For the 21st century, this has been some of the best times and some of the worst times for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The ratings for televised events and dollars from the media have never been higher than this. Mainly from the popularity of college basketball and college football. There have been a lot of college coaches who have gained a sort of celebrity status if you would say. Some such a Nick Saban from Alabama who brings in $7 million a year or former Ohio State coach Urban Meyer who brought in $4.6 million a year.
Even college basketball coaches such as Duke’s head coach Mike Krzyzewski who makes $9.7 million a year or Kentucky’s John Calipari making just about $7 million (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015). The NCAA is vulnerable with regard to their policies and practices. The money made from spectators coming to watch collegiate athletes should raise an obvious question: How much of this revenue made should the athletes make from the revenue being made by fans who come to watch them? In American society, people who have jobs are required to be paid at least minimum wage from the money made from the business.
Colleges have found a way around this by not referring to the athletes as workers, instead they are titled “student-athletes”. Schools have argued that the student-athletes are “amateurs” and are therefore not entitled to receive compensation (Berri, 2016). The revenue being made from college sports increases and keeps increasing. In 2014, the NCAA revenues were nearly at $1 billion (Berri, 2016). Most of the revenue is generated from the sale of media rights. The rights exist because of the fans wanting to watch college athletes compete. With the NCAA rules being so strict, the athletes are not able to compensate from their performances.
127 our experts are availableright now
When collegiate athletic directors schedule smaller games against some of the smaller universities, the small teams earn a big revenue. Student-athletes are paid by the university with thousands of dollars in scholarships each year and the NCAA claims that’s enough. Whether or not, paying collegiate athletes is a highly argued subject that’s been around since the 1980s and is still talked about today. NCAA coaches refer to student athletes as individuals that takes part in recreational athletics while attending college. Recently, the NCAA play-for-pay scheme chatter was reignited as those in favor of the potential new law are pushing for the scheme to go into effect and be approved by the NCAA as many collegiate athletes struggle financially.
The NCAA is facing a huge dilemma potentially as, if the NCAA were to pay collegiate athletes to be covered medically, and the player suffers a severe injury early in the season. As a result, this once prized recruit dreams of playing in the NFL are crushed unexpectedly. In comparison, a far less talented player at a smaller university who has no athletic future after college, isn’t granted the same luxury as medical insurance, isn’t covered for the player. This individual dream of becoming a lawyer is doomed as the individual is plagued with terrible injuries throughout the season.
Statement of Problem/Issues and Stakeholders
Time brings about a change and has certainly done so with the NCAA. The need to revise and update the bylaws and policies for the 21st century sparked the longstanding debate of pay for play for college athletes. With the NCAA making the decision to allow pay for athletes, it is important to ensure fairness and a level playing field for all student athletes. In an effort to improve support for student athletes and provide the best possible experience for college athletes, the NCAA top governing board voted to permit student athletes the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name and image.
Presently student athletes exchange athletic services for scholarships instead of cash. According to Borghesi, many saw this as unfair to players, often living in a state of poverty, when sports program generated revenue well beyond the cost of scholarships (2017). Data from the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act revealed that from 2003 to 2014 football bowl subdivision universities earned a profit from football related events of over 10 billion dollars.
The NCAA is on defense with their reliance on the characterization of student-athletes as amateurs. They are first and foremost student-athletes so they know their limits on what they can and can not receive. A few recipients of the Heisman trophy were corrupted when the players were found to have received benefits that were past the NCAA’s limits. Some players had their eligibility revoked for violating some NCAA rules. The universities that these athletes had competed at had victories vacated, they had them banned from competing in bowl games and even had coaches fired.
There have been numerous cases over the years dealing with this situation. One of the cases that was covered on the topic was the NCAA v. Jenkins. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken had declared the eleven major conferences of the NCAA were violating antitrust laws. They were capping the value of athletic scholarships. Wilken had ordered the NCAA to revise their grant-in-aid rules so that the two of them could establish their own policies for scholarships and to be able to compete more fully.
Schools are already competing in recruiting in different ways such as paying millions for coaches or constructing or adding on to their stadiums. When Wilken was reaching upon her conclusion, she highlighted the disparity between the revenue for the NCAA generated by D1 basketball and FBS football, and the benefits that collegiate athletes get for playing the sports. Grant-in-aid rules currently prohibit the colleges from offering scholarships worth more than tuition, room and board, fees, and other expenses up to the full value of cost of attendance.
Another former collegiate football player, Ralph “Trey” Johnson, was a former student-athlete for Villanova University before turning pro. He sued the NCAA and almost two dozen universities who are located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or schools who compete against other schools from this area. Johnson had claimed that the NCAA and the other universities were joint employers who misclassified the student-athletes in violation of federal and state wage law. His lawsuit had come in the wake of the NCAA’s recent statement about how they were close to letting student-athletes make money from their images, names and likenesses.
They had a revenue reported in 2018 of more than $1 billion. They directed the three divisions of the association considering bylaw and policy changes to allow the athletes to make money for themselves. Johnson’s lawyer claimed that the announcement made by the NCAA undercuts the argument of them stating that student-athletes are amateurs. He also stated that the NCAA was basically saying that it was okay for the athletes to be paid as long as someone else paid them. Following that he claimed that amateurs did not get paid by third parties.
The NCAA’s chief operating office and chief legal officer, Donald Remy, stated that the complaint was filed by lawyers who have already sued and were not successful on it. He noted that the NCAA remains confident would continue to uphold the precedent set by prior decisions. The NCAA argued that it preserves the tradition of amateurism and would not allow athletes to compete in NCAA events if they were being paid. They were only allowed to receive compensation for educational purposes and expenses.
One of the more popular cases was when former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon and other former athletes alleged that the members of the NCAA violated antitrust law by unlawfully foreclosing former players from receiving compensation from video games, television broadcasts and rebroadcasts using their names, images, and likenesses (NIL). In 2013, a $40 million settlement was made with the defendant Electronic Arts (EA). EA sports is a video game company with a lot of different titles. They are more known for their creation of the NCAA sports video games.
After a three-week bench trial in 2014, the court had determined that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws and had issued a permanent injunction. Student-athletes are do not receive compensation but are a contributing factor to the success of the NCAA commercializing men’s basketball and college football. The decision from this case introduced a new level of complex factors. It supports student athlete NIL compensation but seems to reject the success of the NCAA amateurism defense.
There have also been issues regarding athletes accepting money for autographs. University of Georgia running back Todd Gurley was suspended indefinitely for violation of NCAA rules. A memorabilia dealer emailed multiple media outlets to try and get Gurley’s story of taking money for his signatures out. He had claimed that Gurley had received $400 from a piece of memorabilia that he signed.
Another autograph scandal was with former Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel. It was reported that he accepted thousands of dollars for signing autographs. An autograph dealer had said that he paid Manziel $7,500 and that Manziel had told him that he was going to use the money for new rims. There was not any proof of money being exchanged physically.
Discussion/Recommendations
The NCAA must be careful with how they proceed in the future with the pay-for-play case in the future or collegiate athletes could be getting paid big-time money for playing sports. Collegiate athletic should not only be about the love of the game, it should also be about finalizing the details of collegiate athlete’s future if the professional career doesn’t pan out. Collegiate sports should always be about earning a degree and advancing your career instead of money. Most collegiate athletes in today’s sport are focused on big time professional contracts and earning the most money instead of advancing their career.
The people within the NCAA and the people who are against players being paid argue the most about the revenue being made by men’s football and men’s basketball programs are used to support respective schools’ programs. Those include golf, tennis, bowling that do not produce as much revenue and that legal challenges would surface from those athletes of those sports seeking equal pay (Harris 2017). CBS, TNT, TBS, & TRU TV, broadcast games annually every March and earn billions of dollars every year. For sponsorship, publishing as well as all marketing rights when collegiate basketball games our broadcast on each network during March Madness.
Guarantee games are always a win-win situation for both huge institutions like Kentucky, playing against a smaller university, such as Eastern Kentucky University, in which, the latter, earns a big payout for playing against the larger University. Thirty of the largest colleges in the country each generate annual revenues surpassing $100 million from sports, but according to the NCAA, most of that revenues is spent covering operating expenses for the university’s athletic programs and paying tuition for their student-athletes (McDavis 2019).
