“To Pay or Not to Pay Student-Athletes.” This topic has never been more discussed, especially with the NLRB’s recent ruling that Northwestern University’s athletes are actually employees of the university and may form a labor union.1 As the university appeals, education administrators and fans will continue their decades-long debate.
There have been two standard arguments, one for and another against paying college athletes:
1) “These student-athletes bring in so much money to the universities, that’s it’s not fair that all they get is a measly scholarship. It’s servitude!”
2) “College is not a time to develop professional athletes, but a time to become educated, something which will last beyond a player’s career. A free ride is certainly sufficient, especially in the light of the high cost of tuition and room/board which many good students can’t afford or aren’t eligible for scholarships.”
Compounding the dilemma is that professional football and basketball, unlike baseball, essentially use the colleges as their minor league systems. Many of the best athletes attend school for a while simply because the pros have agreed to not draft them directly out of high school or as in the case of Major League Baseball, a student must go pro or spend at least three years in college.2 Their course load is often not strenuous and of the best athletes, only a few ever complete a degree program.
The Term “Amateur” Has Been Rendered Essentially Outmoded
A system where some student athletes would be paid will raise objections from those wishing to salvage classical form of amateur athletics. Over the last few generations, the term “amateur” in sports has been tweaked, stretched and generally left for dead.
According to Wikipedia, the earliest days of organized sport occurred in the 19th century and were essentially reserved for those at the university level. The working class was not able to participate in organized sport because of the six-day work week and church activities on Sunday.
As sports became more popular, accommodations started being made which led to the possibility of many more participating and some were paid for their efforts! Of course, there was early opposition to this as shown by “Proponents of the amateur ideal deplored the influence of money and the effect it has on sports.” (Author’s note: Some may have been concerned about the influence of gambling interests while others were following the mistaken notion that “money is the root of all evil” instead of its misuse as being the problem.) Wikipedia also reminds us of the concern wealthy amateurs had about the working class competing and exceeding them.
The renewal of the Olympics in 1896 wished to preserve the original spirit of the Greek Games. As many of us Baby Boomers recall, the Soviet bloc countries began sending athletes who were really full-time athletes supported by the state through the military or other means. Rules for participation in the Games have been steadily relaxed since the retirement of IOC President Avery Brundage in 1972. With the exception of boxing and wrestling, amateur requirements in the Games have been removed since the 1990s (Wikipedia).
This virtual elimination of an amateur status is not the destruction of a timeless virtue, but a practical realization. The expected level of competition eliminates those who dabble in the sport on weekends or who are so independently wealthy that they can spend their time recreating instead of working for a living full-time.
Pros Should Pay Their Fair Share and Students Should Have the Opportunity to Make a Choice
It’s time for the colleges and universities to stop subsidizing professional sports. Granted, Major League Baseball has had its “farm system” of minor leagues for a long time. However, this is not to say that it doesn’t benefit from the experience some of its players received in college level sports. MLB does and should be involved proportionately in this proposal. Still, it is the NFL and the NBA which benefit the most from colleges and universities. These institutions should be properly compensated which, in turn, can help the student-athlete.
The foundation of this proposal recognizes that:
A) Athletics in today’s colleges and universities represent more expenditures – and income for the schools- than ever before.
B) The major professional sports benefit greatly from the college athletes they draft to make money for their organizations. Currently, their gain is realized without compensation to schools.
C) Colleges and universities exist primarily to educate, not simply as training grounds for those with aspirations of a career in professional sports.
D) Student-athletes should be “on track” to graduation as any other full-time non-athlete student.
How It Would Work
- The NBA, NFL and MLB would contribute annually to the various conferences of Division I, II and III (or whatever names the NCAA calls them) in proportion to the number of athletes they have drafted. Other sports such as hockey could be included eventually. The amount would be an agreed-upon percentage of the schools’ outlay to field an athlete in a given sport. The fee would be based on a rolling average of the most recent three years’ number of players drafted or signed as free agents (so that the pros couldn’t sidestep it by abolishing the current draft process). The fees would likely be paid in the first half of a calendar year in order to allow the colleges to budget item#2.
Some incentives must be created to encourage the student to stay in school and for the pros to not draft them as early as they do typically. These could involve an increase in the fees paid to the conferences when athletes are chosen before their senior year or perhaps implementing the suggestion in item #4. - Schools and the students would have new decisions to make under this proposal. By the summer or late spring preceding each school year, the two would agree on whether the student-athlete would receive a scholarship or be paid. If paid, the now employee-student would be responsible for his room, board, books, etc. Therefore, the salary would have to be in excess of a scholarship in order to be worthwhile. (Of course, special tax considerations would be needed from the IRS to make this fair for the student.) The decisions would be made annually and the student-athlete and school could change his status annually.
- All athletes in all sports, whether paid or on scholarship, would have specific rights to royalties from any licensed item sold by the school with the name or likeness of the athlete on the item. To be fair to the school, it would not include generic licensed items carrying only the school’s name, logo or nickname.
- As this concept expanded, pro sport franchises might be allowed to pay the student directly while compensating the school for its expenses regarding that particular player. At this point, new considerations arise. For example, it would be wise for the pros to take out insurance on their investment-student-athlete, but that would be up to them.
Legal, Contractual,…. Oppositional
Legal: Implementing all of this could very well require legislation as did the creation of binding environmental standards in the early 1970s. Just as the EPA was created to carry out a new philosophy of cost allocation, there might be a need for a smaller equivalent here. As a result of the recent ruling in the case of Northwestern University, this new agency would likely be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, although a case could be made for the Department of Education to be involved, too.
Contractual: The agency would work with the major league sports and the conferences, not the NCAA or NAIA, to establish the criteria for the contracts which would execute payment arrangements. The agency should have equal voting weight among the pro teams and the college conferences. Binding agreements might come from the agency itself or from the Dept. of Labor, depending on how it’s set up.
These changes would also impact what students’ “letters of intent” cover.
Oppositional: And, of course, the professional leagues are not likely to agree to this right away. After all, they get to pick their new players without having to pay anyone for their de facto minor league system. But their objections should be viewed in the same perspective as when U.S. industry had to face reality and begin to pay for the air and water effluent which had been subsidized by Mother Nature for too long. (However, this is not to suggest that this sports proposal should reach the absurdities often demanded by the EPA later.)
The NCAA would probably be more upset than the NAIA. It has expanded its sphere of control beyond what is practical and fair.3,4 Restoring a little more control to the conferences would be a good thing.
In addition, there may also be opposition from the players’ unions as these new cash outlays by their employers could impact existing players’ compensation until a new equilibrium is established between teams’ income and expenditures on all players whether in school or on team rosters.
Dramatic, But Necessary Change
Everything in life has a cost-benefit analysis attributed to it. The current professional sports/college arrangement is badly skewed in favor of the pros. Such a major shift in “who pays for what” would bring balance and might even possibly lead to a more realistic prioritization of professional sports in the fans’ lives in the long run.
Regardless, it’s time that the college/pros/student-athlete relationship be amended to reflect reality and to bring fairness to the process.
1 – “Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize,” by Sara Ganim, CNN, 3/27/2014
2 – “Why ‘One and Done’ Must End,” by John Calipari, The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/2014
3 – “NCAA is a Cartel and the Proof is in the Pudding,” by Jake Doerr, http://www.benchplayersports.com/?p=1787
4 – ”The NCAA Entrenches Itself as Part of the Problem,” by Taylor Branch, https://chronicle.com/article/The-NCAA-Entrenches-Itself-as/133327/, 8/1/2012
Sportuoso 
2020 College Athletes Join Previously “Denied-Olympians” in Heartache, But We Can All Share in a Bigger Victory
Casey Stengel or Yogi Berra might have said this: “just because it’s unprecedented, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened before.” This article isn’t to make light of the coronavirus situation, but to show how we can share our troubles with the memory of people who have gone before us, including those in the sports world.
Among the adjustments made on account of this health threat, the decision to cancel the annual March Madness basketball celebration is a necessary, but nevertheless, bitter pill for many college basketball players. This is especially frustrating for the Dayton Flyers who have risen to heights they have not seen since the days of Roosevelt Chapman in the 1980’s and Don May in the 1960’s.
This now global pandemic has dashed the hopes of many seniors in many sports nationwide who will never know what lifetime memories they might have created.
In comparison to the youth of the world in three previous Olympiads, this impacts “only” one year of athletes. Again, the use of “only” is not to minimize the intense disappointment. We are reminded of the Greatest Generation who endured the Depression, then shed their blood during World War II. Along with these hardships, they witnessed the necessity to have the 1940 (Tokyo/ Helsinki and Oslo) and 1944 (London and Cortina)1 Olympic Games cancelled. This essentially wiped out one generation’s opportunity. And their parents had the 1916 Games cancelled because of World War I.
No question, these are difficult times in 2020. However, we need to remember that we are not being singled out within human history. In the United States, we haven’t had invaders on our soil as often as other countries have. We are fortunate that we have six-plus centuries of experience and science which the European victims of the plague did not have. We will get though this, maybe not unscathed, but with spirited determination. The memories created won’t be on the field of sports, but they will be important in the bigger picture of our lives.
1 – “Olympic Games thwarted by war (1916, 1940, 1944),” by Professor N. Yu. Mel’nikova, PhD, Russian State of Physical Culture, Sport, Youth and Tourism, Moscow, http://www.teoriya.ru/ru/node/3619
Share this: