Paying College Athletes By Nick Stratos

Nick Stratos

Composition

May 9, 2017

Project 1

Should We Pay College Athletes?

 

Introduction:

 

            In a world dominated by media and the internet, the world of sports has been forever changed, and with the NCAA grossing the massive sum of 989 Billion Dollars (USA Today), it begs the question: Are the athletes being paid?  Amateurism in the NCAA clearly states that the athletes are: “Students first, and athletes second…” But it brings to mind, if the student athletes were paid, would it enhance their performance, or hinder their studies? Or in the few cases in which this may already be happening, should the NCAA allow it to continue? In a society where a near infinite amount of information is available with the push of a button, it is most definitely a worthwhile question to ask. In the case of some prospective students, scholarships and "athletic bonuses" might be the only way they might attend a university, or other higher education avenue, why would it not be a good idea?

History:
            The first intercollegiate football game was played on November 6, 1869 between Rutgers and Princeton University, respectively (ScarletKnights.com).  Ever since, College Football and the NCAA has drawn away a fair amount of attention from the NFL. The most common reason for this change, according to some people, is because when one is not focused on how much money they are making, they are playing solely for the love of the game. Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny that colleges are most definitely giving out scholarships for student athletes -over 92,000 in 2015- (scholarshipstats.com).  But there is most definitely a difference between a discounted or free education, and being paid as well. The first concerns about being paid to play erupted in the mid 1900's when it was uncovered that seven students -who were paid- that played for Midwestern school's football team were not even enrolled in the school, and even worse, all of the seven collegiate school players had day jobs in the neighboring towns, consisting of everything from a blacksmith to a few railroad workers, even a lawyer (thesportjournal.org)! Regardless of the underlying complications of paying athletes, considering how hard it is to make it as a successful college level athlete, the argument that people would only play for money, more or less crumbles under the most basic of scrutiny.

Examples:

            Recent examples of the dilemma are hard to come by, mainly due to the fact that paying collegiate athletes to play is illegal. For fear that it would hinder their education because their minds would be so focused on sports and getting paid, which is not at all a facile argument. Nonetheless, some colleges are beginning to find loopholes in the NCAA's strict amateurism clause by way of "stipends" which are said to: "close the gap between scholarship money and what it actually costs to attend school (CNN Money), which is understandable, because since most athletic scholarships cover only the most basic of expenses -referencing tuition, room and board etc.- it makes sense that a student athlete may need some money on hand to pay for snacks, laundry expenses and other things of that nature. Along those same lines, paying the athletes would not only help them, but it would help their community. Because just like in the professional world, sometimes getting to college itself is an uphill battle, and after that is accomplished, it would most definitely help the families of some of these underprivileged athletes to send money home and support their families. And on a bigger scale than that, being the face of a college, or even a state, being the star athlete on a team, it is quite possible to lift an entire community of people out of poverty, given that one is extremely popular, and the face of a city or even state.

            The final issue, like in the professional sports world, players in a certain venue are paid based on how many eyes they catch, and how many people watch them play. For example; men make more money in sports than women do. Is it due to the "patriarchy" or the "wage gap", no, one's salary is based on how many sets of eyes they bring to the table -obviously excluding sponsorships-. Furthermore, the issue arises due to "Title IX" that one cannot "discriminate" pay on the issue of gender. So paying the Quarterback of the football team, and not paying the Captain of the women's soccer team would lead to a large amount of angry feminists at the accounting department. Which is just another reason for the money hungry NCAA officials to not pay their players, which some would say is criminal.

Solutions:

            A problem well stated, is a problem half-solved. Therefore, since the public knows about this epidemic, -regardless of where the majority stand- we know that there must be some solution in the work for this issue, from the athlete's standpoint. First off, the most obvious solution would be to simply pay the athletes that are making the companies, colleges, and so on, all of the money. If it is difficult as a coach, or a sponsor, to pay a salary to the player that is generating the wealth, most would agree that said coach does not belong in such a place to begin with. Some would argue that if athletes were paid, people would play sports for the sole purpose of making money. To those people, it is worth mentioning, how difficult it is to play college sports, at a high level. For the sake of the example, let us use Division I as most would agree that is the most popular, and well understood area of competition. On the NCAA official website, it lists a template for what to do if one wishes to play Division I sports. Starting in 9th grade in High School, it states that one "...should talk to a counselor and plan to take NCAA core class requirements",  in 10th grade, it states to register with the NCAA eligibility center, in the 11th grade, it says to do the following: Check to see if you would graduate on time with all of the require courses, take the SAT and/or ACT and submit the information to the NCAA, and lastly your counselor must upload your transcript to the NCAA eligibility center ("Football Scholarships"). and the last year of high school, the 12th grade, one must finish all core courses as requested by the NCAA, and submit all required questions to the NCAA ("Football Scholarships"). So it is made abundantly clear that, even before graduating high school, one must go through quite the process, to even break the tip of the iceberg, before school, in regards to playing Division I sports.

            Another possible solution to this epidemic, that does not directly correlate with paying players a salary, would be the NCAA putting money from merchandise sales related to the player and popularity into a trust for him to access after the student graduates from their university, as recommended by Ramogi Huma, who is a players' union organizer (Jons Solomon). This would be a good fix to the argument of those who would say: "they would just be playing for money." It would put the money in a safe place, so that it could be monitored by the student athlete and their families, and they would only be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor after they had finished their time studying. Which, by proxy would not be in conflict with the NCAA's amateurism clause; since the athletes would not be paid until after their collegiate studies would be completed. Furthermore, the idea of being able to watch your work pay off in real time- for some- is more rewarding. In some sense, it is tough to grasp that these coaches and industries are making an incredible amount of money, while the athletes are getting nothing in comparison to the money being made, for example  "the most recent TV contract for rights to show the NCAA March Madness Basketball Tournament was for $10.8 billion over 14 years." (rampages.us)To put this unfairness aspect into perspective: Texas A&M's athletic department -in 2012- made a whopping $120 million dollars, and most people, being sport fans or not would mentally link Johnny Manziel with Texas A&M, and their winning the Cotton Bowl, so without a doubt, Manziel was the face of the school. With A&M not being a cheap school at $27,452 a year (tamu.edu), it sounds like an excellent deal to play football, and go to school for free, but if one were to zoom out on the big picture, it would tell a completely different story. For example Manziel played two years of college football-2012 and 2013 season- and they were paying for his entire education, which total $109,808, and they [A&M Athletic Department] made $120 Million in 2012 alone, by no means does it take an expert in mathematics to deduce that, in essence he is getting the short end of the stick.  His all-in education cost is .092% of the overall earnings of the athletic department in 2012 alone, which to some is repulsive. Seeing both sides of the argument, most people are not Johnny Manziel, but it raises the ethical question of right and wrong when it comes to paying athletes, because in some ways it resembles slave labor, due to the fact that the master is doing none of the work, and receiving all of the reward, sparing only enough to "keep the workhorse alive" so to speak. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it brings to mind an interesting quote from the hit film: "The Dark Knight Rises." ”There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us." (IMDB)

Absurdity:

            One final interesting point that has to do with this topic, is that it has some correlation with Camus, and absurdity itself. On the surface, -as is the case in some of Camus' works- is that it seems to make some sense, but through the most basic of scrutiny, it is obvious that the idea is absurd. In both cases, the true absurdity of the topic is concealed by words and empty phrases, and at the end of the day, the majority of the information present, is only a filler for the lack of actual content.

Conclusion:

            I believe it is important for others to analyze these problems and recognize this issue as an epidemic. If it is possible for the general public to understand what is going on involving the lack of compensation of college athletes, it is very possible that we as a society may be able to develop some novel ideas to change it. Throughout my research, I have realized what a difference could be made if the NCAA were to pay their money-makers a salary, seeing as they could make a difference in their communities after finishing school in coming home. I believe that in the future, some measures will be taken to correct this problem, but the first step to solving a problem is to understand that one does exist.

 

           

 

 

Works Cited

 

ESPN, ESPN.com News Services via. "Michigan's Jim Harbaugh Leads College Football Coaches in Salary." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2017.

"FRESHMAN." Texas A&M University - Freshman Cost. N.p, n.d. Web. 05 Mar 2017.

Jon Solomon @JonSolomonCBS. "NCAA Critics Offer Ways to Pay College Players." CBSSports.com. N.p, 02 June 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.

"Selina Kyle (Character)." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

Time. "College Athletes Finally Getting Some Cash." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 05 May 2017.

Karaim, Reed. "Paying College Athletes." Paying College Athletes (n.d.): n. pag. CQ Researcher. N.p, 11 July 2014. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

"The First Game." Rutgers University Athletics. N.p, n.d. Web. 11 May 2017.

Author Unknown. "College Football & Scholarship Opportunities." Football Scholarships & Chances of Playing College Football. N.p, n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.

Author Unknown. "How Much Money Has Texas A&M Made off Johnny Manziel?" The Week. N.p, 06 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Mar. 2017.

Berkowitz, Steve "NCAA Nearly Topped $1 Billion in Revenue in 2014." USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, 11 Mar. 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.