contemporary Problems, 2, 70-293. Retrieved from http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=jslcp
NCAA. (2017). ”Amateurism”.
NCAA. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/amateurism
NCAA. (2017). “Summary of
NCAA eligibility regulations - NCAA division I, (2017)”. NCAA. Retrieved
from http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016-17_Summary_of_NCAA_Regulations_2016_17_20160531.pdf
Redick, J. J., & Bilas,
J. (2016). “Jay Bilas joins JJ Redick (J. J. Redick Trans.)”. Yahoo! Sports. Retrieved from https://art19.com/shows/vertical-jj-redick/episodes/ab7cee6c-a90d-4a42-b050-7e46d654c711
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario