Since class on Saturday and the mention of paying athletes, I have been going back and forth in my head on whether or not this is a topic worth investigating. After all, student athletes get scholarships and register for classes earlier than other students. Why would one think we should pay them?
Then while at home with the television on Rocky Mountain PBS, had a story on that mentioned the word slavery and college athletes and it got my attention. The interview was with Taylor Branch author of "The Atlantic". Branch was commenting on how the world of the student athlete had a familiar view of what plantations were in our country. Now this may seem like a stretch for some but if you consider that the university and the administration make millions of dollars off the games (work) of these students then turn and say to the athletes you get nothing, I think you would agree with Branch's reference of a plantation.
I am for paying our college athletes.
With that I know questions arise of how and who should be paid. However, what I am getting at is that we need to first recognize and own that our college athletes are more than students. These athletes work 40 to 50 hours a week so that we can watch a game on Saturday on CBS or ESPN. What gives me this frame is that we provide them a place to work, equipment to do their job, training to ensure they perform well on the job, and evaluations that decide whether or not they can stay employed (or on the team). Additionally, they have to sign a waiver that confirms them as amateur athletes and authorizes the NCAA or any other party to use their names and likeness to promote (make money) the NCAA championships or other events so deemed by the NCAA. Why is a waiver needed to confirm they are amateur if the title student athlete already confirms that?
Now how can we ethically make students sign this waiver and they say they get nothing from the revenue generated using their face, talent, and fan following. How do we justify universities making millions off these student athletes? If they are amateur why is anyone making money?
Just recently, John Calipari, coach for the University of Kentucky basketball team, signed a contract for 3.8 million dollars a year . Other coaches make a range from 1 million to 7.5 million . The NCAA, a nonprofit, makes over 700million dollars a year alone on the NCAA March Madness tournament, says Mark Emmert president of the NCAA. Additionally, coaches receive bonuses when their teams make or win tournaments. When Arizona won the Pac - 10 their coach Sean Miller got a $50,000 bonus.
How is it that these administrators/universities (owners) make millions and the student athlete (worker) is denied completely. Did the coach get the team there or did the athletes? I would say the athletes.
NCAA president Mark Emmert says there is no need to pay student athletes since they now have access to world-class trainers and education. Do they really? Let us look at some data. According to Frontline, teams in the 2011 NCAA basketball tournament are graduating less that 50 percent of the their players and most of those teams/administrators/universities receive no penalties from the NCAA. Yet, they still get paid millions and the athlete gets...?
Athletes are not graduating at the rate they should be and others are leaving college simply injured. Take Joseph Agnew, an A student and a talented football player, her went on to Rice University on scholarship and the after several injuries was cut from the team. He was unable to be an athlete due to a series of injuries from playing and then denied an education by being cut from the team and losing his scholarship.
They are not employees so they are unable to receive compensation for on the job (field) injuries and have no contracts that guarantee their position on the team or at the university. When I looked into the idea of student athletes to see how it affected athletes I realized that the term "student athlete" was crafted by Walter Byers to fight workman's compensation claims and avoid paying athletes. This came into play early in the NCAA. In 1950, the widow of football player Ray Dennison requested workman's compensation after he died from a head injury while paying football. His widow was denied the benefits because of his classification as a student athlete. The term Byers came up with. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with Fort Lewis A&M Aggies that the school was not in the football business so Dennison was not working. Not in the football business, really?
This raises a few questions. As mentioned earlier, when a school is making thousand or even millions off of a student athlete or a Nike contract for shoes how can they say that they are not in the football business or in the business of college athletics at all?
What benefits/protections are student athletes getting from risking their future livelihoods?
How can we continue to use the shield of student athlete to deny athletes the rights to benefit from their talents, likeness, and rebroadcasting of their all time best plays on ESPN years after they leave college?
Does the signed waiver count after they graduate?
I encourage the reading of the The Atlantic as a starting point and then you can decide.
I did not realize there was a word count limit for comments. Since I already typed this lengthy comment I'm just going to split it up into sepearte posts.
ReplyDeleteThe reference of slavery in comparison to mainstream athletics is laughable at best and has value as an attention grabber and not much more. This phrase has been used unnecessarily in discussion concerning collegiate athletics and professional sports. Adrian Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings has used this phrase to describe the NFL. He just signed a 7-year deal that averages out to slightly over $14 million a year. If that is what some would consider as slavery in 2011 sign me up. I would even give you more than 7 years and agree to less money. Perhaps we should just pull that nation’s youth out of tee-ball and pee-wee football now so they have a fair chance to live a free life.
Back to the collegiate stage, the author touches on a very good question when pondering who to pay, but does not really do much to answer this question. Let us not forget that for every NCAA football or basketball player you choose to give a paycheck to for their ESPN performances, there are thousands of other athletes on any given campus in sports ranging from badminton and crew to lacrosse and golf. Should we pay the “Big Men” on campus and expect all of the other athletes to sit idly by?
Now, on to why we would pay student athletes. One of the biggest arguments for paying student athletes is the assumption that if athletes are paid it would eliminate the acceptance of illegal benefits. While this topic is not even broached here, I must respond with this. Really? How much could we truly pay these thousands of athletes in the first place? Say an athlete was offered two, three, or even five hundred dollars a month. Is that going to stop them from accepting a brand new Lexus? When a booster pads a handshake with cash are we expecting the athlete to say, “No thank you. I already received my $150 from the NCAA this month.” If athletes are greedy enough to want money on top of free tuition, room and board, student fees, meal plans, national television exposure, and access to free personal marketing on their behalf, how would they then be humble enough to turn down a free 3000 square-feet house for their family to live in while they attend USC? Now it is proposed that we take money back from the NCAA or coaches and provide the athletes with even greater benefits.
ReplyDeleteCoaches make the money that they do because the market demands it. Whether that is right or wrongs is a debate entirely of its own. But, we should not take the money out of the coaches’ hands and give it to the players. Athletes receive several benefits that were already mentioned by the author. In some cases they receive a free ride to schools that anyone else has to pay in excess of $20,000 a year just to have the privilege to set foot on campus as a student. Where does the greed end and why do they deserve more than that?
As pointed out by the author athletes may get injured. Suddenly the inherent risks involved with the sport, which the athlete has been aware of their entire lives, is being used as leverage. They should consider themselves lucky for the opportunity to make it as far as they did in a sport that could have been ended by injury for them a decade earlier. Athletic scholarships are guaranteed for the year, so it is not like they break a leg in the game Saturday and are sent home on a bus Sunday. If the athlete can no longer perform at the level that earned him/her the scholarship, then why should the NCAA continue to provide them with that scholarship? How is this any different than a student earning an honor scholarship no longer performing up standards and maintaining a minimum GPA requirement?
It is true that graduation rates are abysmal in big time Division I NCAA men’s basketball and football programs. Somewhere there has to be personal accountability. These athletes need to recognize the opportunity that they have been presented with. If athletics does not work out, they have still been provided entry to the best education system in the world. While drastic improvements could be made in university services for ex-athletes, paying them is not the answer. When all other sports are factored in graduation rates climb substantially. College is a time for young adults to be students and enjoy their experiences at college. This may be athletics or it may not. Even students that are not athletes commit 40 or 50 hours a week to clubs and organizations. Should we pay them for their time commitments as well? They may make the best homecoming float anyone has ever seen, and parts of the parade may be aired during College Game Day on ESPN. The overall point is, is that student-athletes are just what the name implies, and they are students first. Student-athletes do not get suspended from classes for performing poorly on game day. They get suspended from games and practice for performing poorly in the classroom. Borrowing from the NCAA marketing campaign we must remember that there are millions of student athletes and almost all of them are going pro in something other than sports.