There has been a long-standing debate over the compensation of collegiate athletes, especially those in Division 1. These athletes generate significant revenue for their schools, leading to calls for reform. The conversation surrounding this issue can be traced back to the 1970s and gained momentum in 1995 when Marcus Camby, a basketball player for the Toronto Raptors, admitted to accepting money and jewelry while playing at the University of Massachusetts. This incident was just one example among many where players received incentives from agents and supporters. Personally, I believe that college athletes deserve some form of compensation.
Student athletes dedicate their entire lives to their sport, regardless of their role on the team. Nevertheless, despite making valuable contributions and generating revenue for their school through ticket sales and merchandise like jerseys, only a minority will have the opportunity to play at a professional level without receiving any financial compensation themselves.
In contrast to players, coaches are able to sign lucrative contracts with popular shoe companies like Nike, Reebok, and Converse. While athletes are required to wear branded shoes and jerseys, coaches have the freedom to choose what they wear. Recently, the NCAA Committee has allowed athletes to have jobs; however, due to their busy schedules consisting of schoolwork and practices, it is challenging for them to find employment.
Many student athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds and lack the financial means for typical college activities such as dining out or going on dates or watching movies.
The concern is that paying college athletes could undermine the tradition and innocence of the game. However, it’s important to note that even though they are considered amateur athletes, Olympians do receive payment. According to USA Today, gold medallists from the United States receive a minimum of $15,000 from the U.S. Olympic Committee and their sport’s national governing body. Additionally, Olympians can benefit from endorsement deals and other bonuses, many of which are illegal in college athletics.
The game’s innocence is already at risk as demonstrated in an issue of The NCAA News dated June 24th, 1996. A study conducted at that time revealed that 75 percent of underclassmen had received cash or gifts from agents, indicating that three out of every four athletes engage in illicit activities with agents.
Furthermore, Time magazine reported by Steve Wulf states that 90 percent of projected first-round draft picks have been in contact with an agent. If college athletes were compensated for their hard work in some way, this corruption would gradually decrease as their financial needs would be reduced.
Recently, the NCAA has granted college athletes the permission to seek employment. However, it raises a valid question – where will athletes find the necessary time to work? Between attending classes, completing school assignments, participating in practices and games (which often involve extensive travel), there seems to be little time left to serve customers at Burger King. Michael Lewis, a freshman guard at Indiana University, acknowledges the potential benefits but wonders about the practicality of finding time to flip burgers amidst his academic and basketball commitments. Realistically speaking, expecting athletes to take on jobs appears quite challenging. It is already a struggle for athletes to carve out time for themselves, let alone for work. With grueling schedules filled with practices and school, they will likely be too fatigued to hold down a job. Moreover, employers may not be keen on hiring individuals who can only commit to limited working hours, as expressed by freshman gymnast Dominic Brindle.
Even though coaches sign lucrative contracts with sports companies, they are not the ones who wear the Nike shoes or jerseys – it is the players. The marquee players sell jerseys with their numbers on them, but do not receive any money from these sales. Likewise, schools enter into large contracts with television stations for millions or even billions of dollars to broadcast games played by these kids. However, these players do not receive a share of this money despite being the ones who put on the show and deserve to be rewarded.
Players sell tickets and people attend games to watch them, not college presidents or coaches in most cases. Yet, while coaches earn millions, hardworking players receive nothing in return. As expressed by Walter Byers, Executive Director of NCAA from 1952 to 1987: “The coaches control the athletes’ feet; the colleges control their bodies; and supervisors reap hefty rewards.” In the 70s and earlier, college athletes were given fifteen dollars a month which was referred to as Laundry Money (Source: Steve Wulf, Time pg. 94).
The income generated by athletes, including players, coaches, athletic directors, and NCAA executives supports many individuals. It would feel unfair and exploitative if your hard work helped others but you didn’t receive any money yourself. Before the Utah-Kentucky West Region Final at San Jose Arena, Van Horn expressed this sentiment. He stated that many people make a living off of athletes like us and they wouldn’t have jobs without us because we generate significant profits for them. However, according to Van Horn, the NCAA doesn’t adequately compensate athletes. While education is valuable, it’s hard to appreciate when we’re surviving on hot dogs every day. The belief that athletes should be paid is growing, but it’s up to the NCAA directors to bring about change. Despite financial challenges in paying athletes in all sports regardless of gender, there is no reason why they shouldn’t benefit from endorsement deals with companies like Nike just as coaches do.
If a coach signs a deal with Nike worth $300,000 dollars, why should it not be distributed among both the athletes and the coach? Coaches already earn six to seven figures annually, so why do they require additional funds? Splitting the amount among the fifteen individuals on the basketball team would provide each athlete with $20,000. Similarly, in football where there are more players, each athlete would still receive $5,000. This is significantly more than their current earnings, considering the multiple contracts signed by schools and coaches. The NCAA should explore various approaches to address this issue.
Bibliography
- Coomes, Mark. The Run for the Money. Courier-Journal (Louisville, Ky.). June 1996: A1+. Sports. Eleanor Goldstein. Vol. 5. Boca Raton: SIRS 1996. Art. 12.
- Johns, Keith. College Athletes Sell Products but Never See the Profits. http://132.235.238.184/archives/072596/atoddkj.html (11/13/98)3) Looney, Douglas S. Cash, Check, or Charge? Sporting News. July 1, 1996: 38+. Sports. Eleanor Goldstein. Vol. 5. Boca Raton: SIRS, 1996. Art. 13.
- Sack, Alan L. Workers Compensation. Notre Dame Magazine. Spring 1993: 27-32. Sports. Eleanor Goldstein. Vol. 4. Boca Raton: SIRS, 1993. Art. 45.
- Shropshire, Kenneth. College Athletes Deserve Pay, Olympians Get Paid. So Do College Coaches, Why Not The Stars? USA Today, Final Edition. 18 Sept. 1996. Sec. A p: 15.
- Clark, Liz. Athletes Say They Deserve to Be Paid. Charlotte Observer. (Charlotte, N.C.). April 3, 1994: pg. 4G. Sports. Eleanor Goldstein. Vol. 4. Boca Raton: SIRS, 1994. Art. 65. 7) NCAA Seeks to Relax Rule Against Athletes Holding School-Year Jobs. USA Today, Final Edition. Aug. 21, 1996, Sec: C, p: 12.
- Wade, Don. Colleges: NCAA Gives Athletes a Chancenot the timeto Make Money. Scripps Howard News Service. Nando.Net. Oct. 21, 1996 Vol. 148. NO. 19.
- Wojnarowski, Adrian. Time Has Come To Pay NCAA Players. http://www.wansports.com/032397ti.html The Fresno Bee. Scripps Howards News Service. (11/14/98)10) Wulf, Steve. Tote That Ball, Lift That Revenue. Time Magazine. Oct. 21, 1996. Vol. 148, Issue 19, p. 94.
