The NCAA cannot enforce their rule that makes it illegal for their student-athletes to paid.
It's that simple.
If a rule cannot be enforced, it needs to be changed or done away with. The NCAA can either step up their penalty for this discretion, or they can change their approach and let athletes get payment from known sources.
Should college athletes get paid?
Yes, these athletes create millions in revenue depending upon their performance. These numbers dwarf the amount of compensation that they get as payment for certain living expenses (meals, books, and school athletic gear) and education (tuition). If they were allowed to organize, their labor would demand a much higher sum than the total of services that they currently receive.
That being said, universities, both public and private, are not exactly in a situation to pay out. While large schools with big football programs are able to rake in millions the weekend of every home game. these same schools are forced to spend a lot of the profit financing the women's golf team.
I don't mean to attack women's athletics. They serve a good purpose and benefit their academic institutions. In place of women's golf one could just as easily substitute men's golf, men's cross cross country, or any of the other sports, male or female, that spends money while not contributing to the pot.
These institutions are responsible for fielding competitive teams in sports that are less popular and contribute less income. Keeping this in mind, let us focus the discussion on the particulars of big time college football.
A college football team has nearly 100 players that suit up during home games. Many of these players will never contribute to the program except as practice players.
Do these players deserve to be paid as much as say the starting defensive lineman who takes away half of the field while he is in the game?
What we are left with is a situation where we can agree that players need to be paid, but we have trouble deciding which ones.
Could we come up with a plan to pay all college athletes a small stipend?
Yes, but would it accomplish the NCAA's goal of stopping the best athletes from being paid unfair advantages by a particular institution?
My answer is that we already have an institution in place that does a good job of deciding proper compensation. This institution also has the ability to pay athletes and to keep the transactions completely separate from the university for which the athletes play.
Agents.
Currently, many athletes get illegal benefits. This usually occurs in high profile sports that are most financially beneficial to many universities such as basketball, baseball, and football. Agents have an interest in these athletes as a contract for representation can be worth millions over an athlete's career.
It makes sense that agents should be able to pay college athletes in order to be their services provider when the time comes for these athletes to negotiate a professional contract.
By keeping college athletes away from current advertising and making the contracts based upon future services, the NCAA can lower the amount of money that changes hands—legitimizing the market that already exists.
Keeping the universities out of the system will lower the amount of corruption that goes on during recruiting. The schools, which value a clean reputation, can maintain that standard. The agents, who always get a bad rep, can do what they do best—bid for services.
Under this system, the most probable negative would be that the universities in question would find a way to bankroll particular agents who would influence players to attend their institution. Ed Martin (Chris Webber) and Rodney Guillory (O.J. Mayo) were able to influence top players in this way.
The answer to this would be a complex one. Yet, one that is available as players would have the ability to be compensated for their extraordinary talents. There would be no excuse for extra interference by the institutions. For this reason the door to more extreme punishment (a la SMU) could be opened.
This system would certainly have its uncertainties regarding which NCAA athletes should be compensated. Yet, allowing agents to determine the price and availability of dollars paid to top NCAA athletes would answer many of these questions.
comments (2) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
I'm sorry, but nothing dwarfs the value of an education. I don't think it's as big a problem in football as it is in basketball. Since the NBA requires at least one year of college now, most players are just putting forth effort during the required season and then skipping classes and doing whatever else they want the remainder of the year.
2 months ago
Chase, this may be patronizing, but you are wrong. A million dollars up front dwarfs an education. Sorry to say it, but its true. While undoubtedly those with college educations will out earn those without, how can you ask people to turn down that shot at the dream when it is presented to them? How much more so when you are dealing with those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale?
Idealism makes a weak argument.
In fact, my argument complements the issues you describe. If athletes were able to receive payments for their efforts while they were in college they may be more apt to stay.
write a new comment