NCAA: Slavery or Free Play?

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