NCAA Student-Athlete, Student Comes First

Uncategorized
Seth Wells | @Seth_Wells22

Should NCAA Student-Athletes Be Paid?

Over the course of this past year the topic of whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been constant and even annoying at times. It is arguably the largest question/controversy currently in college sports. Personally, my opinion has changed on this topic. I have been swayed by the different opinions i have heard and analyzed over the last year or so.

My First Thoughts

When I entered college in 2013 the topic of student-athletes being paid was not a significant issue. It started to become one, however, in the upcoming year. My first thoughts on the topic? Not a chance student-athletes should be paid. I believed their scholarships were enough of a payment for what they bring to the university and how much work they put in.

I did believe that video game companies, clothing retailers and university stores should be able to use names of players and have those players compensated for the use of their likeness.

I also thought that at least two years of college should be an enforced rule across all the major sports.

But then I dove deeper into the issue.

Change in Opinion

After almost a year of hearing different opinions on this controversial topic my opinion has been swayed a bit, but probably not in the way you’re thinking. I still believe that student-athletes should NOT receive any kind of salary or payment from their university outside of the scholarships they are receiving. My opinion has been persuaded in whether a student-athlete should be able to market themselves and also on the enforced two years at the collegiate athletic level.

Merchandisers, video game producers, the normal fan aspiring to have an autograph of a certain player. Why are we as a nation restricting these players from using the brand they have created for themselves to earn money from a third party? Frankly, because it will open up a whole new can of worms. What’s to stop boosters for a certain program from “buying” an autograph of a player for thousands and thousands of dollars? Or what’s to stop those same boosters from buying thousands of a certain players’ jersey so that player profits largely?

This would open up a whole new can of worms.

How would the NCAA regulate something like that? What rules would be put in place and how would they be monitored?

In this case i see only one possible fair idea, and that would be to let video games use players names, and to give a very small percentage to each and every player they use in the game. Then the question would be about the cover athlete, should there be one, should he get paid more than the rest? If that were to be the case, it would fall back under my first point of how would the NCAA regulate something like that.

I also now believe that there shouldn’t be an enforced amount of time in collegiate athletics before a player can be drafted. I think a lot of the problems and issues have arose because these players are being forced to play at least one year (NCAAB) or two years (NCAAF) at the college level, robbing them of a chance to make money straight out of college. Now, i have and always will believe a college education is crucial and athletes and non-athletes alike should stay for their degree. However, i am aware enough to know there are players in high school right now that are good enough to make money by getting drafted right out of high school and i don’t think anyone should have the right to tell those players what to do with their lives. If they believe they can compete straight out of high school, let them. We have seen successes like this before in the NBA with the likes of Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett, and many more recognizable NBA stars who never played in college. I think the NFL is a much different game. I don’t believe any high school football player could ever step into the NFL and play, but NFL teams know that too and would never draft that player. It isn’t the MLB which can stash younger players in the minor leagues until they are ready to compete at the major league level. The NFL’s “minor leagues” is the collegiate game.

What exactly has swayed my opinion on this topic and why do I still believe NCAA student-athletes should not be paid?

The Reasoning

Some angles i hadn’t thought of before were brought to my attention within the past year, specifically the business side of things. If student-athletes were to be paid, they would be considered employees of their university. As an employee, they could be entitled to benefits, contracts, and also termination. Could it get to the point where these athletes could get fired by their university for not playing well? Would the payment from universities be promised to the athletes for the four years of eligibility just like the scholarship is? All of that is theoretical, as we have no clue what regulations would be put in place if this were to happen.

So let’s look at the events that got us to this point, and facts about other athletic programs being funded by the revenue of the basketball and football programs.

— Judge rules in favor of former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon in case against NCAA

In this ruling, S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in an antirust case that the NCAA rules restricting student-athletes from profiting off of their name was illegal, however Wilken did not lift the NCAA rule barring those athletes from receiving commercial compensation while in school. It did open the door for athletes to get a stipend of some sort while playing for their school under scholarship. This leads us to the next event.

— Northwestern Players Successfully Change Scholarship Promises

The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) sided with the Northwestern football players that argued they were employees who should have organizing rights due to the year by year scholarship. Scholarships for years were a year by year “contract”. Coaches could revoke a scholarship from a player if that player got injured or simply didn’t perform up to expectations.

The Big Ten, not coincidentally, then became the first conference to guarantee four-year athletic scholarships. The other major conferences soon followed suit.

The players also tried to make the case they should be able to unionize, but that was struck down by the NLRB.

— NCAA Votes 79-1 in Favor of Allowing Stipends of up to $5,000 More Than Scholarship Value

The NCAA itself voted to allow for a stipend to be given to student-athletes in the revenue-generating sports to “fully cover” the cost of college, stating that the stipend would be meant for food, travel and any other normal expense for the average college student.

What it Means

Ok, so as of now we allow a 5,000 stipend per year for the student-athletes in D1 men’s basketball and football programs. If all of those student-athletes stayed the full for years in school, it would cost roughly 300-500 million dollars.

Who cares right? The NCAA has plenty of money and so do the schools!?!

Wrong. There is a problem here because the sports that don’t generate revenue are largely, if not entirely funded by the success of the revenue-generating sports. That 300-500 million dollars will not be taking away from the major sports, but it very well could mean the end for some of the smaller sports at some schools. Most schools have not had a problem so far covering the stipend and maintaining the smaller sports, but what would happen if that stipend turned into paying those athletes as full-time or even part-time employees? It could very well mean the end of the smaller sports that give so many great opportunities to student-athletes.

Public Opinion?

So what exactly is the public’s opinion on the matter? Well, its actually pretty overwhelmingly lopsided.

The Washington Post and ABC News collaborated on a public poll that asked three questions.

  1. Do you consider yourself a fan of college sports, or not?

  2. Do you support or oppose allowing college athletes to form a union, like the professional sports unions, to negotiate their rights and working conditions?

  3. Beyond any scholarships they receive, do you support or oppose paying salaries to college athletes?

— The results may surprise you. Especially to the third question, in which 64% said they opposed paying salaries to college athletes. The second question however was split; 47% supported and 47% opposed with 6% saying they had no opinion on the matter.

To try and gauge the public opinion even more on this topic i asked two fellow Butler students what they thought. One is a current student-athlete, the other is not a student athlete.

One of those students mentioned is Butler football player sophomore Patrick Mosby who believes that not only D1 FBS athletes on scholarships should get a stipend, but also FCS (Butler’s classification).

“I believe that there should be at a minimum some sort of compensation put towards academics for all who are considered student athletes. Whether this is full, partial, or even just books should be decided by the school and the coaches.” – Patrick Mosby

While the issue isn’t currently about those athletes at the FCS level, Mosby made a point about those with scholarships wouldn’t be the first ones he would give the stipend to.

“I think that those receiving them should be great full to have such compensation for their hard work. Those who are not receiving a cent for their dedication are the ones who should be looked at.” – Patrick Mosby

Current Butler senior Mark Pearson believes that the current stipend + scholarship is more than enough for the student-athletes.

“I do not believe student athletes should be paid. I believe that free education, free housing, and free food is their payment. Yes, I understand that it takes a lot of time out of their day and they won’t be able to get an actual job, but paying for these things is like getting a 48 thousand dollar check a year.” – Mark Pearson

Although it appears the public opinion is against college athletes, there are prominent voices on the side of athletes being paid and being able to market themselves to gain as much money as they can. One specific example is Jay Bilas. Bilas is a former Duke basketball player and is now currently an analyst for ESPN. Bilas has long been a proponent of student-athletes garnering all of the money that they can, whether in college or in the pros.

Bilas also has a problem with coaches getting bonuses/raises off of the success of the student-athletes (something i definitely understand and actually agree with).

Looking Ahead

The next thing to keep an eye on is another suit against the NCAA. It’s called Jenkins vs NCAA and it is attempting to get rid of the current scholarship format. If this case were to be ruled against the NCAA it could mean a total restructure of how student-athletes are compensated/given their education.

Final diagnosis

People are upset, and that won’t change until something is done. After the research i’ve done and the opinions i have heard on the topic, i don’t believe that paying the student-athletes is the best way to solve the current problem.

Instead, if people are upset about not being able to earn the money they are “entitled” to earn, then allow each sport to draft players straight out of high school. Then it will always be the athletes choice on whether to go to school for their free education, or to attempt to earn more money by getting drafted into their respective league.

Maybe Samuel L Jackson said it best in Coach Carter, they are student-athletes, STUDENT comes first. Make college a CHOICE for all of these athletes, then those that come truly are there as a STUDENT-athlete.

AV7A8706Seth Wells covers the MLB and Butler Men’s Basketball for BU:30. 
srwells@butler.edu | @Seth_Wells22

Authors
Top