“You know what that means, don’t you fellas?” said Steve Spurrier, the South Carolina football coach, talking to his players about the SEC Network’s new availability in over 90 million homes. “A lot more money, and none of it for you guys.”
Spurrier is not alone in his support for paying college athletes–he is just one of the many “activists” ready to jump on the newest bandwagon: the idea that college athletes are exploited workers forced to endure a few years of indentured servitude at the hands of a soul-less, ever profiting master called the NCAA.
Not only does this bandwagon have widespread social support, it is gaining serious legal traction as well. Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball star, recently triumphed in a court case against the NCAA, when Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that college athletes, upon graduation, should be compensated for the use of their likenesses. This ruling led to widespread excitement from everyone from Sonny Vaccaro, an ex-executive at Nike, Reebok, and Adidas and now self-proclaimed “do gooder,” to top ESPN reporters. ESPN called it the “Tip of the Iceberg” in finally bringing justice to the NCAA “cartel.” And already a new court case has come to light, Jenkins vs. NCAA, which seeks permission for colleges to bid freely for the athletes. “The way I see it,” says Vaccaro, “O’Bannon softens ‘em up, and then Jenkins comes in for the kill.”
Skip Bayless, a prominent ESPN sportswriter, called for Jenkins-esque reform via the “unleashing of boosters,” wealthy alumni who will pay astronomical salaries for top athletes. “Boosters should be allowed to entice recruits with whatever they want to offer — cars, signing bonuses, annual salaries, annuities,” he said. “Strictly supply and demand.”
At first glance, it appears that Bayless and other “activists” are correct to say that paying athletes is only fair, a legitimate attempt to pay someone their “market value.” The NCAA football is a multi-billion dollar industry, predicated on the jersey sales, high ticket prices, and TV deals of top athletes whose likenesses populate video games and continue to dominate television. They are written about in national magazines, talked about on national television, popularized on national media, all without receiving a penny of the profits. Paying players seems like the fair thing to do in a free market economy, they say. It is the “American way.”
Shabazz Napier, one of the nation’s best college basketball players last year, made headlines by saying that he often went to bed hungry. The public outrage was incredible. Why was one of the country’s most famous athletes, one who is bringing in millions of dollars for the university, without enough food? Outrage at the NCAA “cartel” was at a record high.
Perhaps this NCAA “cartel” preventing players’ remuneration is not as evil as it seems, however. Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, insists that the NCAA has core values of “amateurism and education,” and that “participants in collegiate athletics are full time students.” And one can imagine the dangers of essentially hiring athletes to play for college teams. For one, the players would be expected to be almost full time athletes, and thus even less focus would be spent on the players’ education. Many college athletes, even the most highly touted high school recruits who would garner a top dollar salary, never make it into the pros. A few years of college payment for these athletes would not make up for the loss of education. And to address some of the concerns, the NCAA has approved new stipends that would help players keep players like Napier from going hungry.
Another detriment would be the effect on schools’ non-profit teams. Already schools have been cutting scholarships in sports like swimming and soccer to make way for new scholarships for basketball and football players. Paying players would only exacerbate this problem, as colleges would take more money away from less lucrative sports to lure top basketball and football recruits.
And, as it turns out, the university “cartels” are not raking in as much money as it would seem. Of the 128 Division 1 athletic programs, only 22 made profits last year. And think of the money that they’re spending on the athletes by way of granting scholarships. Tuition at Duke, a basketball powerhouse, is $57,000 a year, a “salary” substantially above that of the average American.
One of the most prevailing arguments for paying college athletes is the bevy of economic opportunities for other students to capitalize on their talents. Emma Watson made millions of dollars starring in Harry Potter, part of which she did while getting her degree at Brown. Dakota Fanning, a “Twilight” actress, is a junior at NYU. Concert pianists are not stopped from making money as concert pianists just because they enrolled in college. Heck, my guitar teacher even made money playing gigs with his band during college. Why, then, one asks, are players prevented from making money doing what they’re good at just because they’re in college?
No one is saying the players have to go to college before the pros, however. Brandon Jennings, a top recruit out of high school, signed a $1.2 million contract to play for an Italian team before bolting to the NBA. Players are free to test their worth on the open market, spending a year or two playing in one of the numerous international professional leagues before going to the pros in America. Dario Saric, a Croatian player recently drafted by the Philadelphia 76ers, made the equivalent of $2.5 million last year playing in Europe, a salary certainly higher than what most college athletes would garner if a university was allowed to pay them. Why do almost all of the American players choose to stay in college, then?
In a rather ironic turn of events, it is because of the “exposure” from which the NCAA is so frequently vilified. Some see the TV deals and popularity of college athletics as another selfish crime perpetrated by the NCAA “Cartel”; however, these people fail to see that the exposure gives the players an invaluable audition on the “big stage.” This exposure allows players to audition for the NBA or NFL draft while also building worldwide recognition and widespread fan base that will help them in endorsements for years to come. Robert Griffin III, a rather underachieving NFL quarterback, signed endorsements with Adidas, Castrol Motor Oil, EA Sports, EvoShield, Gatorade, Nissan, and Subway all before throwing his first NFL pass, a direct result of the widespread fame he received from his successful collegiate career and the NCAA’s exposure.
So despite Spurrier’s good intentions, NCAA athletes receive enough benefits that they should not be paid on top of it. That is, unless Spurrier wants me to come play for South Carolina. I was pretty unstoppable during middle school flag football. And, hey, I’m sure my parents would be psyched about me actually making money during college instead of costing them a fortune. So Steve, I await your call.
Until then, however, it is only right that the college football system stay the way it is.
Thank you for reading. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter – @LastWordOnSport and @LWOSworld – and “liking” our Facebook page.
For the latest in sports injury news, check out our friends at Sports Injury Alert.
Have you tuned into Last Word On Sports Radio? LWOS is pleased to bring you 24/7 sports radio to your PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone. What are you waiting for?
Main Photo
