BY: DANIELLE LYN
For years, people have been debating whether or not the NCAA
should pay their members. Some may argue that the NCAA is not fair on the
behalf of athletes, and some may rebut with “they knew what they were getting
themselves into”, a few may even go as far as calling it modern day slavery.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA as most of us know it,
has been conceived as one of the necessary evils in the field of college
athletics. After researching the motives of the NCAA, however, I’ve come to ask
myself, is it in fact necessary?
Today, the majority of society will agree that slavery was
wrong and inhumane. Why?—Because forcing human beings to undergo free physical
labor in a senseless manner for someone else’s benefit with an inadequate
amount of nutrients and time for rest and recuperation can not be justified in
any way as fair, or necessary.
A slave is, by
definition: A person who is the property of, and wholly subject to another.
Now, answer this, is an athlete during his or her years in
college not living under, or “wholly subject to” the NCAA?
By definition alone, athletes involved in this Association
can very well be considered ‘slaves’. However not under the same inhumane force
human convention suggests to us when talking about slavery. Forget every
connotation of the word slavery you’ve learned in history class and focus on
what the word itself denotes—being completely controlled.
According to the NCAA website, NCAA.org, from 2011-12
revenue totaled $871.6million dollars. Where did all this money come from? The
website doesn’t hesitate to announce the majority of last year’s revenue, 81%
in fact, is a direct product of the rights agreement that came from CBS.
Unfortunately, however, I failed to find the revenue amount generated from D1
universities. I decided to do a little digging, and from numerous sources
including USA Today found that the NCAA is reluctant on a yearly basis to
release this information to the public.
Since we cannot find how much money D1 universities make
this not-for-profit association, let’s think about the factors that contribute
to all of the possible monies they make, (please keep in mind, I’m not a
business enthusiast. So lets keep it basic):
Game ticket sales, which we know can range from $20
nosebleeds to hundreds of dollars for court/field side seats and suites during
the regular season and much more during the annually sold out BCS Championship
game, and other respectable bowl games in the sport of football, for example.
And then there’s Team Apparel, which always seems to be a pretty penny.
We don’t know for sure what these universities make, but we
do one thing: without the presence of the athletes who make the athletics
possible, there wouldn’t be a slight chance the NCAA would make the same
amount. In fact, the 81% of total revenue they made last year wouldn’t be in
existence, as CBS is paying for broadcasting rights of the athletes competing
in their respective sports.
Why then, are they so against compensating their
moneymakers?
I read the NCAA Division 1 manual in hopes of finding a
justifiable answer to that very question.
Article 2.9, “The Principle of Amateurism” reads as follows:
“Student-athletes
shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should
be motivated primarily by education and the physical, mental and social
benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is
an avocation. . .”
Basically what they are suggesting is that money shouldn’t
be a motive. The athletes should benefit only from educational, physical,
mental, and social aspects of their time under the NCAA, and their drive should
be fueled because the sport they play is their hobby.
This answer didn’t satisfy me in the least, why should these
student-athletes be considered amateurs? I concluded that collegiate athletes
are in fact professionals, as nothing major differentiates them from those in
professional sports except the lack of compensation. They are nationally
recognized, as are professionals. Socially, some are looked at as celebrities,
they are analyzed and discussed on TV and other media outlets, again, as are
professionals. Why should it only be considered a hobby, when it can likely be
proven by survey most athletes take it more serious—why are they considered
different from professionals?
And then it hit me: it’s the NCAA that’s mandating the lack
of compensation, and labeling them as amateurs.
Lets go back to slavery; what made the thought of human
slaves so desirable and accepted? They worked on plantations, and produced
generous income for the plantation owners at no expense. Basically, they
produced money but never acquired compensation for their work, resulting in
greater revenue for the plantation—sound familiar?
Now we’ll take away a few of the inhumane elements of
slavery: Give them time to rest, maybe an offseason,
or a couple days off to recuperate during the season of work (bye week). But
most importantly, don’t force them to participate. Have them believe or witness
that upon completion of the task (a period of time under the NCAA regulations),
there’s a chance for a great life (becoming a professional).
Its brilliant, the NCAA is able to prune athletes from high
school, and attempt to acquire those great at their sport, otherwise known as
the recruiting process. They take the best from the high school level, and
generously pay their tuition cost as a small gamble fee that one day that
athlete may become great and bring them millions.
According to Bylaw 12.01.2 “Clear Line of Demarcation” in
the Division 1 manual, the difference between an amateur and a professional, is
that “the student is considered an integral part of the student body. . .” in
layman terms, they are still in school and under the rule of the NCAA.
Therefore, because they are a part of an educational program
and they should be playing sports because they like to—amateur athletes,
otherwise known as athletes under rule of the NCAA, should not be compensated
for their contribution to making millions for the Association.
“Paying student-athletes is in no way on the table.” Said
NCAA president Mark Emmert.
Don’t misinterpret the motives of my writing, many
collegiate athletes enjoy every second of their time under the NCAA, despite
not seeing much of the money they helped generate. And a small percentage
actually has the chance to move forward and live their dream of becoming a
professional athlete. However, could it not even be considered that this
not-for-profit association shares a small portion of their $871.6million income
with the very people who made it all possible?
I’m not making the statement that the NCAA is modern day,
improved slavery, however their reasoning behind why their athletes shouldn’t
be paid strongly suggests it. I’m simply relaying to anyone willing to read
this article, my interpretation of the facts.
SOURCES:
NCAA Division 1 Manual
NCAA.org
Dictionary.com
Sportslogos.net, article: The NCAA: Should the Herd Share In
The Profits?
USAtodaysports.com, article: USA TODAY Sports’ College
Athletics Finances
