Brenna Nolan

MGT 228 Gowans

Final Paper
A Piece of the Pie: Paying College Athletes

On a Saturday night, a college football player runs out on the field for a nationally
broadcasted game against his conference rival. He sees the 100,000 fans, who spent up to $700
on each ticket, wearing a $50 jersey with his name on the back. None of the money he helped
generate at the game will find its way to his pocket. His only goal is to win the game that he
spent over 50-hours preparing for in the last week. Suppose his team wins. He goes out for food
at the local restaurant afterwards, but doesnt have enough money to buy his meal. A local fan
offers to get him a meal as a thank you for the win, but the player has to turn him down. Then his
coach sees that he cant afford his meal, but says he cant help. The restaurant is hiring, but the
player knows hes not allowed to get a part time job for extra money (Epix). So why does this
player have so many restrictions? Simply put, he is a student-athlete controlled by the NCAA.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, is the organization responsible
for managing collegiate athletic programs across the United States. In 2012, the NCAA earned
$871.6 million in revenue (Dirlam), but it is never distributed to the workforce. As it stands, the
NCAA forbids college athletes from earning any compensation from participation in college
athletics. Scandals surrounding high-profile college football stars who accepted payment for
providing autographs have brought to light what is wrong with NCAA policy. Athletes from
college football and mens basketball deserve a piece of the $871.6 million revenue pie. These
sports athletes occupy a different role on campusthe role of an employee as well as a
studentthat female and other male athletes do not. Paying athletes a full salary for their
participation is an extreme solution. Instead, the NCAA can solve the intermediate problems by
changing its treatment of collegiate athletes. The coaches and athletes need to call for a new
model of amateurism which acknowledges the commercialization of players, provides a stipend
to cover the full cost of attendance, and emphasizes education.
Jay Bilas, a former college athlete now working as a sports analyst and lawyer, states
what the NCAA has denied for years, amateurism died a long time ago, and no one has
admitted it. Its dead, were just dragging it around pretending its alive, (Bilas). Amateurism
refers to the fact that athletes do not receive remuneration for their athletic services. This concept
is said to define college sports and make it special. The strict rules about accepting money for
autographs or allowing the coach to buy his player food all violate the amateurism policy
according to the NCAA. There needs to be a restructuring that allows players to seek commercial
opportunities while being amateurs. Those opposed to redefining amateurism to include
compensation claim it would ruin the college brand. But this raises the question, would fans stop
enjoying college sports simply because athletes get paid? No, they would not. Fans do not watch
sports because its unpaid players competing, but rather because supporting their favorite school
has meaning. Compensating athletes would not result in the absence of fans, but rather, it would
improve the integrity of the games.
In fact, lifting the strict amateur title would allow the NCAA to acknowledge the
commercialization of athletes. Again, Bilas makes a strong assertion: If were being honest
about it, were selling these guys. Were selling these players, but its okay. Its business,
(Bilas). There is no doubt that the NCAA should be able to maximize their profits as an
entertainment business. However, as Bilas continues, whats not okay it to pretend were not
[selling the players] and cut the players out of it, (Bilas). The NCAA is exploiting their athletes.
It uses a player to make money, but in turn, limits the player from making his own. Its
hypocrisy. The NCAA remains free to exploit its players for every commercial dollar while
claiming its amateurism policy protects players from exploitation (Huma). This needs to be
fixed. If its a free market for everybody else but the players, then weve got a problem, (Bilas
qtd in Chen). Let the players access the free market and experience commercialization.
Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association, points out
American culture as a capitalistic nation where one would be hard-pressed to find any other
group of Americans who are denied the right to go out and get their fair value (Rosenberg). Its
not just the jerseys, but the players have value in every t-shirt, every banner, and everything that
is sold in the industry. Its unfair that the players arent allowed to realize that value, (Bilas qtd.
In Chen). Just how much money could the players earn on the free market? On average, college
football players from the top ten schools have a fair market value between $345,000 and
$514,000. College basketball players are worth much more due to the smaller quantity. The
average value is $620,000 to $1,000,000 (Huma). A Duke mens basketball player is worth $1
million if he has access to the free market, yet he cant accept a single dollar from another
individual as compensation.
If the NCAA lifted the restrictions, it would consequently eliminate the black market
where athletes manage to violate NCAA rules. As long as you have a prohibition, youre going
to have bootleggers, (Luchs qtd in Huma). Rules that prohibit valuable players from accepting
benefits above and beyond their scholarships set athletic programs and their athletes up for
failure (Huma). What is the average, high-profile, cash-strapped nineteen year old college
student athlete going to do if he is offered benefits that the NCAA prohibits? The dominant
attitude among athletes is that there is no moral or ethical reason for not taking money because
the system is ripping them off (Nocera). The athletes are not looking for excessive amounts of
money to become rich and famous. They are in search of money to live off of during the school
year.
The athletic scholarships cover the tuition costs of attending the university. The
scholarship provides the athletes with an education worth between $30 and $50 thousand, but as
it stands now, the athletes receive no additional money with their scholarship. The NCAAs
current definition of amateurism caps full athletic scholarships below the cost of attendance; it
leaves athletes with out-of-pocket educational related expenses. In reality, the average
scholarship shortfall is $3222. Those Duke Basketball players worth $1 million on the fair
market have a shortfall of $3098, but again cant accept a single dollar from another individual to
cover extra expenses. Many critics against compensation believe getting a free education is more
than enough. Paying the athletes converts the student athletes into employees of the university,
but Jay Bilas points out that the players are already employees: we dont tell anyone else [a
scholarship] is enough. Were not giving them anything; theyre recruited to do a job. All
indications of your work as an athlete are of an employee. Theyre told where to be and when to
be there. Its not optional, it is work, (Bilas).
The restructuring of amateurism needs to include a payment of stipends to players. To
assist their players with the scholarship shortfalls, several college football coaches have already
petitioned for the option to pay their athletes a $2000 stipend to be used strictly for out-of-pocket
educational costs. The major argument against payment of a stipend comes from athletic
directors who claim they cannot afford the payment. It seems unbelievable that despite the fact
that college football and mens basketball combine to generate $6 billion, the universities have
inadequate funds to spend an additional $2000 on each athlete. But, college coaches created their
own solution. South Carolina head football coach Steve Spurrier said, A bunch of us coaches
felt so strongly about it that we would be willing to pay it, (Huma). College coaches at the top
universities make on average $3.5 million annually. Coaches like Spurrier, Alabamas Nick
Saban, and Ohio States Urban Meyer receive bonuses large enough to cover the stipends easily;
only half of Urban Meyers yearly bonus is needed pay each of his players a $2000 stipend
(Huma). If the coaches are willing to sacrifice their bonuses to compensate their players, why
should the NCAA forbid it? The players need the money for living expenses. Majority of
scholarship athletes come from low-income, single-parent families and have no alternative way
to afford the shortfall.
Still, critics say allowing the wealthy universities to pay their players while others cannot
afford it creates have and have-not schools. The notion of an equal playing field would no
longer exist. To respond, equal playing does not exist anyways. Winning three championships in
four years gives the University of Alabama an advantage over the University of Massachusetts
winless football team when approaching recruits (Nocera). There are significant differences
between resources, tradition, history, and fan interest. The money not given to players is invested
in facilities for them to use. Alabamas Nick Saban makes sure that the money his successful
team earns is reinvested to their benefit (Mihailovich). But instead of creating a $10 million
locker room facility, why not allow teams to distribute their money to the players?
Perhaps the worst part of the current amateurism model is the value put on education. The
NCAA claims that the athletes are students first, yet the athletes scholarships are based on
athletic performance. The coach has to renew a players scholarship each year. He has the ability
to take it away if the player underperforms or even gets seriously injured. If there was true value
placed on education, why not give four-year scholarships? The most disappointing statistic lies in
graduation rates. Forty-five percent of football players and fifty-two percent of basketball players
never graduate college. The NCAA has the chance to lower these numbers. Within the
restructuring, the NCAA can permit the players to access the free market for commercialization,
but whatever money earned goes into an educational lockbox (Huma). The players can only take
money from the lockbox for out-of-pocket educational expenses. In order to receive the full
amount of earned revenue, the player must graduate from the university. Such a solution puts the
emphasis back on educationwhere it should be.
College Sports are about recruiting athletes, but also taking care of them once at the
university. The NCAA does not take care of its athletes well. The problem we are trying to
solve is one of fundamental fairness. The NCAA is running a professional sports organization,
and we dont think its fair that only one class of people is restricted to their expenses only, and
nothing more, (Bilas qtd. in Chen). Change needs to occur because the NCAA cannot continue
to exploit college athletes. Awareness is spreading, and players are not going to accept this
treatment much longer. They will seek training for professional leagues in programs outside of
the United States. [The players] have rights to a fair allocation of revenue, to health care, and to
education, (Hausfeld qtd. in Nocera). There are several solutions the NCAA can pursue, but
redefining amateurism to include free market commercialization, player stipends, and revenue
upon graduation manages to solve the most demanding issues within the NCAA system.





Works Cited
Bilas, Jay. "NCAA." Interview by Jack Ford. 60 Minutes Sports. Showtime. 6 Nov. 2013.
Television.
Chen, Jen. "Jay Bilas Argues for Colleges to Pay Student Athletes." The Duke Chronicle. Duke
University, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
Dirlam, Zach. "There's No Crying in College: The Case Against Paying College
Athletes." Bleacher Report. Turner Broadcasting System, 3 Apr. 2013. Web. 07 Nov.
2013.
Epix. "11 Things That College Athletes Arent Allowed To Do." BuzzFeed. Epix, 8 Oct. 2013.
Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
Huma, Ramogi, and Ellen J. Staurowsky. The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sports. Rep.
National College Players Association, 2012. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Mihailovich, Draggan, prod. "Built by Bama." 60 Minutes Sports. Showtime. Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, 6 Nov. 2013. Television.
Nocera, Joe. "Lets Start Paying College Athletes." The New York Times [New York City] 30
Dec. 2011: n. pag. Print.
Rosenberg, Michael. "Debate over Antiquated NCAA Goes Way beyond Pay-for-play." SI.com.
Sports Illustrated, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.