Jordan Hofferman

Writing & Communications

Professor Dwyer

December 2012

How to Pay College Athletes

            As my alarm goes off every morning at 7:00, it is met simultaneously with Sportscenter’s trademark “Da-da-da, Da-da-da”. Along with millions of other men across America, I am hooked every time. I don’t end up getting out of bed until about 7:45 or so, but when I do, I am filled with an extensive range of what is current in the sports world today. Around this time of year there is a pretty well distributed mix: I’ll get my share of meaningless December NBA scores, the NHL’s latest statement of how much progress it’s making towards ending its holdout, and if I’m lucky find out about this week’s latest off-field NFL tragedy.  Regardless of the quality of news that day, you will not find me anywhere else between 7:00 and 7:45 each morning. In the next three weeks or so, the lead stories will begin to stray away from the professional ranks and instead focus on college football, more specifically the countless bowl games that are the annual culmination to each college football season. These corporate sponsored “championship” contests bring together business and amateur athletics on a national level. From the Outback Bowl in Tampa, Florida to the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl in Detroit, Michigan, the willingness of corporations to shovel millions of dollars into college football is far from a secret. We won’t have to wait too long after bowl season ends for college athletics to again cast a shadow over its professional counterparts. A certain basketball tournament, held each March and broadcast nationally on CBS is guaranteed to dominate headlines when the time of year rolls around. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

Division I Football and Men’s Division I Basketball are two of the most lucrative sports and entertainment businesses in America today. Schools such as Ohio State, University of Miami, and Southern California generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually through their basketball and football programs. Programs such as these often rake in higher annual revenue than some professional teams of the corresponding sport. In many ways, these collegiate programs are run analogous to their professional contemporaries. Athletes are targeted and scouted from the time they hit puberty. The amount of “0’s” at the end of the head coaches’ multi-million dollar contract is predicated off wins and losses. It is a priority of the university to fit as many butts in its 20,000 seat arenas and 75,000 seat stadiums as possible. When you add together the mandatory diet restrictions, countless hours (as many as 43 per week) of training, practice, and competition, as well as fan/media commitments, there is no hiding that this is an around-the-clock, full time job for the athletes. A full time job that does not pay its employees, a fact that is common knowledge to even the most casual college sports fan. The subject of whether to compensate these highest level athletes is becoming more heavily debated as the space between these athletes and professionals becomes greyer. Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, claims any compensation beyond athletic scholarship would bring on the “death of college athletics” (Nocera). In many ways he is correct. One of the most captivating aspects of college sports is the amateurism of its athletes. People are drawn to collegiate athletics because they find it refreshing to see athletes play for pride rather than a paycheck. Certainly paying these players in the form of a salary would compromise the amateurism of the NCAA.

Division I schools allow 85 full athletic scholarships for football and 13 for men’s basketball. Those who oppose the idea of paying college athletes cite the athletic scholarship as justifiable compensation for the duties they provide for the university. A full athletic scholarship is an extremely substantial tool that provides an opportunity for an education to many who otherwise would not be able to afford college. That scholarship however is renewed on an annual basis and an athlete can have that scholarship revoked as a result of injury or poor performance. As a former Division II scholarship athlete whose scholarship was dropped as a result of injury and subsequent surgery, I’m aware of the hardships that can come from this type of situation, albeit on a much smaller scale. I wasn’t dependent on my scholarship, and losing it, while annoying and disheartening, did not signify the end of my days as a college student. My situation however is not mirrored by all athletes who find themselves in comparable predicaments. Imagine being an elite football player on full scholarship. You are beloved by your student body, faculty and administration for your athletic prowess and are responsible for the massive amounts of national attention, not to mention millions of dollars received by your school. Midway through your sophomore season, you suffer a catastrophic knee injury that results in a sudden end to the rest of your football career, on both a collegiate and prospective professional level. At the end of the season your coach calls you into his office and informs you that your scholarship will not be renewed and instead given to an incoming freshman. Let’s hypothetically say you are from a family who survives below the poverty line and whose sole hope for financial liberation was hinged on your athletic career. You, the most recognizable figure on campus, are suddenly left out to dry with no degree, no money, and no fall back plan. While an extreme example, this is the harsh truth of the lack of certainty ascribed with an athletic scholarship. Athletes are aware of this possibility when they sign their Letter Of Intent their senior year of high school.

The boundaries of amateurism, as per the NCAA are also the topic of hot debate. A variable that the three aforementioned universities at the beginning of this essay share is that they have been marred by recent scandal relating to NCAA amateurism rules. The most common high profile infraction is an athlete’s acceptance of what the NCAA deems an “improper benefit.” An improper benefit can range from an athlete accepting a free car from a professional agent to going out with a coach after the game and being treated to a cheeseburger. Obviously accepting compensation from a source outside the university is against the rules, but can you blame the athlete for taking it? As Michael Wilbon from ESPN points out, “if AJ Green, former wide receiver of the University of Georgia, has the ability to get $2,500 for his jersey, why shouldn’t he be able to do that?” (Wilbon) Aside from his 43 hour/per week nonprofit job, he is expected to maintain a full course load of schoolwork. He certainly doesn’t have the time to hold even the most flexible part time job so why shouldn’t he be able to make a little cash on the side? It’s an almost no brainer to many of these athletes when faced with this decision. Of course Terrelle Pryor, formerly of Ohio State, is going to sign a couple autographs in exchange for a free tattoo. Athletes will continue to break these rules for as long as the NCAA holds them in this vice grip. There is no rule preventing a collegiate musician or actor from making money off their talent, as long as it isn’t under a school sponsored play or show. Emma Watson was enrolled as a student at Brown as she was starring as Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter film series. She certainly wasn’t working pro-bono. Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook from his Harvard dorm room and presumably under Harvard’s internet connection but you don’t see Harvard after Zuckerberg as a result of this. Football players are not able to enter the NFL draft until after their junior year and basketball players must be a year out of high school to be drafted into the NBA. The very best are losing potentially millions of dollars with no real alternative choice. Job opportunities are available upon high school graduation for people from all walks of life who are talented in many capacities. Why should athletes be at a disadvantage?

 

Another variable in this argument is the companies outside the university that profit off these athletes on both a team and individual format. Video game companies such as EA Sports profit on using the likeness of collegiate athletes in their video games. Sure, the NCAA may be cut a fat check but the athletes don’t see a dime. This raises an argument on both a moral and legal level of whether it should be okay for athletes to not get paid when companies are making millions off their ability.  Individual universities profit from merchandise sales but again, the athlete see’s nothing. Former University of Oklahoma Quarterback and 2003 Heisman Trophy winner Jason White was one of the most recognizable and popular players in the nation during his tenure with the Sooners. Unfortunately for him, his skills did not translate to the NFL level and went undrafted and never played a down of professional football. Was it fair to White, a man whose highest moneymaking potential was probably during his days in college, to not be compensated in any way for the countless #18 jerseys sold during his time in college? The overwhelming majority of college athletes, even at the highest levels, will be going pro in something other than sports. Why shouldn’t they be able to have access to a portion of the money that companies make off their talent?

 

A glaring obstacle that would have to be addressed before any type of compromise is made is the issue of Title IX. Title IX states that equal opportunities must be available for male and female athletes at the same school (Grier). From the amount of scholarships allotted to the duration of time the teams can practice, everything must be equal. If a male basketball player were to receive any type of compensation, the same compensation would have to be made available to a female basketball player. Women’s sports such as volleyball and field hockey are supplied with scholarships to equal football. Whatever benefit is made available to football players would have to made equal to its female counterpart. A couple exceptions notwithstanding, women’s sports are not nearly as profitable as men’s. And those are the ones that are profitable at all. This would pose a difficult complication for both the NCAA and the universities.

 

Another issue would be what to do with all the other, generally less profitable sports such as baseball, lacrosse and tennis. Is it fair to discriminate off the sport the athlete plays? Is there justification for the top collegiate baseball player in the country to see nothing while the backup point guard at Duke gets paid? Then there’s the concern of Division II and Division III athletes. They are expected by their schools to make many of the same sacrifices as their Division I peers and are under the same amateurism rules. Is it fair to not compensate athletes at these levels regardless of what type of revenue their programs generate?

 

When taking some of these factors into account, it is highly unlikely we will ever see a pay-for-play system in the NCAA. This would drive a stake right through the heart of the concept of amateurism the NCAA prides itself off. It would undoubtedly turn away a significant percentage of fans. Any kind of agreement would have to in some way preserve the amateurism of athletes. Ramogi Huma of The Atlantic suggests a “lockbox” where some sort of compensation would be available to athletes upon graduation (Huma). This is an idea that I think has some legs, but I want to take it a couple steps further. I would propose a “lockbox” idea where the athlete and the university would have to come to agreement on a flat sum before the athlete sets foot on campus as a freshman (or in the cases of transfers whenever they enroll). The purpose of this sum would be to cover ALL circumstances where an athlete would have the opportunity to make money while in college. There would be a maximum sum as well as a minimum and all schools would be required to provide each player on the roster (scholarship or walk on) with at least the minimum. The same scholarship rules in this scenario would apply. Each school would have a limit set on what they can spend for the total lockbox and that limit will hinge on the revenue generated by that specific sport for that specific school. That limit will be allowed to fluctuate parallel with revenue. Instead of making the money available upon graduation, I would push it back to when the individual turns 40. This would give that person the opportunity to start their own family and have an established professional life. The obvious difference in maturity between your normal 22 year old and normal 40 year old would point to the money being used in a much more responsible manner. There are a couple clauses I would add to the lockbox agreement. First, because one of the goals of the lockbox would be to deter athletes from accepting “underground” benefits, the same NCAA improper benefit laws would be kept. Any player proven to have broken one of these rules will risk having their lockbox agreement terminated. This will give the players the unprecedented risk of losing more than just games. Athletes will most certainly think twice about breaking these rules if there’s a significant amount of their money in jeopardy. Next, the lockbox money becomes void if a player signs a professional contract in the same sport and earns up to or greater than the amount agreed upon in the lockbox contract over the duration of their professional career. A player who is cut because of injury or performance would receive the value of their lockbox, prorated to the year they stopped playing. The school would not be penalized and the rest of the money owed to that player would not be reflected in those schools “lockbox cap”. The lockbox would only be available to Division I Football and Division I Men’s Basketball. College is the gateway for much of today’s youth to the real world. As Wilbon put’s it, “it will be a good lesson in supply and demand” (Wilbon). In the professional world, those who generate the most business usually make the most money. If college is a stepping stone and preparation course to the real world, why shouldn’t the same rules apply? If anything, it may inspire young athletes beyond what they once were.

 

One potential flaw with the “enhanced lockbox” idea is the health issues that plague college football players in not just DI, but all levels both during and after their playing careers. As we become more aware about the extent that some of these injuries go to, the more evident it is that the NCAA needs to provide its football players with some sort of safety blanket. Joe Nocera of the New York Times has suggested the idea of lifetime health insurance for football players (Nocera). If this became an option, it would have to be for all levels of college football, as all players are at equal risk. I would suggest the money for this come from the NCAA. The money they make off video game and television contracts could go directly into a lifetime health insurance plan for players who play at least three years, unless that player suffered a career shortening injury. The insurance would cover that player ONLY (no family benefits) and would be available as soon as they graduate. Certainly, a chunk of the $11.3 billion that the NCAA is getting in television contracts alone would make a dent.

 

This may just end up being a glorified pipedream, as the NCAA will refuse to budge from where they stand until they are forced to. In order for anything to be set in motion, someone, most likely an athlete or group of athletes, would have to put their athletic career(s) on the line. They would have to challenge the very organization that they are a part of and in doing so could very well spell the end of their athletic career. The only thing for certain right now is that the NCAA is still the owner of what you have to call one of the most one sided business models active today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Frommer, Frederic. “Should College Athletes Be Paid? As Much as $1M Says New Report.” Should-college-athletes-be-paid?-As-much-as. N.p., 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.

 

Grier, Alvin. “Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons of Each Perspective Part 1.” Get2TheLeaguecom RSS. N.p., 27 May 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.

 

Huma, Ramogi. “How to Pay College Athletes: A Three-Part Plan.” The Atlantic. N.p., 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.

 

Nocera, Joe. “Here’s How TO Pay Up Now.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.

 

Simzak, Michael. “Bowling for Dollars: Should College Athletes Be Paid?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 Dec. 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.

 

Wilbon, Michael. “College Athletes Deserve to Be paid.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 18 July 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.