Payday
Last week we explored the possibility of taking away
scholarships in order to affect student athlete performance. However, this week
the topic lies at the opposite end of the spectrum. What would happen if
college athletes received additional compensation for their efforts outside of
scholarships? This would change the entire scope of college athletics.
By giving college athletes money, it would allow them to
focus more on their academic lives. Several collegiate level athletes are
desperate for money. They come from poor and underprivileged families.
Therefore, they are less inclined to perform well academically simply due to
the fact that they must make it to the pro level as soon as possible in order
to start making money. The benefit of paying college athletes would be that it
could prevent this from happening and allow student athletes to be students as
well.
Compliments of Authority Publishing
This system would without a doubt be possible due to the
fact that the NCAA makes a ridiculous amount of money. During March Madness
alone, the NCAA makes almost one billion dollars. During the final four, they
make $700,000 for a simple 30 second ad. These are simply astounding numbers,
and universities that perform well often get a cut of these large earnings on
top of what the university already makes on their athletic programs.
Compliments of the Odyssey Online
However, if the problem is money then there are still other
options. Players could be compensated by their worth and popularity. For
example, only those athletes who do well and receive endorsements and outside
funding opportunities will receive compensation during their collegiate years.
They would simply collect all the money that they make. If an athlete is able
to receive an endorsement from Nike or Under Armour at the collegiate level
then they are able to collect all of their earnings. This only makes sense due
to the fact that the endorsement entirely comes based on the player’s level of
ability.
Nevertheless, there are still those that would argue that
college athletes should not be paid. However, even from a legal aspect it seems
that the NCAA and colleges around the nation should be required to pay their
athletes. An article in the Chicago Tribune argues that the NCAA limits player
compensation. When looking at this from a business aspect it is a violation of
section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Therefore, by law the NCAA and
universities are required to allow athlete endorsements and are obligated to
share their wealth with their athletes.
Recently, a story regarding this issue came to light. Star
LSU running back, Leonard Fournette, was accused of selling merchandise of his
own, which is currently in violation of NCAA rules. The accusation is that Fournette’s
family established a website in which they attempted to sell autographed
merchandise from the athlete. Fournette has since been placed under
investigation regarding his involvement in this incident. However, people came
to look at it a very different way. Why shouldn’t the running back be able to
sign merchandise with his own signature on it? His performance as a player are
what gives that signature any worth in the first place.
Compliments of CBS Sports
Nevertheless, to this day student athletes are still losing this
battle. Courts have ruled against them a countless amount of times. This has
greatly affected the scope of the student athlete dilemma. Whenever athletes
only have money on their mind they simply cannot receive a full college education.
This cause them to only remain in college for 1 or 2 years at the most. They
want to make it to the pros and make money as soon as possible. Education has seemingly
become irrelevant to them.
Overall, it is obvious that there is a problem with student
athletes not being the best students in collegiate sports. The thought of
paying them may actually fix the problem. However, it could also cause them to become
greedy and as a result want to go on to the professional level even more. So
perhaps money may not be the solution at all. There are various setbacks to
paying athletes as well. However, this is a topic for a different post. Now it
seems that the choice of paying college athletes seems inevitable.
It is true that there are college athletes who come from poor families who could really benefit from the money. Also, I had no idea the NCAA made that much money, although I'm not too surprised due to the popularity of March Madness. I can tell you put a lot of research into this through your various links throughout the post. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI like your point that paying athletes may actually drive them to perform better in their academics. I never thought of this before. Our group covered this topic for our deliberation, and while we discussed the idea that paying athletes would take the "student" away from "student athletes," we never examined this possible outcome.
ReplyDeleteI like how well this post ties in with our deliberation on paying student athletes. We actually came to similar conclusions regarding the effects of giving money to student athletes, so it's good to know that this evidence supports each other.
ReplyDeleteI always found it difficult to be behind giving college athletes money, as I worried it would make them more athlete than student, and they would disregard their education. However, you make very valid points to how the opposite is actually true; making money at a collegiate level would take the pressure off students to go pro in the long term and drop out of school for those purposes. You did a very good job with this post!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that college athletes should be able to sell their own merchandise, but I don't feel comfortable with flat-out compensation. They already get so many benefits that I think it would be unfair to other students if they got paid directly. I do think, however, that they should be given living expenses if they cannot cover that themselves. No one should have to go hungry because they can't afford to buy groceries.
ReplyDelete