NCAA Pay-for-Play Dispute
The Supreme Court accepting to hear the case on college athletes’ pay-for-play legislation has been exciting news for me. I wrote my senior thesis on the NCAA’s concept of amateurism and potential pay-for-play models. My thesis covered cases overtime that pushed the boundaries of ‘amateurism,’ how the NCAA grew into practically a monopoly, and a proposed model for how I think the pay-for-play model should look (I will have to address this in its own article).
The concept of amateur versus professional athletes has been controversial since the inception of scholarships specifically for athletes. And this line became blurred when the NCAA started pushing for increased competition — through championship play and lucrative television deals. To fuel competitive spirits, there grew a need for college coached to begin recruiting the best players to attend their schools. This evolved into the creation of athletic scholarships, which are entirely separate from academic scholarships and aid.
By creating this separate pool of funds specific to athletes, the NCAA was, in a sense, authorizing colleges to ‘pay’ athletes for playing at a particular school. Over time, athletes became valued in terms of the percentage of tuition covered in the scholarship offered (i.e., 100% or a “full-ride” scholarship indicates a high level of desire for a highly-touted athlete). Scholarships put a dollar value on recruits, but scholarships are only available to a small percentage of all collegiate athletes.
Implementing “pay-for-play” would give all college athletes equal opportunity to pursue monetization. Obviously, as in an open market economy, popular athletes would have a greater chance of cashing in big. However, the NCAA restrictions currently restrict athletes’ ability to promote their name or monetize from athletic expertise, even if unassociated with the university. Big-name athletes may profit off their name from sports, but this would give everyone a chance to try.
What is most important about the Congressional steps being taken is the inclusion of an athletes’ bill of rights. The NCAA has slowly pulled back on its original legislation in order to allow colleges to make money off their athletes. Television deals and brand partnerships elevate individual teams’ status, bringing the college’s status as a whole up with them. Each year, billions of dollars are raked in by athletic departments. Outside of the gear needed to play and the rare scholarships to attend, the athlete gets nothing. A school could put up a 50 foot banner of their star quarterback, but he gets no protections or compensation for the use of his name, image, and likeness. While what some athletes receive may seem like ample compensation, these lucrative opportunities are few and far between and pale compared to the professional market.
Ultimately, the argument could be made to return to pure amateurism again. This would eliminate all ‘unfairness’ from athletic scholarships and endorsement deals. However, the NCAA has gone far beyond blurring the line between amateur and professional sports, creating their own ‘semi-amateur’ in the college athlete. It’s time for college athletes to be respected as independent adults and to protect them from exploitation while serving as representatives of the universities they attend.
Drop your thoughts below!
